44 No grossly excessive demands

This aspect of justice is reflected in a number of rules which qualify the binding effect of contracts. It is recognised in the rule which regards non-performance of an obligation as excused (so that performance cannot be enforced and damages cannot be recovered) if the non-performance is due to an impediment beyond the debtor's control and if the debtor could not reasonably be expected to have avoided or overcome the impediment or its consequences.2. It lies behind the rule allowing contractual obligations to be varied or terminated by a court if they have become so onerous as a result of an exceptional change of circumstances that it would be ‘manifestly unjust to hold the debtor to the obligation’.3. It is the basis of the rule that performance of an obligation cannot be specifically enforced if it would be unreasonably burdensome or expensive.4. And it appears in the rule that a stipulated payment for non-performance can be reduced to a reasonable amount where it is ‘grossly excessive’ in the circumstances.5. It is clear, however, that this aspect of justice has to be kept within strict limits. The emphasis is on ‘grossly’, and the oft-repeated warning that principles conflict and have to be balanced against each other is particularly apposite here. There is nothing against people profiting from a good bargain or losing from a bad one. The DCFR does not have any general notion that contracts can be challenged on the ground of lesion. This is explicitly illustrated in the rule excluding the adequacy of the price from the unfairness test in the part of the DCFR dealing with unfair contract terms.6.