ABOUT THE NESSESITY TO REQUEST OF ADDITIONAL GUARANTEES IF THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A PARTNER FAILS TO PERFORM AN OBLIGATION WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD
( Pp. 103-106)

The article considers theoretical and practical aspects of Part 2 of Article 328 of the Civil Code, which permit usage of self-help by the suspension or refusal to perform the obligations for the parties which must to make opposing performance of an obligation, if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the other party fails to perform an obligation within the prescribed period. The relevance of this article based on the fact that the problem of legality of the criteria of self-help in the case of anticipated breach, virtually has no law regulation, which leads to serious contradictions in the legal literature and law enforcement. The material is based on a detailed analysis of legislation and judicial practice of the United States, which worked out at the present time a sensibly efficient way of solving the problem of investigation and expressed in the laws literature views on the issue of studying

Artemov I.I., (2015), ABOUT THE NESSESITY TO REQUEST OF ADDITIONAL GUARANTEES IF THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A PARTNER FAILS TO PERFORM AN OBLIGATION WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD. Business in Law, 2 => 103-106.

Bogdanov E.V. Kategorii quot;opredelennost quot; i quot;neopredelennost quot; kak elementy dogovornogo regulirovaniya obshchestvennykh otnosheniy // Zakonodatel stvo i ekonomika. 2012. N 4. S. 21 - 28.
Karapetov A.G. Rastorzhenie narushennogo dogovora v rossiyskom i zarubezhnom prave. M.: Statut, 2007.876 C.
Suyunbaev R. Problemy zashchity grazhdanskikh prav // Biznes v zakone. 2009 g. №1. S.280-283.
Uzdimaeva N.I. Pravovaya samozashchita - novyy kompleksnyy institut v sisteme rossiyskogo prava //Probely v rossiyskom zakonodatel stve. 2011. №4. C.23-27.
SHevtsov S.G. Kontseptual nye osnovy ustanovleniya predelov svobodnogo usmotreniya sub ektov grazhdanskikh pravootnosheniy//Probely v rossiyskom zakonodatel stve. 2012. №3. C. 82-86.
AMF, Inc. v. McDonald s Corp.// Federal Reporter Vol. 536. 7th Cir. 1976. P.1170-71
Farnsworth E.A. Contracts. 4th ed. N. Y., 2004.p.343.
Crespi G. S., The Adequate Assurances Doctrine After U.C.C. 2-609: A Test of the Efficiency of the Common law.)// Villanova Law Review. 1993. Vol. 38. P.187.
Hillman R.F. Keeping the Deal Together After Material Breach Common Law Mitigation Rules, the UCC, and the Restatement (Second) of Contracts // University Colorado Law Review 1976. Vol. 47. P.590.
Taylor S.R. Self-help in contract law: an exploration and proposal // Wake Forest Law Review. 1998. P. 839-907.
Uniform Commercial Code // 6th ed.
White J. J. Summers R.S. Uniform Commercial Code. Thompson Reuters. 2014. Vol.3. P.297.
White J.J. Eight Cases and Section // Cornell Law Review.1982. P.841
Restatement (second) of contracts //American Law Institite.1981.

Self-defense, the contractual relationship, civil law, material breach, the performance of an obligation.