The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Cases, materials and text on contract law
Open accessAbstract
This is the second edition of the widely acclaimed and successful casebook on Contract in the Ius Commune Series, developed to be used throughout Europe and aimed at those who teach, learn or practise law with a comparative or European perspective. The book contains leading cases, legislation and other materials from the legal traditions within Europe, with a focus on English, French and German law as the main representatives of those traditions. The book contains the basic texts and contrasting cases as well as extracts from the various international restatements (the Vienna Sales Convention, the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts, the Principles of European Contract Law, the Draft Common Frame of Reference and so on). Materials are chosen and ordered so as to foster comparative study, and complemented with annotations and comparative overviews prepared by a multinational team. The whole Casebook is in English.The principal subjects covered in this book include: General (including the distinctions between Contract and Property, Tort and Restitution); Formation; Validity; Interpretation and Contents; Remedies; Supervening Events; and Third Parties.Please click on the link below to visit the series website:www. casebooks.eu/contractLaw. 2nd edition
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Moreover, the increase in member states, most notably after 2004, when it jumped from 15 to 25 states, made it increasingly difficult to encompass all member states in such a research, so that for instance the Ius Commune Casebooks are mainly focusing on the three main legal systems for private law, England, France, and Germany (Beale et al. 2010, p. vii).”
From Methodology of Comparative Legal Research (2015) · cites this paper as Beale et al. 2010, p. vii
Citations
Cited by
Methodology of Comparative Legal Research
Van Hoecke, M. (2015) · Recht en Methode in onderzoek en onderwijs · doi:10.5553/rem/.000010 · Cited by 172
Metadata
- Authors
- Beale, H., Tallon, D., Vogenauer, S., Rutgers, J. W., & Fauvarque-Cosson, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Warwick (GB)
- Max Planck Society (DE)
- Venue
- University of Warwick
- Publisher
- University of Warwick
- Published
- 2010-01-01
- OpenAlex
- W1568748744
- Cited by
- 188
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 63 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 60
- FWCI
- 300.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- University of Warwick (cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › European and International Contract Law
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal principles and applications
- Social Sciences › Law › Comparative International Legal Studies
- Keywords
- European contract law, contract law, case law, comparative law, legal documents, judicial decisions
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
