As a concrete example of the (relative) defects of the PECL in this regard, I would like to mention the provision on the adjustment of unfair contracts (Article 4:110): a party may avoid the duration of the contract if, contrary to the requirements of good faith and fair trade, it results in a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties arising from the treaty. This adjustment rule is essentially copied in the Community Directive on abusive clauses in contracts with consumers and extends the provision of the directive to contracts other than contracts with consumers. This enlargement seems to reinforce the role of welfart principles in the PECL. The (other) significant restrictions on the scope of the directive, which make it relatively traditional and very conservative, for example. B from the Nordic point of view, but which are only minimum requirements of the directive, are maintained and even transformed into provisions of the PECL. Finally, I would like to address the chapters on remedial measures and mention the very central rule of liability in section PECL 8:108. Under this provision, it is excused for the non-compliance of a party if the party proves that the omission is due to a disability beyond its control and that it could not reasonably be expected to have taken into account the obstacle at the time of contract or to have avoided or overcome its disability or consequences. This provision expresses so-called control responsibility, which is also used as a fundamental liability in the CISG (Article 79). Since the responsibility for controlling the ICSG is also part of many national laws, it becomes a fundamental principle of internationally recognized contract law. Thus, the Nordic countries have adopted this principle in their new laws on the sale of goods, at least in certain situations, and that it is seriously envisaged to generalize it as a fundamental principle of contract law. It is considered particularly suitable for assessing behaviour in companies.
In a modern set of principles for trade relations, it is natural to base responsibility on the concept of control. Although not all national legal orders agree with such a clause, it can be expected that the PECL will be relevant in practice. By way of comparison, the principles of UNIDROIT have already been applied in some arbitration awards as generally accepted principles, even though the parties have not explicitly mentioned them, and such a sentence has been upheld by a US court. By such practices, the PECL can also influence the progressive development of national trade law. And I think that`s entirely appropriate. I believe that the PECL is, in many respects, a modern European vision of contracting and is therefore worthy of influence in this area. Strict adherence to contractual freedom, as it is traditionally understood, is included in the basic solution adopted by the directive, according to which abusive control of contractual conditions applies only to contractual conditions that have not been negotiated individually. However, as a minimum directive, it does not require national legislation to delineate the power of courts and supervisory authorities to cover only standard and other unsealed conditions. The aim of the delimitation adopted by the directive is probably not even to promote such restrictions.
This delimitation was based primarily on the difficulty of finding unanimity on the need to regulate the fairness of individually negotiated contracts. However, the PECCs underline this very traditional contractual philosophy, as they are not only seen as part of a minimum requirement that can be improved by national legislation, but generally, which will form part of a future European treaty code (which reduces the protection that is offered today, for example.B.