Culpa in contrahendo: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Pedants like to observe there is no [[common law]] equivalent, and while that may literally be true, in practice it is stretching things a little. [[Misrepresentation]], the basic principles of [[equity]] and [[restitution]], and the constructive imaginations — not to say ''[[Constructive|trusts]]'' — of the [[Queen’s Bench]] and [[Chancery Division]] thoughout the ages will ensure the plain [[common law]] is applied in such a way as to ensure [[Little old ladies|little old ladies]], [[Welsh hoteliers]] etc., don’t [[Anus matronae parvae malas leges faciunt|get the sharp end of the stick]], mean that in practice the fellow who tries to insist upon, or deny, rights and obligations created thorough her own nefarious conduct, can expect fairly short treatment. | Pedants like to observe there is no [[common law]] equivalent, and while that may literally be true, in practice it is stretching things a little. [[Misrepresentation]], the basic principles of [[equity]] and [[restitution]], and the constructive imaginations — not to say ''[[Constructive|trusts]]'' — of the [[Queen’s Bench]] and [[Chancery Division]] thoughout the ages will ensure the plain [[common law]] is applied in such a way as to ensure [[Little old ladies|little old ladies]], [[Welsh hoteliers]] etc., don’t [[Anus matronae parvae malas leges faciunt|get the sharp end of the stick]], mean that in practice the fellow who tries to insist upon, or deny, rights and obligations created thorough her own nefarious conduct, can expect fairly short treatment. | ||
We have seen it argued, for example — in the context of a simple NDA of all places — that a clause disclaiming “the obligation to enter into a further agreement” — to you and me known as an unenforceable “[[agreement to agree]]” and quite unneeding of such protection in the [[common law]] | We have seen it argued, for example — in the context of a simple [[OneNDA|NDA]] of all places — that a clause disclaiming “the obligation to enter into a further agreement” — to you and me known as an unenforceable “[[agreement to agree]]” and quite unneeding of such protection in the [[common law]]<ref>The [[JC]]’s home-baked principle of ''[[non dixi quod factum ita]]'' also comes into play</ref> — might come in handy in a [[civil law]] contract where the principle of ''culpa in contrahendo'' applies. | ||
But — and knowing squarely nothing about the civil law precepts beyond what one can glean from Wikipedia — this strikes us as rather obtuse. | |||
Firstly, you either ''do'' have a contract or you ''don’t.'' The use — or risk? — of ''contrahendo'' to contractual [[negotiation|negotiations]] that are not concluded surely cannot be solved by resort to a non-existent agreement. Nor, if the point of ''contrahendo'' is to undo the vicissitudes of an oppressive contract one ''has'' signed, only under unjust misapprehension, then sticking something ''in'' that oppressive contract is hardly going to help either, is it. And anyway, when all you are promising is o keep another fellows secrets to yourself, just what kind of additional agreement would you hope — or fear — the effects of? | Firstly, you either ''do'' have a contract or you ''don’t.'' The use — or risk? — of ''contrahendo'' to contractual [[negotiation|negotiations]] that are not concluded surely cannot be solved by resort to a non-existent agreement. Nor, if the point of ''contrahendo'' is to undo the vicissitudes of an oppressive contract one ''has'' signed, only under unjust misapprehension, then sticking something ''in'' that oppressive contract is hardly going to help either, is it. And anyway, when all you are promising is o keep another fellows secrets to yourself, just what kind of additional agreement would you hope — or fear — the effects of? | ||
Revision as of 15:56, 7 August 2021
|
Negotiation Anatomy™
|
“Culpa in contrahendo” — literally “the failure to select Jordan Henderson in the Euros”[1] or, failing that, the “fault in conclusion of a contract”, or for the more plainly minded, “negotiating in bad faith” is, we gather, a key concept in the civil law of contracts (you know, that odd Continental way of sorting out arguments) in which the positive law of places like Germany sees a clear duty when negotiating — so before there is a contract to sue under — not to mislead or induce one’s counterparty to act to its detriment before the contract is concluded.
Pedants like to observe there is no common law equivalent, and while that may literally be true, in practice it is stretching things a little. Misrepresentation, the basic principles of equity and restitution, and the constructive imaginations — not to say trusts — of the Queen’s Bench and Chancery Division thoughout the ages will ensure the plain common law is applied in such a way as to ensure little old ladies, Welsh hoteliers etc., don’t get the sharp end of the stick, mean that in practice the fellow who tries to insist upon, or deny, rights and obligations created thorough her own nefarious conduct, can expect fairly short treatment.
We have seen it argued, for example — in the context of a simple NDA of all places — that a clause disclaiming “the obligation to enter into a further agreement” — to you and me known as an unenforceable “agreement to agree” and quite unneeding of such protection in the common law[2] — might come in handy in a civil law contract where the principle of culpa in contrahendo applies.
But — and knowing squarely nothing about the civil law precepts beyond what one can glean from Wikipedia — this strikes us as rather obtuse.
Firstly, you either do have a contract or you don’t. The use — or risk? — of contrahendo to contractual negotiations that are not concluded surely cannot be solved by resort to a non-existent agreement. Nor, if the point of contrahendo is to undo the vicissitudes of an oppressive contract one has signed, only under unjust misapprehension, then sticking something in that oppressive contract is hardly going to help either, is it. And anyway, when all you are promising is o keep another fellows secrets to yourself, just what kind of additional agreement would you hope — or fear — the effects of?
See also
- Aleatory contracts, Synallagmatic obligations and the netting opinion as an objet trouvée
- OneNDA which doesn’t have a disclaimer of an agreement to agree.
References
- ↑ ©July 2021. This gag shall quickly grow old, as we who are left grow old, so enjoy what there is to enjoy of it — precious little, I grant — while you can.
- ↑ The JC’s home-baked principle of non dixi quod factum ita also comes into play