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)

Paula Klami-Wetterstein

    Research output: Types of ThesisDoctoral ThesisMonograph


    <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>
    Original languageUndefined/Unknown
    Print ISBNs978-951-29-6425-3
    Electronic ISBNs978-951-29-6426-0
    Publication statusPublished - 2016
    MoE publication typeG4 Doctoral dissertation (monograph)

    Cite this