Agreement In Matters Of Fact


    Explanation: An erroneous opinion on the value of the thing that is the subject of the agreement should not be considered a factual error. [3] CETA parties could be satisfied that such a situation will never occur under the standards of good governance in force in Canada and the EU. But CETA (and TTIP, which also contains the clause) have been described as “gold standard” agreements, which could become a model for new investment agreements involving states more governed by governance. A better view of the issue is that which has already been taken by investor-state courts (e.B.g. Helnan v. Egypt in [106]), WTO panels (e.g. B United States – section 301 of [7.19],, the ECHR (e.g. B Kononov against Latvia [189]), CPII (z.B. Brazilian loan at 124) and ICJ (z.B. Diallo was recognized at [70]: while international arbitrators must pay the utmost attention to national interpretations of local law, exceptional circumstances may require a derogation. Although the CETA provision is new, it was recently published in the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement and in a similar language in the EU`s TTIP proposals of November 2015.

    While this might indicate that this provision is a new EU invention, its inspiration in CETA could also come from Canada, which contained a similar provision in its 2008 free trade agreement with Colombia. Indeed, Colombia itself seems to have cited the first provision, including the language of national law, which largely resembles the first sentence of the provision in its 2007 ILO model and in the agreements already signed in 2006 with Japan, Great Britain, India, Belgium, China, Peru and Switzerland. In any case, what is needed to prove a complete agreement is a fact, but the law can take a fairly robust view. For example, in contracts for the sale of goods in 1979, the 1979 Act provides that in the absence of agreement on the price, a reasonable price must be paid. In such contracts, the indication of the price is therefore not necessarily necessary, even if most parties may subjectively consider it to be a rather critical concept. In Bear Stearns, the fact that no delivery date was agreed did not prevent the Tribunal from seeking the existence of a contract. The Tribunal stressed that the rules of involvement were still there to fill all the gaps necessary to give commercial efficiency to what was agreed. . . .