Academic literature on the topic 'Precontractual Negotiations'

Abstract By using the tools of comparative law & economics, this article aims to shed a light on the development of precontractual liability. Precontractual liability sensu stricto is about the question to what extent one can be held liable for cost incurred by the other party preliminary to, or during precontractual negotiations, when negotiations fail. Comparative legal analysis has observed that the requirements for establishing a successful claim for precontractual liability are very similar at common law and at civil law despite the very different starting positions from which each legal system’s rules have developed. By finding correspondence between what comparative law has found and what is expected under an efficient legal system, this study provides empirical evidence for the efficiency hypothesis of law.

Abstract Certain legal instruments have been developed in business transactions in order to facilitate the conclusion of an agreement under negotiation. The instruments of this kind are called precontractual agreements. They play an important role in shaping the legal situation of entities involved in the negotiation process. The basis for concluding precontractual agreements is the main principle of civil law, namely, the principle of freedom of contract. The most often mentioned precontractual agreements include a letter of intent and an agreement to negotiate. A letter of intent is a statement of intent to conclude an agreement in the future, although at a later stage of the letters exchange, they may also include statements of intent to continue negotiations. Legal doctrine has not developed a consistent categorization of letters of intent. Such attempts are limited to separating a number of terms, which intrinsically describe similar legal instruments. furthermore, an agreement to negotiate is a separate type of unnamed agreement, which aims to prepare the procedure of concluding the final contract through negotiation. It is a temporary contract related to a specific agreement which it concerns. An agreement to negotiate is a due diligence agreement. The infringement of provisions of an agreement to negotiate will result in contractual liability. The aim of the article is to answer the question whether, at the current stage of shaping legal relations, it is necessary to regulate precontractual agreements at the level of Eu legislation in order to harmonize them in the European union.

The justified and legally relevant relationship between contracting partners acting together in order to conclude a contract along with a comprehensive system of precontractual liability have been recognized in Poland at least since the enter into force of the Code of Obligations in 1933. Nevertheless until 2003 there wasn’t any specific legislative enactment of general duty of fair dealing in the precontractual stage. This article sheds light on the legal concept of culpa in contrahendo, with particular emphasis on questions of tort, contract or tertium genus, the objective character of precontractual liability, the scope of protected precontractual interest, and the adequate causal link and the moment of breaking off negotiations. The article concludes with an overview of the perspectives of culpa in contrahendo in the new Civil Code in Poland.

The common law has solved questions of liability arising in the context of precontractual negotiations by resort to a range of different doctrines and approaches, adopting in effect ‘piecemeal’ solutions to questions of precontractual liability. Consequently, debate has arisen as to how best to classify or categorise claims for precontractual work and as to which doctrines are best suited to solving problems arising from anticipated contracts. The purpose of this article is to consider this question of how best to classify (cases of) precontractual liability. The initial focus will be on the ongoing debate as to whether principles of contract law or principles of unjust enrichment can better solve problems of precontractual liability. I will be suggesting that unjust enrichment theory offers little by way of explanation of cases of precontractual liability and, indeed, draws on principles of contract law in determining questions of liability for precontractual services rendered, though it does so by formulating those principles under different guises. Irrespective, however, of the doctrines utilised by the common law to impose liability, it is possible to identify a number of common elements unifying all cases of precontractual liability. In identifying such common elements of liability, it is necessary to draw on principles of both contract and tort law. How, then, should cases of precontractual liability best be classified? A consideration of the issue of classification of precontractual liability from a perspective of German civil law will demonstrate that a better understanding of cases of precontractual liability will be gained by classifying such cases as lying between the existing categories of contract and tort.

The article covers the questions of comparative analysis of conflict-of-law regulation of obligations, arising from faulty negotiations of treaties in the Russian legislation and the European law. Such regulation is envisaged in article 12221 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and in article 12 of the Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II). The author considers conflict-of-law regulation of pre-contractual relations from the point of view of the following aspects: possibility of applying the agreement about the law chosen by the parties to regulate their pre-contractual relations; applying the contractual connecting factor to determine the law applicable to precontractual relations; exploration of other connecting factors applicable to the precontractual relations in case of impossibility to determine the applicable law on the basis of the contractual connecting factor. The author’s conclusion contains the results of the comparative analysis, such as deduction of common and specific features of the Russian and European conflict-of-law regulation of the above-mentioned group of obligations. Also the author offers some recommendations on the improvement of the Russian legislation.

