Culpa in contrahendo: Difference between revisions

Culpa in contrahendo (view source)

Revision as of 15:31, 7 August 2021

1,289 bytes added , 7 August 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,882

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{a|negotiation|}}“[[Culpa in contrahendo]]” — literally “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, the odd continental way of doing things) in which the positive law sees a clear duty when negotiating — so ''before'' there is a contract — not to mislead or induce ones counterparty to act to his detriment before the contract is concluded.
+{{a|negotiation|}}“[[Culpa in contrahendo]]” — literally  “the failure to select Jordan Henderson in the Euros”<ref>©July 2021. This Gag shall quickly grow old, so enjoy it while you can.</ref> 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, but that is stretching things a little. [[Misrepresentation]], the basic principles of [[equity]] and [[restitution]], and the constructive imaginations of common law judges to 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 of common law judges thoughout the centuries 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 — 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 a pretty silly argument. Firstly, you either have a contract or you don’t. The use — or risk? — of ''contrahendo'' to contractual negotiations that are never concluded cannot be solved by a clause in a contract no-one signs.
+Nor, it seems to us, if the point of ''contrahendo'' is to undo the unjust vicissitudes brought on by an oppressive contract one was hoodwinked into signing, sticking something ''in'' that oppressive contract is hardly going to help.