MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1870538602 · doi:10.54648/erpl2013040

The Adjustment of Long-Term Supply Contracts: Experience from German Gas Price Case Law

2013· article· en· W1870538602 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Review of Private Law/Revue européenne de droit privé/Europäische Zeitschrift für Privatrecht · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEconomic and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)GermanEconomicsHumanitiesWelfare economicsPolitical sciencePhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Long-term contracts make it difficult for the contracting partners to foresee and to integrate the future development into the contract. One way to deal with this uncertainty is to provide a legal right to price adjustment; another is to include contractual terms to the same effect. Both mechanisms are present in German law related to gas supply, and both mechanisms have given rise to large-scale litigation triggered by massive price increases in the past years. This article focuses on the judicial control of unilateral price determination by the gas supplier. It shows that courts mainly exercise procedural control, looking at the transparency of the conditions for price increases, whereas they do not enter into the calculation of the adequate or fair price. Résumé: Dans les contrats à long terme, il est difficile pour les parties contractantes de prévoir et d'intégrer les développements futurs dans le contrat. Une façon de faire face à cette incertitude est de prévoir un droit légal à l'ajustement de prix, une autre façon consiste à inclure des clauses contractuelles ayant le même effet. Ces deux mécanismes existent en droit allemand en matière de fourniture de gaz et ces deux mécanismes ont donné lieu à un accroissement du nombre de litiges dû aux fréquentes augmentations de prix durant ces dernières années. Le présent article analyse le contrôle judiciaire de la fixation unilatérale du prix par le fournisseur de gaz. Il indique que les cours et tribunaux exercent principalement un contrôle procédural, examinant la transparence des conditions d'augmentations de prix, sans toutefois intervenir dans le calcul du prix juste ou adéquat. Zusammenfassung: Langzeitverträge erschweren es den Vertragsparteien, künftige Entwicklungen vorherzusehen und in den Vertrag zu integrieren. Ein Weg, mit dieser Unsicherheit umzugehen, sind gesetzliche Preisanpassungsrechte, ein anderer besteht in vertraglichen Preisanpassungsklauseln. Beide Mechanismen finden wir im deutschen Recht der Gasversorgungsverträge, und beide Mechanismen waren wegen der erheblichen Gaspreiserhöhungen der vergangenen Jahre Gegenstand einer Vielzahl gerichtlicher Verfahren. Dieser Aufsatz befasst sich mit der gerichtlichen Überprüfung einseitiger Preisbestimmungen durch den Gasversorger. Er zeigt, dass Gerichte sich auf Verfahrensfragen und Transparenz fokussieren, wohingegen eine echte Überprüfung des angemessenen oder fairen Preises unterbleibt.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it