new legal doctrines to address perceived problems not addressed in the Code,15 it hardly seems likely that they will adopt such a course in respect of unilateral promise given that its general recognition was considered but explicitly rejected by the drafters of the Code. Any step to give uni­ lateral promises wider and more general recognition in German law is thus likely to come about only by virtue of amendment to the text of the BGB. No widespread desire to effect such amendment in respect of prom­ ise seems discernible at the present time. While this doubtless reflects the fact that lack of a general recognition of unilateral promises seems not to cause any major problems in German law,16 it can nonetheless be argued that a general promissory provision in the BGB would create greater con­ sistency. This would be so because the current approach singles out some instances of seriously intended unilateral promises as worthy of protec­ tion, yet denying all other instances such protection, while demonstrat­ ing no evident reason for this casuistic approach. The only apparent defence of the present position is that the instances of unilateral prom­ ise which have been given protection in the BGB are those which most commonly arise. Yet why should frequency of occurrence of a particular type of promise determine its legal effectiveness? Are not less frequently occurring but seriously intended instances of unilateral promise equally worthy of being given effect to in law? The great unanswered question for German law is why, having accepted the principle of pacta sunt servanda, it does not apply the same logic to unilateral promises, but rather imple­ ments a principle that only some of these promises are enforced.

(e)  The development of supranational model law

The likelihood of any of the national systems studied unilaterally develop­ ing their law in a way which would give a more explicit and a greater role to promise is not great. That assessment is made on the basis that there does not appear to be any groundswell of opinion in any of the jurisdic­ tions studied pressing for such development, albeit that in some jurisdic­ tions promissory scholarship is attracting more attention in recent years than it has for some time. Realistically, it is to supranational model codes, and the possibility of the eventual adoption of such codes into law, that one must look to advance the cause of promise.

15The judicial development of the doctrine of transferred loss (Drittenschadensliquidation), discussed at p. 330, being one such example.

16As the discussion in (primarily) Ch. 4 has indicated.