See Enforcing Contracts data here. Show Doing Business measures the time and cost for resolving a commercial dispute through a local first-instance court and the quality of judicial processes index, evaluating whether each economy has adopted a series of good practices that promote quality and efficiency in the court system. The data are collected through study of the codes of civil procedure and other court regulations as well as questionnaires completed by local litigation lawyers and judges. The ranking of economies on the ease of enforcing contracts is determined by sorting their scores for enforcing contracts. These scores are the simple average of the scores for each of the component indicators. Efficiency of resolving a commercial disputeThe data on time and cost are built by following the step-by-step evolution of a commercial sale dispute. The data are collected for a specific court for each city covered, under the assumptions about the case described below. The “competent court” is the one with jurisdiction over disputes worth 200% of income per capita or $5,000, whichever is greater. Whenever more than one court has original jurisdiction over a case comparable to the standardized case study, the data are collected based on the court that would be used by litigants in the majority of cases. The name of the relevant court in each economy is published on the Doing Business website at http://www.doingbusiness.org/data /exploretopics/enforcing-contracts. For the 11 economies for which the data are also collected for the second largest business city, the name of the relevant court in that city is given as well. Assumptions about the case
TimeTime is recorded in calendar days, counted from the moment Seller decides to file the lawsuit in court until payment. This includes both the days when actions take place and the waiting periods in between. The average duration of the following three different stages of dispute resolution is recorded: (i) filing and service; (ii) trial and judgment; and (iii) enforcement. Time is recorded considering the case study assumptions detailed above and only as applicable to the competent court. Time is recorded in practice, regardless of time limits set by law if such time limits are not respected in the majority of cases. The filing and service phase includes:
The trial and judgment phase includes:
The enforcement phase includes:
CostCost is recorded as a percentage of the claim value, assumed to be equivalent to 200% of income per capita or $5,000, whichever is greater. Three types of costs are recorded: average attorney fees, court costs and enforcement costs. Average attorney fees are the fees that Seller (plaintiff) must advance to a local attorney to represent Seller in the standardized case, regardless of final reimbursement. Court costs include all costs that Seller (plaintiff) must advance to the court, regardless of the final cost borne by Seller. Court costs include the fees that the parties must pay to obtain an expert opinion, regardless of whether they are paid to the court or to the expert directly. Enforcement costs are all costs that Seller (plaintiff) must advance to enforce the judgment through a public sale of Buyer’s movable assets, regardless of the final cost borne by Seller. Bribes are not taken into account. Quality of Judicial ProcessesThe quality of judicial processes index measures whether each economy has adopted a series of good practices in its court system in four areas: court structure and proceedings, case management, court automation and alternative dispute resolution. Court structure and proceedings indexThe court structure and proceedings index has five components:
The index ranges from -1 to 5, with higher values indicating a more sophisticated and streamlined court structure. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, for example, a specialized commercial court is in place (a score of 1.5), and small claims can be resolved through a dedicated division in which self-representation is allowed (a score of 1.5). Plaintiffs can obtain pretrial attachment of the defendant’s movable assets if they fear dissipation during trial (a score of 1). Cases are assigned randomly through an electronic case management system (a score of 1). A woman’s testimony carries the same evidentiary weight in court as a man’s (a score of 0). Adding these numbers gives Bosnia and Herzegovina a score of 5 on the court structure and proceedings index. Case management indexThe case management index has six components:
The index ranges from 0 to 6, with higher values indicating a more qualitative and efficient case management system. In Australia, for example, time standards for at least three key court events are established in applicable civil procedure instruments and are respected in more than 50% of cases (a score of 1). The law stipulates that adjournments can be granted only for unforeseen and exceptional circumstances and this rule is respected in more than 50% of cases (a score of 0.5). A time to disposition report, a clearance rate report and an age of pending cases report can be generated about the competent court (a score of 1). A pretrial conference is among the case management techniques used before the District Court of New South Wales (a score of 1). An electronic case management system satisfying the criteria outlined above is available to judges (a score of 1) and to lawyers (a score of 1). Adding these numbers gives Australia a score of 5.5 on the case management index, the highest score attained by any economy on this index. Court automation indexThe court automation index has four components:
