The entry into force of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) has injected new vitality into intra-regional trade, but it has also brought to the fore disputes arising from contractual performance obstacles. This article focuses on the differences between China and RCEP member countries in the identification and assumption of liability for breach of contract arising from contractual performance obstacles in international trade contracts. Through comparative legal research and analysis of typical cases, this article reveals that the strict conditions and procedural requirements of China's Civil Code regarding core impediments such as force majeure and hardship differ significantly from the flexible contract interpretation of Singapore's common law, the emphasis on the obligation to renegotiate in Japanese precedent, the cautious application of frustration in Australia, and the limited provisions of Vietnamese statutory law. Typical cases further demonstrate that, with regard to liability, China emphasizes actual performance and damages, while common law countries rely more on damages as a remedy and Japan emphasizes negotiated settlements. The study suggests that within the RCEP framework, there is an urgent need to strengthen legal coordination, promote unified contract terms, improve alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and enhance corporate legal risk awareness to promote regional trade stability and efficient dispute resolution, providing practical guidance for businesses in the region.
Xinyue Fang (Thu,) studied this question.