Guest: Dann - 2011-11-19 14:30:16
I'd like to start with giving a relation board.
A and B: Parties of a contract
T: Third Party.
Let's say that A and B enters into an agreement. B fails to perform one of his obligations. For this reason, A has to sign another contract with T to cover that. Afterwards, A claims damages from B. However, it's known that the contract between A and T is tainted by "some"(bribe or any other) reason. Therefore B refuses the claim.
Should validity of the contract between A and T be considered while claiming damages from B? By fair means or foul, A had to sign another contract because of B's fail.
If the answer of this question is "yes", why?
In my opinion, validity of the contract (in case of collusion excepted) between A and T, shall not affect claiming damages from B.
Thank you very much in advance
Guest: Jeppa - 2011-11-27 23:28:41
As I see it, the damage claim has, in general, nothing to do with the third party contract. However the calculation of the claim has, pursuant to art 79. A requirement under this article is that the cost must have been foreseeable for the breaching party. Is it reasonable to expect the breaching party to foresee that it would have to pay damages risen from an illegal transaction? Thats how I would start my argumentation, at least on the merits of the dispute..
Guest: Dann - 2011-12-03 00:47:36
There is nothing to do with cisg 79. Could you please show me the exact sentence that you think it's about this problem?
Guest: Dann - 2011-12-03 18:40:54
I got it now :). It's pursuant to article 74.
Guest: Jeppa - 2011-12-04 03:38:08
My fault - ive been working rather hard on art. 79 lately.
I of course meant art. 74. They apply a comparable foreseeabilty criteria.