The index ranges from 0 to 4, with higher values indicating a more automated, efficient and transparent court system. In Estonia, for example, the initial summons can be filed online (a score of 1), it can be served on the defendant electronically (a score of 1), and court fees can be paid electronically as well (a score of 1). In addition, judgments in commercial cases at all levels are made publicly available through the internet (a score of 1). Adding these numbers gives Estonia a score of 4 on the court automation index. Alternative dispute resolution indexThe alternative dispute resolution index has six components:
The index ranges from 0 to 3, with higher values associated with greater availability of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. In Israel, for example, arbitration is regulated through a dedicated statute (a score of 0.5), all relevant commercial disputes can be submitted to arbitration (a score of 0.5), and valid arbitration clauses are usually enforced by the courts (a score of 0.5). Voluntary mediation is a recognized way of resolving commercial disputes (a score of 0.5), it is regulated through a dedicated statute (a score of 0.5), and part of the filing fees is reimbursed if the process is successful (a score of 0.5). Adding these numbers gives Israel a score of 3 on the alternative dispute resolution index. Quality of judicial processes indexThe quality of judicial processes index is the sum of the scores on the court structure and proceedings, case management, court automation and alternative dispute resolution indices. The index ranges from 0 to 18, with higher values indicating better and more efficient judicial processes. ReformsThe enforcing contracts indicator set tracks changes related to the efficiency and quality of commercial dispute resolution systems every year. Depending on the impact on the data, certain changes are classified as reforms and listed in the summaries of Doing Business reforms in order to acknowledge the implementation of significant changes. Reforms are divided into two types: those that make it easier to do business and those changes that make it more difficult to do business. The enforcing contracts indicator set uses three criteria to recognize a reform. First, changes in laws and regulations that have any impact on the economy’s score on the quality of judicial processes index are classified as reforms. Examples of reforms impacting the quality of judicial processes index include measures to introduce electronic filing of the initial complaint, the creation of a commercial court or division, or the introduction of dedicated systems to resolve small claims. Changes affecting the quality of judicial processes index can be different in magnitude and scope and still be considered a reform. For example, implementing a new electronic case management system for the use of judges and lawyers represents a reform with a 2-point increase in the index, while introducing incentives for the parties to use mediation represents a reform with a 0.5-point increase in the index. Second, the impact of data changes on the time and cost to resolve a dispute is assessed based on the absolute change in the overall score of the indicator set as well as the change in the relative score gap. According to the enforcing contracts methodology, any updates in legislation leading to a change of 0.5 points or more in the score and 2% or more on the relative score gap of the time and cost indicators is classified as a reform, except when the change is the result of automatic official fee indexation to a price or wage index (for more details, see the chapter on the ease of doing business score and ease of doing business ranking). Minor fee updates or other small changes in the indicators that have an aggregate impact of less than 0.5 points on the overall score or 2% on the gap are not classified as a reform, but the data are updated accordingly. Third, legislative changes of exceptional magnitude such as sizeable revisions of the applicable civil procedure, or enforcement laws, that are anticipated to have a significant impact on time and cost in the future are classified as reforms. This methodology was initially developed by Djankov and others (2003) and is adopted here with several changes. The quality of judicial processes index was introduced in Doing Business 2016. The good practices tested in this index were developed on the basis of internationally recognized good practices promoting judicial efficiency. What are the 4 types of contracts?4 Types of Construction Contracts. Lump-Sum Contracts.. Cost-Plus-Fee Contracts.. Guaranteed Maximum Price Contracts.. Unit-Price Contracts.. Which of the following must be part of a contract for it to be enforceable?The basic elements required for the agreement to be a legally enforceable contract are: mutual assent, expressed by a valid offer and acceptance; adequate consideration; capacity; and legality.
What are the 5 essential elements of a contract?A contract involves two or more parties who are competent to enter into a legally binding agreement.. An offer.. Acceptance,. Consideration.. Mutuality of obligation.. Competency and capacity.. Which of the following is not a requirement for a valid contract?The answer is earnest money. The essential elements of a valid contract are offer and acceptance, consideration, legally competent parties, mutual agreement, and legal purpose. Earnest money is not required for a valid contract.
|