Transparency in insurance law attaches to the rights and duties of the parties, the relationships between insurers, insurance intermediaries such as agents and brokers, insurance supervisory law and insurance dispute resolution procedures. Regarding the rights and duties of the insurer and the prospective policyholder, it requires insurers to disclose precontractual information in a timely manner that is clear, understandable, legible and unambiguous. Transparency as a value is incredibly important in insurance contracts. This contribution focuses exclusively on the insurer's duty of disclosure during precontractual negotiations. Although the insured's duty of disclosure has enjoyed more attention in the past, the duty clearly applies to the insurance proposer as well as the insurer. The purpose of this contribution is to evaluate the nature and extent of the insurer's transparency duties as informed by both common and statutory laws.The insurer's duty is derived primarily from the statutory rights of access to information in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa and the Promotion of Access to Information Act. It is furthermore supported by specific insurance consumer protection law found in the detailed provisions on mandatory disclosures in the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, the Long-term Insurance Act, the Short-term Insurance Act and, finally, the Policyholder Protection Rules issued in accordance with these acts. Strict rules on advertising can be found in the General Code of Conduct issued under the FAIS Act.The Act furthermore specifically targets the activities of insurance intermediaries in precontractual disclosures. The fact that insurance products and services have been exempted from the scope of the Consumer Protection Act from 28 February 2014 should not diminish the insured's right to rely on universal consumer protection principles as envisaged by South African insurance legislation. The insurer's duty to disclose is in the last instance also derived from the common law duty not to make misrepresentations by commission or omission. When negotiating an insurance contract, the insurer's duty to speak is not based on a general requirement of bona fides, but is recognised as an ex lege duty due to the involuntary reliance of the prospective insured on information supplied by insurers in the market. A lack of transparency should lead to the insurer's accountability. A failure to disclose material information or a disclosure of false information that goes to the root of the matter and that induces the prospective policyholder to buy the insurance product is recognised as an actionable misrepresentation. Statutory provisions do not diminish the common-law duty not to make misrepresentations, but provide details of the nature and extent of the information duty to provide clarity and legal certainty in the determination of the standards of transparency required in law. In addition, statutes provide for enforcement actions by regulators, orders that could affect the licence of the insurer and provide for punishable offences and penalties. In terms of common law, a misrepresentation by omission or commission renders the insurance contract wholly or in part voidable. The policyholder may decide to rescind the contract and claim restitution. He may also, in conjunction with rescission, or as an alternative when deciding to maintain the contract, claim delictual damages or even constitutional damages when judged by a court of law as appropriate relief. Statutory remedies include a monetary award by the Insurance Ombud. Even though such an award is capped at R800 000, it is submitted that it is preferred to a civil law damages claim.

The purpose of the study is to determine the basis of the occurrence and the legal nature of the obligation of a representative without authority in case of refusal to approve the contract conducted by him. To achieve this purpose, the author turns to the history of para. 1 p. 1 and p. 3 of Art. 183 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and identifies the theoretical model that underlies these prescriptions. The legal regulation of the obligation of the representative was borrowed by the domestic legislator from the draft and the final text of the German BGB. The prescriptions for this undertaking were formed as a result of a heated debate that unfolded in the second half of the 19th century among German civil law experts. They developed the basic theories of an obligation of a representative without authority: a theory of tort liability, a theory of obligation from a guarantee agreement, a theory of pre-contractual liability and a theory of obligation to protect trust. The last theory turned out to be the most viable and was enshrined in the final version of § 179 BGB, and therefore in the paragraphs of Art. 183 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The essence of this theory is that if a representative without authority concludes a contract on behalf of the principal who then refuses to approve, then a representative has an obligation to compensate a third party (counterparty) for property damage; this obligation follows from the prescription of the law and the trust of a third party in the existence of authority that the representative shows, regardless of the representative’s fault. The obligation of the representative without authority is not a tort liability or obligation from the guarantee agreement; this obligation is precontractual in nature, however, it cannot be considered as liability for unfair negotiation, as it arises without the fault of the representative. The theory of obligation to protect trust has not been well covered in Russian literature. The few domestic authors who answer the question about the basis of the occurrence and the legal nature of the obligation of a representative are supporters of the theory of tort liability, the theory of obligation from a guarantee agreement or the theory of pre-contractual liability.

