Prin acest articol autorul şi-a propus un studiu introductiv într-o instituţie nouă şi nereglemen... more Prin acest articol autorul şi-a propus un studiu introductiv într-o instituţie nouă şi nereglementată în Republica Moldova-clauză de rezervare a proprietăţii-însă care de cîteva decenii cunoaşte numeroase discuţii teoretice şi aplicaţii practice în Occident, atît în sistemul romano-germanic, cît şi în cel anglo-sacson. În pofida caracterului său nenumit după o introducere (I), se va atrage atenţia asupra naturii juridice şi unei definiţii ştiinţifice a rezervării proprietăţii (II), vom cerceta condiţiile de fond şi de formă ale clauzei respective (III), discutînd efectele ce le produce, dar şi soluţionarea unor cazuri de ineficienţă ale acesteia (IV). În concluzie, autorul va încerca să acorde un posibil text al acestei clauze în scopuri exclusiv ştiinţifice (V).
Plaintiffs in civil lawsuits and injured parties in criminal lawsuits request monetary compensati... more Plaintiffs in civil lawsuits and injured parties in criminal lawsuits request monetary compensations for moral damages with increasing frequency and in increasing amounts. If, during the implementation of the new Civil Code in 2003, courts were convinced that only natural persons could claim moral damages, then, for the past several years, legal entities also started seeking and receiving compensation for moral damages, provided the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention), as well as under the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR or the Court) and special laws. The compensation of moral damages raises multiple issues that arise out of the intent to avoid the risk of fraudulent or imaginary claims. That is, one of the roles of courts is to reject and discourage purely speculative legal action that is based on:
• a sort of blackmail of the alleged victim via legal costs and the uncertainty of the judicial process;
• a lack of strict evidence rules and the subjectivity inherent to the assessment of the compensation amount;
• the task of providing equitable satisfaction to the plaintiff, without unduly impoverishing the defendant;
• the need to respect the principle of equal treatment, which calls for avoiding undue variations in the damages amount when the gravity of the offense is the same in various similar cases (principle of horizontal justice), but also for the differentiation of the compensation amount in various cases in proportion with the gravity and duration of the offense (the principle of vertical justice).
Judges should thus not be under the false impression that, in disputes relating to claiming compensation for moral damages, the only role of the court is to do justice by determining the compensation amount and ordering it paid to the victim. Such disputes raise first of all significant preliminary issues of law, such as: in what cases of illegal action the law should recognize reparation via compensation, what the statute of limitations in such actions is, whether the succession of rights is allowed in such cases, what the state fee is, how the compensation is to be paid.
In this article we discuss the dimensions of the concept of termination of contract, the various ... more In this article we discuss the dimensions of the concept of termination of contract, the various definitions proposed by the doctrine in various jurisdictions and argue that the modern trend of a more comprehensive concept of termination of contract should be asserted.
Traditionally, termination of contract is analyzed in three different dimensions: (1) a subjective right of a contracting party to declare termination by notice or ask it from a court; (2) the act by which a contracting party triggers termination by notice or legal action in exercise of its subjective rights; and (3) the result of the exercise of its subjective right in respect of the contractual relationship.
In its meaning as a subjective right, termination is in fact a potestative right, whereas it offers the possibility to modify a pre-existing contractual situation and it is normally exercised by way of the unilateral declaration of the will of a person of the party entitled to it.
In the classical theory of French and Romanian legal doctrine, termination is largely seen as a sanction for guilty breach of a synallagmatic contract which consists in its retrospective unwinding. Termination occurs solely in case of guilty breach of obligations, while the unwinding of a contract, due to impossibility, does not fall under termination.
Modern European doctrine analyzed by the author accepts today that termination is an objective remedy for the breach of obligations, independent of the motives that stood behind it and regardless of fault. Additionally, oftentimes this remedy would be granted even without any breach, in particular in cases of a termination right reserved by contract.
The author concludes that termination is a functional institution; in each separate case it leads to the ending of the contractual relationship and, in most cases – a liquidation relationship. The grounds for termination and the form in which termination occurs are varied.
Most often a scholar would define termination through the lens of one of the legal grounds for termination. Such a definition would not however be suitable in respect of some other legal grounds of termination. Contracts can fail in too many ways. Moreover, termination may intervene without any failure, but simply at a party's discretion where the law or contract allows this explicitly.
