ElectronicjournalofcomparativELaw,vol.8.1(march2004),http://www.ejclorg and it is unreasonable to demand it53 C. Article 6: 1ll: Change of Circumstances' Now we shall turn to Article 6: 111. Included in PECL's chapter 6, it is primarily concerned with the contracts' content, but may have an effect similar to Article 8: 108. Its paragraph(1) states the general rule that an obligation is not discharged if its performance becomes more onerous. Hence the underlying principle is still the one of pacta sunt servanda. Paragraph(2) provides an exception to this CI Prerequisites Paragraph(2) is applicable provided four cond itions are satisfied. Firstly, the performance of the contract becomes excessively onerous. 54 Excessively onerous is distinct from an impediment. The performance must be at least ruinous' for the debtor, 5>whereas impossibility presupposes an insurmountable obstacle"56. Thus, extremely onerous means an obstacle of one degree less than impossibility. 57 The commentary tries to illustrate the situation in which a change of circumstances brought about a major imbalance in the contract58 within in the particular economic contexts. The contract must be overturned by events, so that performance will involve exorbitant costs' for one of the parties. 60 Reference is made to the French concept of imprevision 61 But when is a contract's performance ' excessively onerous' to the debtor?"Ruinous suggests that the performance must lead to the economic breakdown of the debtor. This may be the case in the classic textbook example of the golden chalice to be delivered by the vendor to the buyer that sunk to the ground of the deep sea. But is it necessary that actual $275(3)BGB; cf Zimmermann, n 7, 285f and in German the extensive treatment munchener- Kommentar/Ernst, n 47,$ 275 paras 107ff This term inology was adopted from Art 1467 of the Italian Codice civile; Lando/Beale, n 2, 324 (comment A) Lando/Bea le, n 2, 324(comment A) Cf for Art 6.2.2 of the PICC also U Maskow, Hardship and Force Majeure, 40(1992) American JCL 657.663 Lando/Beale, n 2, 324(comment B() Lando/Bea le, n 2, 324f(comment B(D) ando/Beale, n 2, 324(comment B(). The reference to imprevision is unfortunate as it is rather a comprehensive heading than a singular concept;cfZweigert/Kotz, n 8, 524ff; for imprevision cf also Lorenz, n 8, Iff, D Tallon, Hardship, in A Hartkamp etal(eds), Towards a European Civil Code, 2ndedn(1998), 327 with further referencesElectronic Journal of Comparative Law, vol. 8.1 (March 2004), <http://www.ejcl.org/> 9 and it is unreasonable to demand it53 . C. Article 6:111: ‘Change of Circumstances’ Now we shall turn to Article 6:111. Included in PECL’s chapter 6, it is primarily concerned with the contracts’ content, but may have an effect similar to Article 8:108. Its paragraph (1) states the general rule that an obligation is not discharged if its performance becomes more onerous. Hence the underlying principle is still the one of pacta sunt servanda. Paragraph (2) provides an exception to this. C.I Prerequisites Paragraph (2) is applicable provided four conditions are satisfied. Firstly, the performance of the contract becomes excessively onerous. 54 Excessively onerous is distinct from an impediment. The performance must be at least ‘ruinous’ for the debtor,55 whereas impossibility presupposes an ‘insurmountable obstacle’56. Thus, extremely onerous means an obstacle of one degree less than impossibility.57 The commentary tries to illustrate the situation in which a change of circumstances brought about a major imbalance in the contract58 within in the particular economic context59. The contract must be ‘overturned by events’, so that performance will involve ‘exorbitant costs’ for one of the parties.60 Reference is made to the French concept of imprévision. 61 But when is a contract’s performance ‘excessively onerous’ to the debtor? ‘Ruinous’ suggests that the performance must lead to the economic breakdown of the debtor. This may be the case in the classic textbook example of the golden chalice to be delivered by the vendor to the buyer that sunk to the ground of the deep sea. But is it necessary that actual 53 § 275 (3) BGB; cf Zimmermann, n 7, 285f and in German the extensive treatment Münchener￾Kommentar/Ernst, n 47, § 275 paras 107ff. 54 This terminology was adopted from Art 1467 of the Italian Codice civile; Lando/Beale, n 2, 324 (comment A). 55 Lando/Beale, n 2, 324 (comment A). 56 Ibid. 57 Cf for Art 6.2.2 of the PICC also U Maskow, ‘Hardship and Force Majeure’, 40 (1992) American JCL 657, 663. 58 Lando/Beale, n 2, 324 (comment B(i)). 59 Lando/Beale, n 2, 324f (comment B(i)). 60 Lando/Beale, n 2, 324 (comment B(i)). 61 The reference to imprévision is unfortunate as it is rather a comprehensive heading than a singular concept; cf Zweigert/Kötz, n 8, 524ff; for imprévision cf also Lorenz, n 8, 1ff; D Tallon, ‘Hardship’, in A. Hartkamp et al (eds), Towards a European Civil Code, 2nd edn (1998), 327 with further references