This dissertation analyses the application of civil liability in precontractual relations under the Lithuanian civil law. In the general part of the thesis the detailed analysis of precontractual relations’ phase is presented, as well as the genesis of development of precontractual liability and its antagonistic aims are considered. This part concludes with the question of applicable legal regime of civil liability in precontractual relations. The thesis special part is devoted to the analysis of two, under the opinion of the author, the most problematic conditions of precontractual civil liability: the unlawful precontractual actions and the concept of precontractual damage. It is noted that the opposing aims of precontractual liability – ensuring the freedom of negotiations v. keeping the parties’ confidence for the conclusion of contract – will be achieved only when the scope of civil liability in precontractual relations will depend on and will be related with the progress of negotiations. Therefore regardless of negotiations progress and in case when all necessary conditions of the precontractual liability are present, the aggrieved party should be compensated for any kind of negotiations’ costs and any other direct precontractual damages which are not unreasonably high and for which the party had not been taken the risk. In addition, when the negotiations are considered deeply advanced, the aggrieved party should receive the remuneration of indirect damages which should... [to full text]
Disertacijoje nagrinėjamas civilinės atsakomybės taikymo esant ikisutartiniams santykiams klausimas Lietuvos civilinėje teisėje. Darbo bendrojoje dalyje yra pateikiama detali ikisutartinių santykių stadijos analizė, nagrinėjama ikisutartinės atsakomybės vertinimo genezė bei jos taikymui keliami specifiniai tikslai, taip pat didelis dėmesys skiriamas ikisutartinei atsakomybei taikytino teisinio rėžimo tyrimui. Disertacijos specialioji dalis skirta dviejų, autorės nuomone, šių dienų teisėje daugiausia klausimų keliančių civilinės atsakomybės ikisutartiniuose santykiuose taikymo sąlygų analizei, tai – neteisėtiems ikisutartiniams veiksmams ir ikisutartinių nuostolių koncepcijai. Darbe pagrindžiama išvada, kad civilinei atsakomybei iki pagrindinės sutarties sudarymo keliami antagonistiniai tikslai – užtikrinti derybų laisvę ir apsaugoti pasitikėjimą sutarties sudarymu – gali būti pasiekti priklausomai nuo derybų pažangos laipsnio taikant nevienodą civilinės atsakomybės apimtį. Todėl teigiama, kad neatsižvelgiant į derybų pažangos laipsnį ir esant ikisutartinės atsakomybės taikymo sąlygų visetui, sąžiningai šaliai turi būti kompensuojami bet kokios rūšies tiesioginiai ikisutartiniai nuostoliai, o toli pažengusių derybų atveju civilinės atsakomybės esant ikisutartiniams santykiams apimtis yra platesnė ir apima prarastos galimybės pinigine verte ribotų netiesioginių nuostolių atlyginimą.

Disertacijoje nagrinėjamas civilinės atsakomybės taikymo esant ikisutartiniams santykiams klausimas Lietuvos civilinėje teisėje. Darbo bendrojoje dalyje yra pateikiama detali ikisutartinių santykių stadijos analizė, nagrinėjama ikisutartinės atsakomybės vertinimo genezė bei jos taikymui keliami specifiniai tikslai, taip pat didelis dėmesys skiriamas ikisutartinei atsakomybei taikytino teisinio rėžimo tyrimui. Disertacijos specialioji dalis skirta dviejų, autorės nuomone, šių dienų teisėje daugiausia klausimų keliančių civilinės atsakomybės ikisutartiniuose santykiuose taikymo sąlygų analizei, tai – neteisėtiems ikisutartiniams veiksmams ir ikisutartinių nuostolių koncepcijai. Darbe pagrindžiama išvada, kad civilinei atsakomybei iki pagrindinės sutarties sudarymo keliami antagonistiniai tikslai – užtikrinti derybų laisvę ir apsaugoti pasitikėjimą sutarties sudarymu – gali būti pasiekti priklausomai nuo derybų pažangos laipsnio taikant nevienodą civilinės atsakomybės apimtį. Todėl teigiama, kad neatsižvelgiant į derybų pažangos laipsnį ir esant ikisutartinės atsakomybės taikymo sąlygų visetui, sąžiningai šaliai turi būti kompensuojami bet kokios rūšies tiesioginiai ikisutartiniai nuostoliai, o toli pažengusių derybų atveju civilinės atsakomybės esant ikisutartiniams santykiams apimtis yra platesnė ir apima prarastos galimybės pinigine verte ribotų netiesioginių nuostolių atlyginimą.
This dissertation analyses the application of civil liability in precontractual relations under the Lithuanian civil law. In the general part of the thesis the detailed analysis of precontractual relations’ phase is presented, as well as the genesis of development of precontractual liability and its antagonistic aims are considered. This part concludes with the question of applicable legal regime of civil liability in precontractual relations. The thesis special part is devoted to the analysis of two, under the opinion of the author, the most problematic conditions of precontractual civil liability: the unlawful precontractual actions and the concept of precontractual damage. It is noted that the opposing aims of precontractual liability – ensuring the freedom of negotiations v. keeping the parties’ confidence for the conclusion of contract – will be achieved only when the scope of civil liability in precontractual relations will depend on and will be related with the progress of negotiations. Therefore regardless of negotiations progress and in case when all necessary conditions of the precontractual liability are present, the aggrieved party should be compensated for any kind of negotiations’ costs and any other direct precontractual damages which are not unreasonably high and for which the party had not been taken the risk. In addition, when the negotiations are considered deeply advanced, the aggrieved party should receive the remuneration of indirect damages which should... [to full text]

