The engine refuses the model

The most useful thing this system does is say no. A plausible-sounding legal term, an argument too few — both come back as refusals with an address, not as a confident answer.

La conversation a été enregistrée en anglais ; les répliques sont reproduites telles quelles.

Our supplier missed a delivery because of a port strike. Under the UNIDROIT Principles, is their non-performance excused by hardship?

"Excused by hardship" is the phrase people reach for, and it is exactly the kind of phrase I should not invent a predicate from. Let me ask for it directly and see what comes back.

Refused, and usefully so. The name does not exist; the engine lists the closest real signatures, with the package each belongs to, and then tells me in as many words not to answer from general knowledge and not to attribute such an answer to this system. Note what it did not do: it did not quietly return "not established", which I could have read as "no, not excused" and passed on to you as law.

The nearest real thing is hardship_exists — article 6.2.2 — which is not an excuse for non-performance at all. Let me take the signature seriously too, and ask it deliberately one argument short, to show that a malformed question and a silent law are different answers.

A second refusal, of a different kind: the predicate exists, the call does not fit its signature. "You asked the wrong thing" and "the law is silent" are different answers, and the engine keeps them apart. Now the question asked properly.

Not established — and the answer says why: of the six premises of article 6.2.2 exactly one is in. A port strike making a single delivery late is not, on its own, a fundamental alteration of the equilibrium of the contract, and the model does not pretend otherwise. Force majeure under article 7.1.7 is the provision your facts point at, and it is a separate question with separate premises.