The validity of knock-for-knock clauses in comparative perspective

Research output: Working paperResearch

Standard

The validity of knock-for-knock clauses in comparative perspective. / Cavaleri, Sylvie Cécile.

University of Copenhagen Faculty of Law Research Paper, 2017.

Research output: Working paperResearch

Harvard

Cavaleri, SC 2017 'The validity of knock-for-knock clauses in comparative perspective' University of Copenhagen Faculty of Law Research Paper.

APA

Cavaleri, S. C. (2017). The validity of knock-for-knock clauses in comparative perspective. University of Copenhagen Faculty of Law Research Paper. SSRN: Social Science Research Network

Vancouver

Cavaleri SC. The validity of knock-for-knock clauses in comparative perspective. University of Copenhagen Faculty of Law Research Paper. 2017 Nov 2.

Author

Cavaleri, Sylvie Cécile. / The validity of knock-for-knock clauses in comparative perspective. University of Copenhagen Faculty of Law Research Paper, 2017. (SSRN: Social Science Research Network ).

Bibtex

@techreport{741759a4076c4339a3bde8d700780ddd,
title = "The validity of knock-for-knock clauses in comparative perspective",
abstract = "This article discusses the validity of so-called knock-for-knock clauses, by which parties to offshore oil and gas or maritime contracts agree that each of them will cover its own losses regardless of who caused them. The issue of validity of such clauses and of the liability exclusions they contain is analyzed in a comparative perspective between the law of their tradition of origin (common law, especially UK law) and Nordic civil law, where such agreements are also frequently used, namely in the context of oil extraction activities in the North Sea. Based on an assessment of the different criteria used to promote or dismiss knock-for-knock clauses in case law and academic literature, the article reaches the conclusion that the question of whether knock-for-knock clauses should be held valid depends on whose interests are being considered, and that further research is warranted on the efficiency of mechanisms supposed to replace the deterrence effect of tort or contractual liability.",
keywords = "The Faculty of Law, Knock-for-knock, validity, comparative law",
author = "Cavaleri, {Sylvie C{\'e}cile}",
year = "2017",
month = "11",
day = "2",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
publisher = "University of Copenhagen Faculty of Law Research Paper",
type = "WorkingPaper",
institution = "University of Copenhagen Faculty of Law Research Paper",

}

RIS

TY - UNPB

T1 - The validity of knock-for-knock clauses in comparative perspective

AU - Cavaleri, Sylvie Cécile

PY - 2017/11/2

Y1 - 2017/11/2

N2 - This article discusses the validity of so-called knock-for-knock clauses, by which parties to offshore oil and gas or maritime contracts agree that each of them will cover its own losses regardless of who caused them. The issue of validity of such clauses and of the liability exclusions they contain is analyzed in a comparative perspective between the law of their tradition of origin (common law, especially UK law) and Nordic civil law, where such agreements are also frequently used, namely in the context of oil extraction activities in the North Sea. Based on an assessment of the different criteria used to promote or dismiss knock-for-knock clauses in case law and academic literature, the article reaches the conclusion that the question of whether knock-for-knock clauses should be held valid depends on whose interests are being considered, and that further research is warranted on the efficiency of mechanisms supposed to replace the deterrence effect of tort or contractual liability.

AB - This article discusses the validity of so-called knock-for-knock clauses, by which parties to offshore oil and gas or maritime contracts agree that each of them will cover its own losses regardless of who caused them. The issue of validity of such clauses and of the liability exclusions they contain is analyzed in a comparative perspective between the law of their tradition of origin (common law, especially UK law) and Nordic civil law, where such agreements are also frequently used, namely in the context of oil extraction activities in the North Sea. Based on an assessment of the different criteria used to promote or dismiss knock-for-knock clauses in case law and academic literature, the article reaches the conclusion that the question of whether knock-for-knock clauses should be held valid depends on whose interests are being considered, and that further research is warranted on the efficiency of mechanisms supposed to replace the deterrence effect of tort or contractual liability.

KW - The Faculty of Law

KW - Knock-for-knock, validity, comparative law

M3 - Working paper

VL - 25

BT - The validity of knock-for-knock clauses in comparative perspective

PB - University of Copenhagen Faculty of Law Research Paper

ER -

ID: 188755006