ElectronicjournalofcomparatiVeLaw,vol.8.1(march2004),<http://www.ejclorg/ D. The relationship between Article 6: 1 11 and Article 8: 108 PECL E Conclusion A. Introduction The Principles of European Contract Law(henceforth PECL)contain two provisions dealing with the situation that the performance of the debtors obligation becomes or is more onerous than expected by the parties at the time they entered into the contract. However, the result of the application of Article 6: 1 11 and Article 8: 108 PECL may be entirely different, lead adaptation of the contract by the court and excuse for the non-performance respectively ngto Although this attempt of drafting a European contract code has provoked much literature in general, there are hardly any writings on the limits of the duty to perform in the principles Thus, the following sections analyse the provision's preconditions, their relationship as well as the borderline between the two The ad ditional aim of this article is to discover similarities and differences between the PECL's statutory provisions and English and German law. These two national systems suit our task because they may stand for the d ifferent approaches to the issue While english law deals with situations we are interested in by means of the doctrine of frustration, 6 German law has, like PECL, two distinct concepts of impossibility?and change of circumstances (2000 Some exceptions are constituted predom inantly by the German debate on the reform of the law of obligations: W Emst, "Die Verpflichtung zur Leistung in den Principles of European Contract Lawund in den und deutsches recht(2000), 129; N NFischer, Die Unmoglichkeit der Leistung im internationalen Kauf-und Vertragsrecht(2001); D P Flambouras, The Doctrines of Impossibility of Performance and clausula rebus sic stantibus in the 1980 Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods and the Principles of European Contract Law. A Comparative Analysis, 13(2001) Pace International Law Review 261; U Huber Das geplante Recht der Leistungsstorungen,, in WErnst, R Zimmermann(eds), Zivilrechtswissenschaft und Schuldrechtsreform(2001), 31 For a comparison between English and (unreformed)German law, cf recently G Hammer, Frustration of Contract, Unmoglichkeit und Wegfall der Geschaftsgrundlage. Ein Vergleich der losungsansatze englischer und deutscher Rechtsprechung(2001) Cf for an extensive treatment E McKendrick, Force Majeure and Frustration of contract, 2nd edn ( 1995) G H Treitel, Frustration and Force Majeure(1994) $275(1)(3)BGB; the only -however, concise-discussion of those in English so far is R Zimmermann. "Remedies for Non-Performance: The Revised German law of obligations viewed a ga inst the Background of the Principles of European Contract Law,, 6(2002) Edinburgh LR 273, 280ff; cf also idem Breach of Contract and Remedies under the New German Law of Obligations, Saggi, conferenze e sem inari 48 /publications/zimmermann.pdf, 1 1ffElectronic Journal of Comparative Law, vol. 8.1 (March 2004), <http://www.ejcl.org/> 2 D. The relationship between Article 6:111 and Article 8:108 PECL E. Conclusion A. Introduction The Principles of European Contract Law (henceforth PECL)2 contain two provisions dealing with the situation that the performance of the debtor’s obligation becomes or is more onerous than expected by the parties at the time they entered into the contract. However, the result of the application of Article 6:111 and Article 8:108 PECL3 may be entirely different, leading to adaptation of the contract by the court and excuse for the non-performance respectively. Although this attempt of drafting a European contract code has provoked much literature in general, there are hardly any writings on the limits of the duty to perform in the principles.4 Thus, the following sections analyse the provision’s preconditions, their relationship as well as the borderline between the two. The additional aim of this article is to discover similarities and differences between the PECL’s statutory provisions and English and German law.5 These two national systems suit our task because they may stand for the different approaches to the issue. While English law deals with situations we are interested in by means of the doctrine of frustration,6 German law has, like PECL, two distinct concepts of impossibility7 and change of circumstances 2 O Lando/H Beale (eds), Principles of European Contract Law, Parts I and II, combined and revised (2000). 3 All Articles referred to are those of the PECL unless stated otherwise. 4 Some exceptions are constituted predominantly by the German debate on the reform of the law of obligations: W Ernst, ‘Die Verpflichtung zur Leistung in den Principles of European Contract Law und in den Principles of International Commercial Contracts’, in J Basedow (ed), Europäische Vertragsvereinheitlichung und deutsches Recht (2000), 129; N N Fischer, Die Unmöglichkeit der Leistung im internationalen Kauf- und Vertragsrecht (2001); D P Flambouras, ‘The Doctrines of Impossibility of Performance and clausula rebus sic stantibusin the 1980 Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods and the Principles of European Contract Law: A Comparative Analysis’, 13 (2001) Pace International Law Review 261; U Huber, ‘Das geplante Recht der Leistungsstörungen’, in W Ernst, R Zimmermann (eds), Zivilrechtswissenschaft und Schuldrechtsreform (2001), 31. 5 For a comparison between English and (unreformed) German law, cf recently G Hammer, Frustration of Contract, Unmöglichkeit und Wegfall der Geschäftsgrundlage. Ein Vergleich der Lösun gsansätze englischer und deutscher Rechtsprechung (2001). 6 Cf for an extensive treatment E McKendrick, Force Majeure and Frustration of Contract, 2nd edn (1995); G H Treitel, Frustration and Force Majeure (1994). 7 § 275 (1)-(3) BGB; the only - however, concise - discussion of those in English so far is R Zimmermann, ‘Remedies for Non-Performance: The Revised German Law of Obligations Viewed against the Background of the Principles of European Contract Law’, 6 (2002) Edinburgh LR 273, 280ff; cf also idem, ‘Breach of Contract and Remedies under the New German Law of Obligations’, Saggi, conferenze e seminari 48 (2000) <http://w3.uniroma1.it/idc/centro/publications/48zimmermann.pdf>, 11ff