Freedom of Contract in the EU and China
In modern contract law, freedom of contract is of an underlying principle that people have struggled for centuries. Both China and Europe fully realized its value, although in distinct ways that are deeply rooted in the two regionsâ€™ historical and cultural backgrounds. In Europe, freedom of contract is restricted by principles of good faith, fair dealing, social justice and fundamental rights, whereas in China, except for those limitations set by the Europe, the traditional notion of contract voluntariness is rather limited by the collective interests and interests of the state. This paper is intending to describe the different understandings of freedom of contract in the EU and China.
Activity Of Internatonal Trade With Letter Of Credit Payment Method
The purpose of this research is to describe and analyze the activity of foreign trade transaction with letter of credit payment method. Method which is used in this research is with normative juridical method. The result of the research: Usability and roles of letter of credit in the foreign trade are: to facilitate the settlement of payment of export transaction, secure the funds provided by the importer to pay for goods and guarantee the completeness of the shipment document. Basically there are three main things that must be known to all parties, both of importers, exporters and banks or related parties are: the flow of goods delivery, the flow of documents and the flow of remittances or payment. The function of the bank s an intermediary of foreign payments: in foreign trade activities or international trade both from export and import.
Horizontal Rights, the Human Rights Act and Privacy: Lessons from the Commonwealth?
Protection of privacy is one of the areas most often claimed as having the potential for significant development as a result of incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”). As is well known, English law lacks a general remedy for infringement of privacy per se: although the courts have lamented the lack of protection for private individuals (notably from the press), they have hitherto left it to Parliament to intervene. After flirtation with introducing either a specific statutory code applicable to intrusive journalistic activities or a general statutory tort of infringement of privacy, the Conservative government abandoned the idea altogether.1 Perhaps because of the lack of legislative concern (politicians, after all, have reasons of strong self-interest not to provoke the press), the judiciary has expressed renewed interest, at least through extra-judicial pronouncements2 and broad hints in one recent House of Lords decision that the time for reconsideration may be fast approaching.3