Browsing by Author "Sonntag, Michael"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2

Restricted
Ambush Marketing: What Is 'Major'? An Ambush on the Major Events Management Act 2007
(Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, 2010) Sonntag, Michael
This research paper examines New Zealand’s answer on the more and more rising problem of ambush marketing attacks on major events – the Major Events Management Act. The main purpose of the paper is to determine which events have major event quality in the sense of the Act. Three years after the enacting of the Act, five events were declared to be major so far. By examining the facts of these events, this paper discloses where the thresholds for the scale and the type of the event are in practice. This paper comes to the conclusion that the Government lowered these thresholds by some controversial decisions leading to an increased scope of application of the MEMA. Major event status has to be granted more likely to many more smaller events. Furthermore, although originally intended otherwise, annual and regular events as well as non-sporting events might get the protection of the MEMA in the future. This is due to New Zealand’s approach to enact generic instead of event-specific legislation in the end.
Restricted
"We Don't Understand It and We Don't Like It": The Successful Way of the Reduction on Price from Roman Law into International Model Rules and the Common Law's Ambievalent Attitude towards the Remedy
(Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, 2011) Sonntag, Michael
This paper is dedicated to the remedy of reduction of price. It analyses and compares the corresponding provisions of the German Civil Code (BGB), the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG) the Principles of European Contract Law (PECL) and the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR). Special attention is paid to common law influence on the remedy. The comparison shows eventually that there was significant influence which resulted in a change of the reference point for the calculation of the reduced price to the time of delivery instead of the time of the conclusion of the contract. This change caused several disadvantages and was a mistake. Apart from this, the occurrence of the remedy constantly improved over time peaking in the very clear provision of the DCFR. The paper then outlines the advantages of the remedy in contrast to damages showing that the reduction of price is more beneficial for the buyer in several situations. The last chapter shows that the remedy is significantly less used by common law than civil law lawyers. This is because the remedy seems to be in discord with the common law’s view of contracts, especially the need for consideration. However, the remedy does not contravene the principles of the common law and barely noticed found its way into common law jurisdictions. The paper concludes that the common law should adopt the remedy and help to develop it further.