Whereas we find it useful to develop, in the long run, a general theory of termination, we would support that part of the modern legal doctrine which determines termination as a functional legal institution, id est as an instrument of ending of contractual relationships and the liquidation of a contractual relationship, usually because of some failure or pathogenesis.
A beginning of such a general theory of termination is the adoption of set of norms under so-called restitution law, as already done by the new Romanian Civil, the Catala Avantprojet of amendments to the French Civil Code, and the Draft Common Frame of Reference.
Regardless of the legal ground for unwinding of a contractual relationship, the said relationship will be liquidated according to the rules of restitution.
Due to this reasoning, the author did not seek to identify a correct and final definition of termination of contract. With this proviso in mind, we support that termination is a legal technique of extinguishment of non-performed contractual obligations at the initiative of a party, relying on a statutory or contractual right, and, in case there are past performances in which the terminating no longer holds an interest, such extinguishment will be followed by bilateral restitution of past performances.
The new Moldovan Civil Code has taken over the twofold concept of termination and rescission of t... more The new Moldovan Civil Code has taken over the twofold concept of termination and rescission of the contract as opposed to using a uniform term to describe the ending of a contract by the act of a party before it is effectively performed. In order to apply these two concepts, the Code distinguishes among contracts with single performance and contracts with successive performance. The first are terminated which leads to bilateral restitution of performances and the second are rescinded which puts a stop to the contract without affecting past performances.
This article argues that this distinction is oftentimes inappropriate and is blurred by reasons of practicality. Consistent with modern legal thinking, the author supports the use of a single term for the ending of the contract and suggests that a new classification of contracts must be adopted at a scholarly level – contracts with global utility and contracts of continuing utility.
The author supports the approach of EU's Draft Common Frame of Reference on the matter, i.e. that the lawmaker should not focus on terminology and classification, but rather should clearly set out the legal regime of termination of contracts depending on the actual economical content of the operation at hand.
In this study the author examines the two types of procedures of having a contract terminated: by... more In this study the author examines the two types of procedures of having a contract terminated: by giving notice to the other party or by filing a legal action against the other party and obtaining a judgment by which termination is ordered. Termination of a contract by a judge has deep historical roots in the varying legal systems, such as the French, Romanian or Russian legal systems. It indicates that a contract should be difficult to put an end to and it would usually compensate for the absence of a detailed system of legal grounds for termination of contract, thus requiring a deeper involvement and oversight of the judiciary.
The ability of a party to set the contract aside by giving notice to the other party, and without involving the court, is considered to be a sign of a modern contract law, as it is faster and tends to avoid the uncertainties of the court. This system is supported in the common law, the German or Dutch legal system, as well as the UN Convention for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) or the Draft Common Frame of Reference of the European Union.
The Moldovan Civil Code of 2002 dramatically shifted from termination by a judge to termination by notice, whereas the new Romanian Civil Code of 2009 made a step towards termination by notice for certain limited situations, while maintaining a default rule of intervention of the judge in the procedure of putting an end to the contract.
The author conducts an analysis of the virtues and disadvantages of each procedural system and attempts to uncover and propose solutions to various procedural issues which arise in either system. He also shows how the procedural and material aspects of the legal institution at hand are intertwined and interdependent.
The study concludes that, while termination by notice is a progress, the intervention of the court cannot be excluded in any of the two systems, since a disputed termination will, in any event, be heard and finally resolved by a judge. Therefore, regardless of the ideological choice made by a legal system, termination by notice and oversight by a judge most often go together in the intricate process of having the contract terminated.
Prin acest articol autorul şi-a propus un studiu introductiv într-o instituţie nouă şi nereglemen... more Prin acest articol autorul şi-a propus un studiu introductiv într-o instituţie nouă şi nereglementată în Republica Moldova-clauză de rezervare a proprietăţii-însă care de cîteva decenii cunoaşte numeroase discuţii teoretice şi aplicaţii practice în Occident, atît în sistemul romano-germanic, cît şi în cel anglo-sacson. În pofida caracterului său nenumit după o introducere (I), se va atrage atenţia asupra naturii juridice şi unei definiţii ştiinţifice a rezervării proprietăţii (II), vom cerceta condiţiile de fond şi de formă ale clauzei respective (III), discutînd efectele ce le produce, dar şi soluţionarea unor cazuri de ineficienţă ale acesteia (IV). În concluzie, autorul va încerca să acorde un posibil text al acestei clauze în scopuri exclusiv ştiinţifice (V).
