Från förhandlingsfrihet till förhandlingsbundenhet. Ansvarsgrundande förklaringar och beteenden i prekontraktuella tvåpartsförhållanden och vid avtalsingående (From freedom of contract to the binding force of contracting. Liability for inducing reliance by statements and behaviour in precontractual situations, contract negotiations and contracting)

<p>The thesis evaluates the established judicial proposition stating that contract negotiations</p><p>are not binding. The starting-point for the study is the commonly expressed</p><p>view that the principle of freedom of contract comprises a freedom to</p><p>negotiate and that the freedom to negotiate entails a non-liability for any costs</p><p>occurred during negotiations. The study argues that this logical chain of reasoning</p><p>is antithetical to the underlying principle of</p><p>(international) principle of good faith and fear dealing.</p><p>The present dissertation seeks to explore the grounds for liability in contract</p><p>negotiations and contracting by analysing the contract law regime and assessing</p><p>case law from the Finnish Supreme Court. The analysis includes case law from</p><p>lower courts, as well as comparisons with other Scandinavian jurisdictions. The</p><p>study begins with a discussion on the theoretical background of contract negotiations</p><p>and contracting (Chapter Two), i.e., the mechanism of contracting as a part</p><p>of the contract law system. Chapter Three examines the normative framework for</p><p>(pre)contractual statements, duties and liability. Chapter Four analyses the interpretation</p><p>of statements in light of the normative elements of contract interpretation.</p><p>Chapter Five explores the prerequisites for</p><p>or behaviour, while Chapter Six discusses the significance of external facts</p><p>with regard to the criteria for the construction of reasonable reliance.</p><p>My research suggests that there is, indeed, a certain (pre)contractually binding</p><p>force (‘</p><p>Contract negotiations are not binding</p><p>representations made during the course of the negotiating process which envisage</p><p>the contractual relationship at a later stage may be considered as grounds for liability.</p><p>The legal effects of these statements cannot be seen exclusively within the</p><p>category of contract (“promise”) or tort (“misleading”). Instead, statements may</p><p>be considered as</p><p>where these statements do not meet the criteria for offer or accept. Along</p><p>with providing a framework for the legal assessment of reliance-based (pre)contractual</p><p>liability, the dissertation aims at harmonising the notion of reliance-based</p><em>loyalty and the widely acknowledged<em>justifiable reliance, based on statements<em>förhandlingsbundenhet’) inherently built into the negotiation mechanisms.<em>per se. However, the actual propositions or<em>binding insofar as they incur a justifiable reliance – even in situations<p>&nbsp;</p>IX<p>(precontractual or contractual) liability – a middle category in contract law – with</p><p>the existing contract law doctrine, nevertheless acknowledging the existing distinction</p><p>between the categories of contract and tort.</p><p>Keywords: contract negotiations, culpa in contrahendo, good faith and fear dealing,</p><p>letter of intent, loyalty, precontractual liability</p></em></em></em></em></em>