The lack of legislative reform or judicial activism to clarify the exact consequences of a breach may have contributed as a factor to render it an unpopular choice of law among parties to an international contract.
Saloni Khanderia, Professor, Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India.
This paper analyses the concept of fundamental breach under Indian law of contract. In doing so, it provides a comparative assessment with English law. It examines some plausible reasons for Indian law not being a favourable choice in the international community despite its wide-ranging similarity to English law.
The paper accordingly identifies some mechanisms to develop Indian law in the interests of predictability. It considers the role that the provisions of the PICC on the subject may play during regulatory reforms to fill the gaps in Indian law.
A close examination of the provisions of Indian and English law of contract demonstrates the requirement to prove that the breach was material before determining the consequences of the same as a necessary corollary.
Simultaneously, although India resembles English law at many levels, the lack of legislative reform or judicial activism in the Republic to clarify the exact consequences of a breach may have contributed as a factor to render it an unpopular choice of law among parties to an international contract.
On the contrary, English law has undergone significant development in recent years, and the choice of the legal system to govern international agreements is widespread.
Published in: Liverpool Law Review
To read the full article, please click here.