Plaintiffs in civil lawsuits and injured parties in criminal lawsuits request monetary compensati... more Plaintiffs in civil lawsuits and injured parties in criminal lawsuits request monetary compensations for moral damages with increasing frequency and in increasing amounts. If, during the implementation of the new Civil Code in 2003, courts were convinced that only natural persons could claim moral damages, then, for the past several years, legal entities also started seeking and receiving compensation for moral damages, provided the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention), as well as under the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR or the Court) and special laws. The compensation of moral damages raises multiple issues that arise out of the intent to avoid the risk of fraudulent or imaginary claims. That is, one of the roles of courts is to reject and discourage purely speculative legal action that is based on:
• a sort of blackmail of the alleged victim via legal costs and the uncertainty of the judicial process;
• a lack of strict evidence rules and the subjectivity inherent to the assessment of the compensation amount;
• the task of providing equitable satisfaction to the plaintiff, without unduly impoverishing the defendant;
• the need to respect the principle of equal treatment, which calls for avoiding undue variations in the damages amount when the gravity of the offense is the same in various similar cases (principle of horizontal justice), but also for the differentiation of the compensation amount in various cases in proportion with the gravity and duration of the offense (the principle of vertical justice).
Judges should thus not be under the false impression that, in disputes relating to claiming compensation for moral damages, the only role of the court is to do justice by determining the compensation amount and ordering it paid to the victim. Such disputes raise first of all significant preliminary issues of law, such as: in what cases of illegal action the law should recognize reparation via compensation, what the statute of limitations in such actions is, whether the succession of rights is allowed in such cases, what the state fee is, how the compensation is to be paid.
In this article we discuss the dimensions of the concept of termination of contract, the various ... more In this article we discuss the dimensions of the concept of termination of contract, the various definitions proposed by the doctrine in various jurisdictions and argue that the modern trend of a more comprehensive concept of termination of contract should be asserted.
Traditionally, termination of contract is analyzed in three different dimensions: (1) a subjective right of a contracting party to declare termination by notice or ask it from a court; (2) the act by which a contracting party triggers termination by notice or legal action in exercise of its subjective rights; and (3) the result of the exercise of its subjective right in respect of the contractual relationship.
In its meaning as a subjective right, termination is in fact a potestative right, whereas it offers the possibility to modify a pre-existing contractual situation and it is normally exercised by way of the unilateral declaration of the will of a person of the party entitled to it.
In the classical theory of French and Romanian legal doctrine, termination is largely seen as a sanction for guilty breach of a synallagmatic contract which consists in its retrospective unwinding. Termination occurs solely in case of guilty breach of obligations, while the unwinding of a contract, due to impossibility, does not fall under termination.
Modern European doctrine analyzed by the author accepts today that termination is an objective remedy for the breach of obligations, independent of the motives that stood behind it and regardless of fault. Additionally, oftentimes this remedy would be granted even without any breach, in particular in cases of a termination right reserved by contract.
The author concludes that termination is a functional institution; in each separate case it leads to the ending of the contractual relationship and, in most cases – a liquidation relationship. The grounds for termination and the form in which termination occurs are varied.
Most often a scholar would define termination through the lens of one of the legal grounds for termination. Such a definition would not however be suitable in respect of some other legal grounds of termination. Contracts can fail in too many ways. Moreover, termination may intervene without any failure, but simply at a party's discretion where the law or contract allows this explicitly.
Whereas we find it useful to develop, in the long run, a general theory of termination, we would support that part of the modern legal doctrine which determines termination as a functional legal institution, id est as an instrument of ending of contractual relationships and the liquidation of a contractual relationship, usually because of some failure or pathogenesis.
A beginning of such a general theory of termination is the adoption of set of norms under so-called restitution law, as already done by the new Romanian Civil, the Catala Avantprojet of amendments to the French Civil Code, and the Draft Common Frame of Reference.
Regardless of the legal ground for unwinding of a contractual relationship, the said relationship will be liquidated according to the rules of restitution.
