- •1 The concept of promise
- •1. What is a promise?
- •(a) A definition of promise
- •(b) Promise: objectively existing phenomenon or human construction?
- •(c) Testing component elements of the definition of promise
- •(i) A promise is more than merely an internal mental process: promises as speech acts demonstrating commitment
- •(ii) A promise is a commitment to a performance of the promisor
- •(iv) A promise must relate to the future
- •(v) A promise must state a commitment in favour of another party
- •(vi) Things which are not components of the definition
- •2. Three crucial qualities of relevance to promises: gratuitousness, conditionality, unilaterality
- •(a) Gratuitousness
- •(b) Conditionality
- •(c) Unilaterality
- •3. Acts having some similarity to, but which are distinct from, promises
- •(a) Vows
- •(b) Oaths
- •(c) Threats
- •(d) Donation (gift)
- •(e) Warranties (guarantees)
- •(f) Agreement
- •4. Promise as a culturally universal and significant idea
- •5. Preliminary conclusions
- •2 Promises as obligations: morality and law
- •1. Introduction: promise as a type of obligation
- •2. Taxonomies of obligations in morality and law
- •3. Promises as moral obligations: the practice of promising
- •(a) Promising as moral, immoral, or amoral?
- •(b) Source of the morality of the practice of promising
- •(i) Promising as a virtuous act; the natural law tradition
- •Scripture
- •The canon law
- •Objections to the morality of promising as having a natural law/virtue basis
- •(ii) Promising as an act of the will: respect for personal autonomy
- •(iii) The ‘contract theory’ of promising
- •(iv) Consequentialism (utilitarianism)
- •(v) Reliance theory
- •A more limited role for reliance
- •(vi) Conclusion on the competing theories of the moral value of promises
- •4. Powers and sanctions relevant to breach of morally binding promises
- •3 The historical development of promissory ideas in the law
- •1. Roman law
- •(a) Formal contracts: the stipulatio
- •(b) Informal contracts
- •(c) Conclusion on Roman law
- •2. Medieval contract law
- •(a) Continental legal thought
- •(b) English law
- •(i) Debt
- •(ii) Covenant
- •(iii) Unilaterality and bilaterality in early English contract law
- •(iv) Assumpsit
- •(v) The doctrine of consideration
- •3. The Northern natural law school
- •(a) Hugo Grotius
- •(b) Samuel von Pufendorf
- •(c) James Dalrymple (Viscount Stair)
- •4. Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries
- •(a) English law
- •(b) Scots law
- •(c) Civilian systems
- •(i) German law
- •(ii) Robert Pothier
- •5. Contract theory and practice in the twentieth century
- •6. A revitalised will theory
- •4 Formation of contract
- •1. Wasted pre-contractual expenditure following termination of contract negotiations
- •(a) A Common law solution to the problem of pre-contractual expenditure: promissory and proprietary estoppel
- •(i) Promissory estoppel: promissory or reliance-based principle?
- •(ii) Promissory estoppel and failed contractual negotiations
- •(iii) Proprietary estoppel and failed contractual negotiations
- •(iv) Conclusion on estoppel and pre-contractual expenditure
- •(b) A civilian solution to wasted pre-contractual expenditure: culpa in contrahendo and bad faith termination of contractual negotiations
- •(c) A mixed legal system solution to wasted pre-contractual expenditure: liability from an implied assurance that a valid contract exists
- •(d) Other solutions to the problem of pre-contractual liability
- •(e) Conclusion on pre-contractual liability
- •2. Pre-contractual duties of disclosure
- •3. Offer and acceptance
- •(a) Offer and acceptance as conditional promise
- •(b) The traditional offer and acceptance model as a unilateral dictation of terms
- •(c) Distinguishing offer from conditional promise
- •(d) Problem cases for a promissory analysis of offer and acceptance
- •(e) Conceiving of offers as binding
- •4. Enforcement of auction/tender conditions
- •5. The firm or irrevocable offer
- •(a) Characterising the firm offer
- •(b) Promises of reward
- •6. Options
- •7. Letters of intent and preliminary contracts
- •(a) An intent to contract
- •(b) A preliminary contract, envisaging a further contract
- •(c) An expectation of a formal contract
- •(d) An expression of intention to do something other than contract
- •(e) A genuine unilateral promissory intention
- •8. Error in formation of contract
- •(a) Choosing the policies which inform the rules on error
- •(b) Constructing workable classifications which implement the policies chosen
- •(i) Roman Law
- •(ii) The Common law
- •(iii) The mixed legal systems
- •(iv) German law
- •(v) An ideal approach to promissory error?