Šio magistro darbo objektas – sąžiningumo pareigos turinys ikisutartiniuose santykiuose. 2000 m. liepos 18 d. priimtas naujasis Lietuvos Respublikos civilinis kodeksas įtvirtino, kad pagrindinė abipusė šalių pareiga ikisutartiniuose santykiuose yra pareiga elgtis sąžiningai. Kadangi sąžiningumo pareigos ikisutartinių santykių etape taikymo praktika Lietuvoje yra besiformuojanti, o kilus ginčui tarp šalių šios pareigos turinys dažnai nevienodai suprantamas, pripažįstama, kad yra svarbu užtikrinti nuoseklų sąžiningumo pareigos aiškinimą ir jos taikymo mechanizmą. Siekiant išanalizuoti pagrindinius sąžiningumo pareigos ikisutartiniuose santykiuose elementus, magistro darbe nagrinėjami bendrieji ikisutartinių santykių ir sąžiningumo klausimai. Pabrėžiama, kad šiandien tarp šalių susiklosčiusių santykių dėl sandorio sudarymo sudėtingumas lemia, jog klasikinį sutarties sudarymo modelį „oferta ir akceptas“ dažnai papildo ilgesnė ar trumpesnė derybų stadija. Naudojant lyginamąjį, sisteminį, istorinį ir ekonominį tyrimo metodus, pagrindinėje magistro darbo dalyje analizuojami teisės normose nustatyti ir teismų praktikos bei doktrinos suformuoti pagrindiniai sąžiningumo pareigos ikisutartiniuose santykiuose elementai: reikalavimas derėtis tik turint tikslą sudaryti sutartį, reikalavimas nenutraukti toli pažengusių derybų be objektyvių priežasčių, reikalavimas vykdyti preliminarius susitarimus, reikalavimas vesti tik sąžiningas lygiagrečias derybas, pareiga atskleisti informaciją ir... [toliau žr. visą tekstą]
The object of this master thesis is the content of the duty of good faith in precontractual relations. The new Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania, adopted on 18th July 2000, established that the duty of good faith is the main mutual duty of the parties in precontractual relations. Taking into account that in Lithuania the application of the duty of good faith in precontractual stage is developing and parties usually understand the content of this duty differently in litigation process, the importance to ensure the consistent interpretation and application of the duty of good faith is emphasized. In order to analyze the principal elements of the content of the duty of good faith in precontractual relations, the main issues of precontractual relations and good faith are examined in this master thesis. A great attention is paid to the conclusion that nowadays the complex process of formation of contracts determines that the classic rule of “offer and acceptance” is usually supplemented with negotiations stage. On the basis of comparative, systematic, historic and economic methods, the following principal elements of the duty of good faith in precontractual relations, established by the laws or determined by jurisprudence and case law, are analyzed in the main part of this master thesis: requirement to enter into negotiations and continue them only with intention to reach an agreement, requirement not to break off advanced negotiations without unjustified reasons... [to full text]