Due to this reasoning, the author did not seek to identify a correct and final definition of termination of contract. With this proviso in mind, we support that termination is a legal technique of extinguishment of non-performed contractual obligations at the initiative of a party, relying on a statutory or contractual right, and, in case there are past performances in which the terminating no longer holds an interest, such extinguishment will be followed by bilateral restitution of past performances.
The new Moldovan Civil Code has taken over the twofold concept of termination and rescission of t... more The new Moldovan Civil Code has taken over the twofold concept of termination and rescission of the contract as opposed to using a uniform term to describe the ending of a contract by the act of a party before it is effectively performed. In order to apply these two concepts, the Code distinguishes among contracts with single performance and contracts with successive performance. The first are terminated which leads to bilateral restitution of performances and the second are rescinded which puts a stop to the contract without affecting past performances.
This article argues that this distinction is oftentimes inappropriate and is blurred by reasons of practicality. Consistent with modern legal thinking, the author supports the use of a single term for the ending of the contract and suggests that a new classification of contracts must be adopted at a scholarly level – contracts with global utility and contracts of continuing utility.
The author supports the approach of EU's Draft Common Frame of Reference on the matter, i.e. that the lawmaker should not focus on terminology and classification, but rather should clearly set out the legal regime of termination of contracts depending on the actual economical content of the operation at hand.
In this study the author examines the two types of procedures of having a contract terminated: by... more In this study the author examines the two types of procedures of having a contract terminated: by giving notice to the other party or by filing a legal action against the other party and obtaining a judgment by which termination is ordered. Termination of a contract by a judge has deep historical roots in the varying legal systems, such as the French, Romanian or Russian legal systems. It indicates that a contract should be difficult to put an end to and it would usually compensate for the absence of a detailed system of legal grounds for termination of contract, thus requiring a deeper involvement and oversight of the judiciary.
The ability of a party to set the contract aside by giving notice to the other party, and without involving the court, is considered to be a sign of a modern contract law, as it is faster and tends to avoid the uncertainties of the court. This system is supported in the common law, the German or Dutch legal system, as well as the UN Convention for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) or the Draft Common Frame of Reference of the European Union.
The Moldovan Civil Code of 2002 dramatically shifted from termination by a judge to termination by notice, whereas the new Romanian Civil Code of 2009 made a step towards termination by notice for certain limited situations, while maintaining a default rule of intervention of the judge in the procedure of putting an end to the contract.
The author conducts an analysis of the virtues and disadvantages of each procedural system and attempts to uncover and propose solutions to various procedural issues which arise in either system. He also shows how the procedural and material aspects of the legal institution at hand are intertwined and interdependent.
The study concludes that, while termination by notice is a progress, the intervention of the court cannot be excluded in any of the two systems, since a disputed termination will, in any event, be heard and finally resolved by a judge. Therefore, regardless of the ideological choice made by a legal system, termination by notice and oversight by a judge most often go together in the intricate process of having the contract terminated.
Uploads
• a sort of blackmail of the alleged victim via legal costs and the uncertainty of the judicial process;
• a lack of strict evidence rules and the subjectivity inherent to the assessment of the compensation amount;
• the task of providing equitable satisfaction to the plaintiff, without unduly impoverishing the defendant;
• the need to respect the principle of equal treatment, which calls for avoiding undue variations in the damages amount when the gravity of the offense is the same in various similar cases (principle of horizontal justice), but also for the differentiation of the compensation amount in various cases in proportion with the gravity and duration of the offense (the principle of vertical justice).
Judges should thus not be under the false impression that, in disputes relating to claiming compensation for moral damages, the only role of the court is to do justice by determining the compensation amount and ordering it paid to the victim. Such disputes raise first of all significant preliminary issues of law, such as: in what cases of illegal action the law should recognize reparation via compensation, what the statute of limitations in such actions is, whether the succession of rights is allowed in such cases, what the state fee is, how the compensation is to be paid.
Traditionally, termination of contract is analyzed in three different dimensions: (1) a subjective right of a contracting party to declare termination by notice or ask it from a court; (2) the act by which a contracting party triggers termination by notice or legal action in exercise of its subjective rights; and (3) the result of the exercise of its subjective right in respect of the contractual relationship.
In its meaning as a subjective right, termination is in fact a potestative right, whereas it offers the possibility to modify a pre-existing contractual situation and it is normally exercised by way of the unilateral declaration of the will of a person of the party entitled to it.
