ElectronicjournalofcomparativELaw,vol.8.1(march2004),http://www.ejclorg expenses in order to ensure performance of the contract Finally, although this is not stated in the article, it seems right to demand -like under the CISG-that the imped iment is caused solely by an event that was neither foreseeable nor insurmountable 29 Taking the facts from the English landmark decision of Taylor v. caldwell plaintiffs and the defendants entered into a contract for the use of the defend s music hall for four concerts in the summer months of June to August. The day before the first concert was to take place the hall burned down. Provided that the supervening event was beyond the debtor's sphere of control, this case would also lead to excuse(at least for the first concert) under article 8: 108 BII Result Whereas Article 79 of the CiSG only provides a defence against an action for damages, I Article 8: 108s result is a wider excuse. Article 8: 101(2) provides that the 'aggrieved party may resort to any of the remedies set out in Chapter 9 except claiming performance and damages,.32 Another difference occurs in the case of delay amounting to fundamental non- performance: while under the PeCl an imped iment terminates the contract automatically Article 9: 303(4), under the CiSg the creditor may choose. 33 The practical d ifferences, however, will be minimal for fundamental non-performance in the case of delay will hardly be claimed by the debtor but by the creditor. The latter will not have any interest in performance. If, e.g., A employs B's big band at a fixed date and time for his anniversary garden party and the big band does not show up, then it is likely that a wants to terminate the contract, whereas B is likely to be able and willing to perform on another day. 34 B III English law: Frustration After the courts in the 17th century upheld contracts as being absolute, 3> the English doctrine of frustration has been developed and may discharge the debtor from liability. Unlike in th PECL and in German law, there are no two distinct concepts for that The classic definit 29 For Art 79 CISG, Bianca/Bonell/Tallon, n 16, Art 79, para 2.6.6; Schlechtriem/Stoll, n 16, Art 79 para 31; of a contrary opinion are Enderlein/Maskow/Strohbach, n 24, Art 79, para 3.4 Taylor v Caldwell(1863)3B& s826; cf the detailed discussion by Treitel, n 6, paras 2-024ff Cf Art 79(5)CISG For the relationship between the right to demand specific performance and Art 79 CISG, cf Schlechtriem/Stoll, n 16, Art. 79 paras 55ff Cf also Flam bouras n 4. 284 situaton. This is of course no Sale of Goods example; it only serves to illustrate the parties'interests in such Paradine v Jane(1647) Aleyn 26:... when a party by his own contract creates a duty and charge upon himself he is bound to make it good, if he may, not withstand ing any accident by inev ita ble necessity because he might have provided aga inst it by his contract. The history is well narrated in Treitel, n 6, ch 2 6Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, vol. 8.1 (March 2004), <http://www.ejcl.org/> 6 expenses in order to ensure performance of the contract. Finally, although this is not stated in the Article, it seems right to demand - like under the CISG - that the impediment is caused solely by an event that was neither foreseeable nor insurmountable.29 Taking the facts from the English landmark decision of Taylor v. Caldwell, 30 the plaintiffs and the defendants entered into a contract for the use of the defendant’s music hall for four concerts in the summer months of June to August. The day before the first concert was to take place the hall burned down. Provided that the supervening event was beyond the debtor’s sphere of control, this case would also lead to excuse (at least for the first concert) under Article 8:108. B.II Results Whereas Article 79 of the CISG only provides a defence against an action for damages,31 Article 8:108’s result is a wider excuse. Article 8:101(2) provides that the ‘aggrieved party may resort to any of the remedies set out in Chapter 9 except claiming performance and damages’.32 Another difference occurs in the case of delay amounting to fundamental non￾performance: while under the PECL an impediment terminates the contract automatically (Article 9:303(4), under the CISG the creditor may choose.33 The practical differences, however, will be minimal for fundamental non-performance in the case of delay will hardly be claimed by the debtor but by the creditor. The latter will not have any interest in performance. If, e.g., A employs B’s big band at a fixed date and time for his anniversary garden party and the big band does not show up, then it is likely that A wants to terminate the contract, whereas B is likely to be able and willing to perform on another day.34 B.III English law: Frustration After the courts in the 17th century upheld contracts as being absolute,35 the English doctrine of frustration has been developed and may discharge the debtor from liability. Unlike in the PECL and in German law, there are no two distinct concepts for that. The classic definition 29 For Art 79 CISG, Bianca/Bonell/Tallon, n 16, Art 79, para 2.6.6; Schlechtriem/Stoll, n 16, Art 79 para 31; of a contrary opinion are Enderlein/Maskow/Strohbach, n 24, Art 79, para 3.4. 30 Taylor v Caldwell (1863) 3 B & S 826; cf the detailed discussion by Treitel, n 6, paras 2-024ff. 31 Cf Art 79 (5) CISG. 32 For the relationship between the right to demand specific performance and Art 79 CISG, cf Schlechtriem/Stoll, n 16, Art. 79 paras 55ff. 33 Cf also Flambouras, n 4, 284. 34 This is of course no Sale of Goods example; it only serves to illustrate the parties’ interests in such situations. 35 Paradine v Jane (1647) Aleyn 26: ‘. . . when a party by his own contract creates a duty and charge upon himself he is bound to make it good, if he may, not withstanding any accident by inevitable necessity, because he might have provided against it by his contract.’ The history is well narrated in Treitel, n 6, ch 2