The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Flexibility versus certainty: on classical contract formation and modern methods of trading

Flexibility versus certainty: on classical contract formation and modern methods of trading
Flexibility versus certainty: on classical contract formation and modern methods of trading
This chapter considers the approach of Chinese law to modern forms of contract making, exploring what systemic risks might arise from the current system of law. Our chosen example is the spot markets – contracts not least for the sale of commodities made between parties who are likely to be doing business with each other for the first time and who operate in a well-established and fast-trading market. Once the contract is made, the parties must take such risky actions as to charter a ship for thousands of dollars in daily rates, deliver the goods onto an unknown ship or arrange for on-sale of the goods. If there is uncertainty as to the status of the contract, or as to the complete, legally enforceable terms thereof, the parties incur risks arising from the law, rather from the transaction itself. Such risks may be capable of mitigation or dilution, not least by onward sales, and may therefore lie dormant. The risks will materialise where there is a precipitous drop in the market or an export ban, causing one of the parties to find that it would have been better off by not concluding the contract, and to look for ways to escape enforcement thereof. While the vast majority of trades are resolved by resorting to insurance cover, dilution of losses by spreading, writing off or even insolvency, others will end up in dispute resolution or court with one party defending the claim on the basis that the bargain that both parties thought themselves bound by never existed in the first place. This chapter seeks to define those risks in relation to Chinese law and identify the potential pitfalls inherent in the current position
181-199
Routledge
Hjalmarsson, Johanna
73a98539-9a14-4e63-bb53-5a7c365ad6e4
Wu, Keren
79d337c7-11e5-42c3-940d-11c29f69409b
Hjalmarsson, Johanna
Zhang, Jingbo
Hjalmarsson, Johanna
73a98539-9a14-4e63-bb53-5a7c365ad6e4
Wu, Keren
79d337c7-11e5-42c3-940d-11c29f69409b
Hjalmarsson, Johanna
Zhang, Jingbo

Hjalmarsson, Johanna and Wu, Keren (2016) Flexibility versus certainty: on classical contract formation and modern methods of trading. In, Hjalmarsson, Johanna and Zhang, Jingbo (eds.) Maritime Law in China: Evolving Issues and Future Developments. (Contemporary Commercial Law) Abingdon, GB. Routledge, pp. 181-199.

Record type: Book Section

Abstract

This chapter considers the approach of Chinese law to modern forms of contract making, exploring what systemic risks might arise from the current system of law. Our chosen example is the spot markets – contracts not least for the sale of commodities made between parties who are likely to be doing business with each other for the first time and who operate in a well-established and fast-trading market. Once the contract is made, the parties must take such risky actions as to charter a ship for thousands of dollars in daily rates, deliver the goods onto an unknown ship or arrange for on-sale of the goods. If there is uncertainty as to the status of the contract, or as to the complete, legally enforceable terms thereof, the parties incur risks arising from the law, rather from the transaction itself. Such risks may be capable of mitigation or dilution, not least by onward sales, and may therefore lie dormant. The risks will materialise where there is a precipitous drop in the market or an export ban, causing one of the parties to find that it would have been better off by not concluding the contract, and to look for ways to escape enforcement thereof. While the vast majority of trades are resolved by resorting to insurance cover, dilution of losses by spreading, writing off or even insolvency, others will end up in dispute resolution or court with one party defending the claim on the basis that the bargain that both parties thought themselves bound by never existed in the first place. This chapter seeks to define those risks in relation to Chinese law and identify the potential pitfalls inherent in the current position

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 20 January 2016
Published date: September 2016
Organisations: Southampton Law School

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 386142
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/386142
PURE UUID: 09b9658b-2cb5-4371-82e4-0e2f62ebc957
ORCID for Johanna Hjalmarsson: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-7362-811X

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 08 Feb 2016 09:24
Last modified: 23 Feb 2024 02:41

Export record

Contributors

Author: Keren Wu
Editor: Johanna Hjalmarsson
Editor: Jingbo Zhang

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×