In the classical theory of French and Romanian legal doctrine, termination is largely seen as a sanction for guilty breach of a synallagmatic contract which consists in its retrospective unwinding. Termination occurs solely in case of guilty breach of obligations, while the unwinding of a contract, due to impossibility, does not fall under termination.
Modern European doctrine analyzed by the author accepts today that termination is an objective remedy for the breach of obligations, independent of the motives that stood behind it and regardless of fault. Additionally, oftentimes this remedy would be granted even without any breach, in particular in cases of a termination right reserved by contract.
The author concludes that termination is a functional institution; in each separate case it leads to the ending of the contractual relationship and, in most cases – a liquidation relationship. The grounds for termination and the form in which termination occurs are varied.
Most often a scholar would define termination through the lens of one of the legal grounds for termination. Such a definition would not however be suitable in respect of some other legal grounds of termination. Contracts can fail in too many ways. Moreover, termination may intervene without any failure, but simply at a party's discretion where the law or contract allows this explicitly.
Whereas we find it useful to develop, in the long run, a general theory of termination, we would support that part of the modern legal doctrine which determines termination as a functional legal institution, id est as an instrument of ending of contractual relationships and the liquidation of a contractual relationship, usually because of some failure or pathogenesis.
A beginning of such a general theory of termination is the adoption of set of norms under so-called restitution law, as already done by the new Romanian Civil, the Catala Avantprojet of amendments to the French Civil Code, and the Draft Common Frame of Reference.
Regardless of the legal ground for unwinding of a contractual relationship, the said relationship will be liquidated according to the rules of restitution.
Due to this reasoning, the author did not seek to identify a correct and final definition of termination of contract. With this proviso in mind, we support that termination is a legal technique of extinguishment of non-performed contractual obligations at the initiative of a party, relying on a statutory or contractual right, and, in case there are past performances in which the terminating no longer holds an interest, such extinguishment will be followed by bilateral restitution of past performances.
This article argues that this distinction is oftentimes inappropriate and is blurred by reasons of practicality. Consistent with modern legal thinking, the author supports the use of a single term for the ending of the contract and suggests that a new classification of contracts must be adopted at a scholarly level – contracts with global utility and contracts of continuing utility.
The author supports the approach of EU's Draft Common Frame of Reference on the matter, i.e. that the lawmaker should not focus on terminology and classification, but rather should clearly set out the legal regime of termination of contracts depending on the actual economical content of the operation at hand.
The ability of a party to set the contract aside by giving notice to the other party, and without involving the court, is considered to be a sign of a modern contract law, as it is faster and tends to avoid the uncertainties of the court. This system is supported in the common law, the German or Dutch legal system, as well as the UN Convention for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) or the Draft Common Frame of Reference of the European Union.
The Moldovan Civil Code of 2002 dramatically shifted from termination by a judge to termination by notice, whereas the new Romanian Civil Code of 2009 made a step towards termination by notice for certain limited situations, while maintaining a default rule of intervention of the judge in the procedure of putting an end to the contract.
The author conducts an analysis of the virtues and disadvantages of each procedural system and attempts to uncover and propose solutions to various procedural issues which arise in either system. He also shows how the procedural and material aspects of the legal institution at hand are intertwined and interdependent.
The study concludes that, while termination by notice is a progress, the intervention of the court cannot be excluded in any of the two systems, since a disputed termination will, in any event, be heard and finally resolved by a judge. Therefore, regardless of the ideological choice made by a legal system, termination by notice and oversight by a judge most often go together in the intricate process of having the contract terminated.
• a sort of blackmail of the alleged victim via legal costs and the uncertainty of the judicial process;
• a lack of strict evidence rules and the subjectivity inherent to the assessment of the compensation amount;
• the task of providing equitable satisfaction to the plaintiff, without unduly impoverishing the defendant;
• the need to respect the principle of equal treatment, which calls for avoiding undue variations in the damages amount when the gravity of the offense is the same in various similar cases (principle of horizontal justice), but also for the differentiation of the compensation amount in various cases in proportion with the gravity and duration of the offense (the principle of vertical justice).