- •9. Extortion in the formation of contract
- •(a) English law
- •(b) The mixed legal systems
- •(c) German law
- •(d) Conclusion on extortion
- •10. Implied terms
- •11. Consideration
- •(a) The Common law
- •(b) The mixed legal systems
- •(c) German law
- •(d) Model law
- •12. Requirements of form: unwarranted restrictions on promising?
- •5 Third party rights
- •1. The challenge to third party rights in contract
- •2. The historical legal background
- •3. Third party rights in modern contract law
- •(a) The Common law
- •(b) The mixed legal systems
- •(c) German law
- •(d) Model law
- •(e) Conclusion on third party rights under contract
- •4. Assignment
- •(a) English law
- •(b) The mixed legal systems
- •(c) German law
- •(d) Model law
- •5. The problem of transferred loss
- •(a) English law
- •(b) The mixed legal systems
- •(c) German law
- •6. Conclusion on third parties
- •6 Contractual remedies
- •1. The ‘interests’ protected by remedies
- •2. Mutuality of promises and withholding of performance
- •(a) The Common law
- •(b) Mixed legal systems
- •(c) German law
- •(d) Model law
- •3. Specific performance
- •(a) English law
- •(b) Mixed legal systems
- •(c) German law
- •(d) Model law
- •4. Perfect or substantial performance of contractual promises
- •(a) Contracts for services
- •(b) Sales of goods
- •5. Injunction (interdict)
- •6. Damages
- •(a) Contractual damages and interests other than the performance interest
- •(b) Damages for mere breach of contract, or for fault?
- •(c) English law
- •(d) Mixed legal systems
- •(e) German law
- •(f) Model law
- •7. Liquidated damages: penalty clauses
- •(a) English law
- •(b) Mixed legal systems
- •(c) German law
- •(d) Model law
- •8. Termination of contract for non-performance
- •(a) Historical origins of the right to terminate
- •(b) English law
- •(c) Mixed legal systems
- •(d) German law
- •(e) Model law
- •9. Restitution following termination for non-performance
- •(a) English law
- •(b) Mixed legal systems
- •(c) German law
- •(d) Model law
- •10. Good faith and contractual remedies
- •7 The renunciation of contractual rights
- •1. Terminology
- •2. Bilateral or unilateral renunciations
- •3. Characterising undertakings not to enforce contractual rights
- •4. Express contractual or promissory renunciation of rights
- •(a) The Common law
- •(b) Mixed legal systems
- •(c) German law
- •5. Forbearance, promissory estoppel and personal bar
- •(a) The Common law
- •(i) Forbearance at common law
- •(ii) Forbearance in equity: promissory estoppel in English law
- •(iii) Promissory estoppel in American Common law
- •(iv) Conclusion on promissory estoppel in the Common law
- •(b) Mixed legal systems
- •(i) South Africa
- •(ii) Louisiana
- •(iii) Scotland
- •(c) German law
- •6. Model Law and renunciations of rights
- •8 The future of promise in contract law
- •1. The restricted role of promise in the modern law
- •2. Future possible development of the law
- •(a) General remarks
- •(b) The Common law
- •(c) The mixed legal systems
- •(d) German law
- •(e) The development of supranational model law
- •3. Conclusion on the future of promise
318 |
Promises and Contract Law |
In Louisiana, the Civil Code provides110 that all rights may be assigned save those ‘pertaining to obligations which are purely personal’, that is to say obligations which are intended to be enforceable only by a specific party or against a specific party,111 though the right to assign a right may be excluded in the contract.112 The codal provision further provides that the assignee ‘is subrogated to the rights of the assignor against the debtor’,113 subrogation being defined114 as ‘the substitution of one person to the rights of another’ either conventionally or legally. This, however, leaves unsettled the question of whether an assignment is seen as a bilateral (and possibly contractual) or unilateral juridical act. The answer appears to be that Louisiana law conceives of assignment as a contract, though such a conclusion requires to be pieced together from a number of observations: (i) the provisions on assignment are located within the title on sale, suggesting that assignment is conceived of as a kind of sale, sale being of course one specific type of contract; (ii) the current provisions on assignment derive from the provisions of the French Code on assignment115 and, while those provisions are themselves unclear on the contractual nature of assignment, the secondary commentary to them makes the contractual analysis clear; (iii) Article 2649 of the Louisiana Code makes a tangential reference to the nature of assignment as a contract when it provides that when ‘the assignor of a right did not warrant the solvency of the debtor but knew of his insolvency, the assignee without such knowledge may obtain rescission of the contract’; and (iv) there are several cases which similarly tangentially refer to assignment as a contract.116 Taken together, these observations lead reasonably to the view that assignment in Louisiana is a contract, thus requiring the consent of both parties before it takes effect.
