Festskrift til Mads Bryde Andersen (1. udg.)

Med dette festskrift hylder en række kolleger inden for den akademiske og praktiske juridiske verden professor, dr.jur. Mads Bryde Andersen i anledning af hans 60 års fødselsdag den 25. september 2018. Hyldesten tilfalder en person ud over det sædvanlige. Allerede doktordisputatsen »Edb & ansvar« fra 1989, skrevet på lidt over to år, dokumenterede de kvalifikationer, der kendetegner Mads: fremragende analytiske evner, en enorm arbejdskapacitet, stor intellektuel nysgerrighed og en evne til ny og original juridisk tænkning. Disse evner har gjort Mads til en af sin generations mest markante jurister og har resulteret i et omfattende forfatterskab og praktisk virke.

Given this mixed bag of comparative experience, I remain reluctant to declare allegiance to either the common-core or the difference-dominant school, though I do think my research output during the past decade or so reflects increasing sympathy for the postmodern position.

To illustrate my experience in this regard, both as a student and later as professor of law, I will now examine some issues that fall within the following categories: (1) the contracting process (aftaleindgåelsen), ⁹³²932. See Farnsworth, surpa n. 4, Ch. 3; Andersen, supra n. 5, Ch. 3. (2) defenses to contract enforcement (ugyldighed), ⁹³³933. See Farnsworth, id., Ch. 4 (Policing the Agreement); Andersen, id., Ch. 6. and (3) remedies for breach (misligholdelsesbeføjelser). ⁹³⁴934. See Farnsworth, id., Ch. 8 (Performance and Nonperformance); Mads Bryde Andersen & Joseph Lookofsky, Lærebog i obligationsret (Vol. I, 4^th ed. 2015) Ch. 5.

More specifically, I will explain and compare how American and Danish domestic contract law deal with the issues of (1) revocability, (2) unconscionability and (3) impracticability. I will also consider these issues as they relate to the harmonized part of American and Danish commercial contract law: the CISG Convention.

In each instance: Is there a common domestic core, and does it shine through in the CISG? If not, does the homogenized CISG version conceal domestic differences that could not be legislated away?

2. Revocability

As a first-year law student in Copenhagen in 1975, I remember reading (and re-reading) the starkly formulated proposition, codified in §1 of the Danish Contracts Act (1917), that ‘promises ... are legally binding.’ ⁹³⁵935. § 1 of the Danish Contracts Act (Aftaleloven), available in English at https://www.trans-lex.org/604900/_/danish-contracts-act/, as then presented in my Copenhagen textbook: Munch-Petersen, Den borgerlige ret (21st ed. 1973) at 191 (løfter og kontrakter er retlig bindende). See also supra n. 5. Period! Put another way, once the promisor (promise-maker) communicates his promise to the promisee (recipient), the promisor is bound, ⁹³⁶936. For the time stated in the offer or for a reasonable period of time. irrespective of whether or not that promisor has received anything in return.