This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Skopje, Integrated Business Faculty North Macedonia
Skopje, Integrated Business Faculty North Macedonia
The rapid technological development and the development of the global market continually contribute to the development of international trade as well as to the increasing the number of concluded international sales contracts. The conclusion of the sales contract always requires respecting the principle of "pacta sunt servanda", namely fulfilling the contract as it is written or as the parties have agreed. Furthermore, the international rules that regulate the sales contracts and the different national laws have incorporated provisions that exempt from liability the contracting parties when a breach of contract occurs as a result of certain circumstances that cannot be foreseen. The exemption from liability of the contracting party, that has not performed its obligations, can be seen through the institutes of "force majeure" and "change of circumstances". The definition and application of these institutes differ in various national systems, as well as in the international sources that regulate the rights and obligations of the sales contract. Therefore, the paper aims to make a distinction between "force majeure" and "change of circumstances" in international trade through the analysis of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), the Principles of European Contract Law (PECL), UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (UNIDROIT Principles), as one of the most significant sources of the sales contract in the international law and in Macedonian Law on Obligations as well.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