(c) German law
German law requires that an assignment of rights (as well as a delegation of duties) be achieved via contract. §398 BGB provides that a ‘claim may
110CC Art. 2642.
111‘Strictly personal obligations’ are defined in CC Art. 1766. As an example of an obligation which is strictly personal on the part of the obligee, Art. 1766 mentions one where ‘the performance is intended for the benefit of the obligee exclusively’.
112 |
CC Art. 2653. |
113 |
CC Art. 2642. |
114 |
CC Art. 1825. |
115 |
Code civil Arts. 1689–1701. |
116See, for instance, Succession of Delassize, 8 Rob. 259 (La 1844), in which, discussing proof of assignment, it was held that no writing was required since ‘[a]ll contracts which are not expressly required to be reduced to writing, can, we apprehend, be made verbally’.
Third party rights |
319 |
be transferred by the obligee to another person by contract with that person’, adding that the transfer takes effect at the point at which the contract of assignment is entered into. Such a contract of transfer is separate to any preceding contract for the assignment which may precede the latter contract of transfer. The contract of transfer however merely affects the position of the assignor and assignee inter se: until the debtor receives notification of the assignment, he remains free to tender performance to the assignor.117 In other words, intimation of the assignment to the debtor is required to bring the assignee and debtor in to a formal relationship. Assignment may be prohibited by the parties in their contract.118
There is separate provision in the BGB for the transfer of duties, which again requires to be achieved under a contract,119 as well as a further provision stipulating that any such transfer requires the ratification of the party to whom the debt is due before the transfer becomes effective.120
(d) Model law
In the DCFR, the general rule is that all rights to performance are assignable unless otherwise provided by law.121 Substitution of debtors is treated separately.122 The general rule on assignment is worked out in a quite radical way through the further provision that a contractual prohibition or restriction on assignment does not prevent such assignment.123 This puts the DCFR position at odds with the position in a number of national systems that the parties are free to prohibit assignment if they so stipulate in their contract and that such a prohibition is effective to prevent an assignment. The DCFR position may be argued to undermine the right of a promisor to determine the nature of the promise undertaken by it, in that it restricts the promisor’s right to determine to whom the promise is to be performed. A sop to the freedom of the promisor to determine the nature of the right promised is offered by way of the fact that ‘personal rights’ may not be assigned unless with the permission of the creditor,
117 §407(1) BGB. 118 §399 BGB. 119 §414 BGB. 120 §415 BGB.
121Art. III.-5:105(1). The applicability of the regime on assignment only to rights of performance is somewhat limiting. For instance, in a case where A lets property to B, and B then sublets the property to C, a right in the lease between A and B entitling B to trigger arbitration in relation to a matter (such as whether the property is in need of repair by A) by an agreed arbiter would appear not to be able to be assigned to C, even if it might be C who has a direct interest in such an arbitration, because such a right is not to a ‘right to performance’ by A.
122 See Arts. III.-5:201 to III.-5:209. |
123 Art. III.-5:108(1). |
