The parties could therefore attempt to cover more precisely this period between signature and conclusion, by separating starting clauses allowing the buyer (or parties) to terminate the transaction if there is, during this period, a range of R&W that has a negative effect (subject to the thresholds to be negotiated), which would indeed lead to the introduction of a kind of MAC clause, but which is very specific to a situation. The question of the application of this article arises in particular with regard to the above-mentioned mandatory period granted to the seller to respond to the buyer`s proposal to adjust the initial price. This clause could be considered as a clause entailing the forfeiture of a right (contestation of the buyer`s price proposal) within the meaning of the Regulation. If the Regulation were to apply, the effects of such forfeiture would be postponed after the expiry of the `period of protection` at the end of a period calculated in accordance with its conditions4. In such a case, would this mean that the postponement of the effects of the forfeiture would indirectly extend the seller`s time limit for responding to the buyer? In any event, it remains to be ascertained whether the purpose of that clause is intended to penalise the seller`s failure to comply with a contractual obligation, namely the response within a specified period. The answer may be controversial: it may in fact be considered that the seller is not obliged to respond and abstain; However, if he wishes to reply, he is indeed obliged to reply within a binding period. .
- No categories