That provision, no need to explain. But my client also has

Skills and abilities of his own, proven skills relevant to the

sandwich-making business. That's why your client is

Interested in concluding a franchise agreement with him in

the first place. Let's face it: your client owns a young and

Upcoming franchise enterprise that may be promising, but it

certainly isn't well known or well established yet - you need

The skills and know-how of experienced franchisees as

much as they need you. So I'll say it again: we simply could

Not accept any clause that would forbid my client from

Making a living through these skills independently for three

Whole years, if that should one day become necessary.

Ms Orvatz: What do you suggest? We're not in a position to

Remove the non-compete clause from the contract, let me

Be perfectly clear about that.

Mr Johansson: Of course. Our proposal is to reduce the scope

Of the clause. If you could consider reducing the time period

the non-compete covers, we'd be willing to be more flexible

About the arbitration clause, for example.

Ms Orvatz: Well, all right. In that case, I think we could talk

About a reduction.

Mr Johansson: Well, that's certainly a step in the right direction.

How about this: we suggest reducing the time frame to one

Year.

Ms Orvatz: Mm, that would be difficult for us. We could only

reduce the number of years to two, and that's already very

Generous on our part.

Mr Johansson: Let's agree on a year and a half, shall we? After

All, you and I both know that your client really wants to

enter into this agreement with my client, as he's perfectly

suited to run a franchise in that part of town, which, let's be

honest, isn't exactly the safest neighbourhood. He knows

The area, he has the necessary skills and experience...

Ms Orvatz: OK, OK. I think we could live with that. A year and a

Half it is.

Mr Johansson: Very well.

Ms Orvatz: Now, what about the arbitration clause? You said

you'd be willing to be a bit more flexible ...

E Audiotranscripts

Unit 6

Listening 1

Part I

I'd like to tell you something about the remedy of specific

Performance in Denmark. As you know, specific performance is

a remedy requiring a person who's breached a contract to

Perform specifically what he or she had agreed to do. Danish

Contract law provides that where one party breaches the

contract, the non-breaching party basically has two options: to

Claim either specific performance or damages. However, while

The court may order the breaching party to perform under the

Contract, it only has limited power to enforce this. As a result,

The Danish Procedural Code only requires specific performance

In a limited number of cases - five types of cases, to be exact.

The whole system works like this: the court must first

Determine whether an order for specific performance should be

granted. Of course, the breaching party can do two things:

Either comply or not comply with the order. In other words, the

Defaulting party either takes the action necessary to perform

the contract or he doesn't. If he doesn't, the other party can

Decide to go to the judicial enforcement agent. This judicial

Date: 2015-12-11; view: 1159