In international trade agreements the term 'hardship' is often used to describe the position when an unexpected event occurs, after a contract has been entered into, which would cause one party to be placed at a severe disadvantage should it perform. Hardship could serve as an impediment which prevents (albeit not objectively) the party from performing. The disadvantaged party might be excused from liability, based on that hardship, for its non–performance. The performance has in that situation become excessively onerous but not impossible in an objective sense. The above situation is also of importance in the application of the CISG. If article 79 of the CISG was designed to deal with cases of impossibility then what are the potential effects of including hardship as an impediment which results in excusing non–performance? The question leads to the interpretation of what the term 'impediment' means and how it was intended to be interpreted in terms of the CISG. The discretion as to the interpretation of article 79 and the inclusion of hardship in its scope of application is left entirely to the courts. The courts usually take into consideration the drafting history of article 79 and other international instruments to guide their discretion. There hasn't been anonymous acceptance of either including or excluding hardship in article 79's sphere of application. This uncertainty does not provide the unification which the CISG seeks to achieve as it creates skepticism as to the ability of the CISG to ensure certainty and to both protect and enforce parties' rights and duties. / Thesis (LL.M. (Import and Export Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011.

In international trade agreements the term 'hardship' is often used to describe the position when an unexpected event occurs, after a contract has been entered into, which would cause one party to be placed at a severe disadvantage should it perform. Hardship could serve as an impediment which prevents (albeit not objectively) the party from performing. The disadvantaged party might be excused from liability, based on that hardship, for its non–performance. The performance has in that situation become excessively onerous but not impossible in an objective sense. The above situation is also of importance in the application of the CISG. If article 79 of the CISG was designed to deal with cases of impossibility then what are the potential effects of including hardship as an impediment which results in excusing non–performance? The question leads to the interpretation of what the term 'impediment' means and how it was intended to be interpreted in terms of the CISG. The discretion as to the interpretation of article 79 and the inclusion of hardship in its scope of application is left entirely to the courts. The courts usually take into consideration the drafting history of article 79 and other international instruments to guide their discretion. There hasn't been anonymous acceptance of either including or excluding hardship in article 79's sphere of application. This uncertainty does not provide the unification which the CISG seeks to achieve as it creates skepticism as to the ability of the CISG to ensure certainty and to both protect and enforce parties' rights and duties. / Thesis (LL.M. (Import and Export Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011.

This thesis attempts to critically and comparatively analyse the doctrine of exemption/frustration /force majeure under the United Nations Convention on the Contract for International Sale of Goods (CISG) the UNIDRIOT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (UNIDROIT) and the English Law. The doctrine of exemption/frustration/force majeure is very important in the area of contract and commercial law, it is a doctrine deeply rooted in fairness and allows a party to be excused from performing an obligation in a contract if at the conclusion of the contract an inhibition beyond the foreseeable control of the party happens to render the performance of the contract impossible. However, it is not easy to effectively streamline this doctrine and properly determine its applications. It has been observed in this thesis that, the doctrines of exemption/frustration /force majeure are not exactly the same; this thesis explores in details severally and jointly the various differences and similarities in the interpretations and applications of these impossibility doctrines. For instance, the open and flexible use of words in the definition of this doctrine under the CISG and the UNIDROIT Principles left much to be desired. Thus, it is one of the succinct arguments of this thesis that couching international law in loose words will work against the uniformity of application of this law, due to the different interpretations national law courts will be subjecting it to. This among other issues retarded the growth and development of the doctrine of exemption and force majeure. Furthermore, English law stance on the doctrine of frustration which can be gleaned from both the Sale of Goods Act of 1979 and the Common law are far from being adequate and need to be updated. This thesis therefore incisively laid bare the applications, interpretations and way forward for the doctrine of exemption/frustration/force majeure under the legal instruments of focus of this work. The thesis also comparatively compares the relationship between the doctrine of frustration/force majeure/exemption and other related doctrines like mistake, termination, avoidance, risk, and hardship. The thesis is concluded with a Draft Model Frustration Clause (DMFC) which is an attempt to rise above the status quo doctrine of frustration in the extant laws and develop a frustration clause that will be able to provide answers to the many flaws that trail these laws.