Judges should thus not be under the false impression that, in disputes relating to claiming compensation for moral damages, the only role of the court is to do justice by determining the compensation amount and ordering it paid to the victim. Such disputes raise first of all significant preliminary issues of law, such as: in what cases of illegal action the law should recognize reparation via compensation, what the statute of limitations in such actions is, whether the succession of rights is allowed in such cases, what the state fee is, how the compensation is to be paid.
Traditionally, termination of contract is analyzed in three different dimensions: (1) a subjective right of a contracting party to declare termination by notice or ask it from a court; (2) the act by which a contracting party triggers termination by notice or legal action in exercise of its subjective rights; and (3) the result of the exercise of its subjective right in respect of the contractual relationship.
In its meaning as a subjective right, termination is in fact a potestative right, whereas it offers the possibility to modify a pre-existing contractual situation and it is normally exercised by way of the unilateral declaration of the will of a person of the party entitled to it.
In the classical theory of French and Romanian legal doctrine, termination is largely seen as a sanction for guilty breach of a synallagmatic contract which consists in its retrospective unwinding. Termination occurs solely in case of guilty breach of obligations, while the unwinding of a contract, due to impossibility, does not fall under termination.
Modern European doctrine analyzed by the author accepts today that termination is an objective remedy for the breach of obligations, independent of the motives that stood behind it and regardless of fault. Additionally, oftentimes this remedy would be granted even without any breach, in particular in cases of a termination right reserved by contract.
The author concludes that termination is a functional institution; in each separate case it leads to the ending of the contractual relationship and, in most cases – a liquidation relationship. The grounds for termination and the form in which termination occurs are varied.
Most often a scholar would define termination through the lens of one of the legal grounds for termination. Such a definition would not however be suitable in respect of some other legal grounds of termination. Contracts can fail in too many ways. Moreover, termination may intervene without any failure, but simply at a party's discretion where the law or contract allows this explicitly.
Whereas we find it useful to develop, in the long run, a general theory of termination, we would support that part of the modern legal doctrine which determines termination as a functional legal institution, id est as an instrument of ending of contractual relationships and the liquidation of a contractual relationship, usually because of some failure or pathogenesis.
A beginning of such a general theory of termination is the adoption of set of norms under so-called restitution law, as already done by the new Romanian Civil, the Catala Avantprojet of amendments to the French Civil Code, and the Draft Common Frame of Reference.
Regardless of the legal ground for unwinding of a contractual relationship, the said relationship will be liquidated according to the rules of restitution.
Due to this reasoning, the author did not seek to identify a correct and final definition of termination of contract. With this proviso in mind, we support that termination is a legal technique of extinguishment of non-performed contractual obligations at the initiative of a party, relying on a statutory or contractual right, and, in case there are past performances in which the terminating no longer holds an interest, such extinguishment will be followed by bilateral restitution of past performances.
This article argues that this distinction is oftentimes inappropriate and is blurred by reasons of practicality. Consistent with modern legal thinking, the author supports the use of a single term for the ending of the contract and suggests that a new classification of contracts must be adopted at a scholarly level – contracts with global utility and contracts of continuing utility.
The author supports the approach of EU's Draft Common Frame of Reference on the matter, i.e. that the lawmaker should not focus on terminology and classification, but rather should clearly set out the legal regime of termination of contracts depending on the actual economical content of the operation at hand.
The ability of a party to set the contract aside by giving notice to the other party, and without involving the court, is considered to be a sign of a modern contract law, as it is faster and tends to avoid the uncertainties of the court. This system is supported in the common law, the German or Dutch legal system, as well as the UN Convention for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) or the Draft Common Frame of Reference of the European Union.
The Moldovan Civil Code of 2002 dramatically shifted from termination by a judge to termination by notice, whereas the new Romanian Civil Code of 2009 made a step towards termination by notice for certain limited situations, while maintaining a default rule of intervention of the judge in the procedure of putting an end to the contract.
The author conducts an analysis of the virtues and disadvantages of each procedural system and attempts to uncover and propose solutions to various procedural issues which arise in either system. He also shows how the procedural and material aspects of the legal institution at hand are intertwined and interdependent.
The study concludes that, while termination by notice is a progress, the intervention of the court cannot be excluded in any of the two systems, since a disputed termination will, in any event, be heard and finally resolved by a judge. Therefore, regardless of the ideological choice made by a legal system, termination by notice and oversight by a judge most often go together in the intricate process of having the contract terminated.