Revocability, Unconscionability and Impracticability in American, Danish and International Law

Abstract

‘Revocability’ is obviously the opposite of ‘irrevocability,’ but if we are only talking about a starting point amended by significant exceptions, it hardly much matters where we start (and end). If, to take a different example, we translate ‘unconscionable’ as ‘unreasonable’ (for lack of a better corresponding term), that would gloss over important substantive differences at the domestic level, perhaps also leading the way to inappropriate conclusions in an international ‘impracticability’ context. So, what makes the greatest impression, the common core or the differences? Maybe it depends on the direction in which we’re headed ... or on where we’re coming from.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationFestskrift til Mads Bryde Andersen
EditorsHenrik Udsen, Jan Schans Christensen, Jesper Lau Hansen, Torsten Iversen, Linda Nielsen
Number of pages17
Place of PublicationKøbenhavn
PublisherDjøf Forlag
Publication date2018
Pages575-591
ISBN (Print)978-87-574-4113-0
ISBN (Electronic)978-87-7198-233-6
Publication statusPublished - 2018

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Revocability, Unconscionability and Impracticability in American, Danish and International Law'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this