Abstract
The present article addresses the issue of distinguishing between concepts of fundamental change of circumstances and impossibility of performance in Armenian Civil Law. Both concepts are recognized by the civil law but yet remain distinct in their nature, apply different criteria for relief and entail differing consequences. Thus impossibility due to force majeure excludes debtor’s responsibility for non-performance. Impossibility may also result in termination of the obligation. Whereas in the case of fundamental change the performance is not impossible, but excessively onerous and disbalanced due to an unforeseen and uncontrolled event. The fundamental change may result in termination or modification of a contract. In this sense the category of “economic impossibility” is analyzed, whith the conclusion that it should not be recognized by the courts. Evidence is presented to support the argument that impossibility rules apply only in cases of physical or legal impossibility, whereas the fundamental change rules are applicable to instances of economic hardship due to unforeseen event.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
