By James Gordley
Professor James Gordley opens this quantity with a concise background of the criminal prestige of supplies. within the significant a part of the booklet felony specialists study how twelve glossy ecu criminal platforms take care of fifteen concrete events during which a promise will not be enforceable--situations that come with presents, loans, bailments, homes, rewards, and brokerage contracts. regardless of ameliorations in criminal doctrine, the quantity finds similarities within the effects. this is often the second one accomplished undertaking of the typical center of eu deepest legislation introduced on the collage of Trento.
Read or Download Enforceability promises european contract law PDF
Similar comparative books
Two times within the final century the often stalwart financial system of usa has crumbled—first in 1929, whilst the inventory marketplace crash that resulted in the nice melancholy hit, and back with the monetary marketplace meltdown of 2008-2009 that remains crippling a lot of the United States. whereas it's nonetheless too quickly to kingdom unequivocally how this most modern monetary catastrophe happened, it truly is attainable to theorize that a lot of what has occurred might have been foreseen or even avoided—just because it might have been in 1929.
- Poverty Targeting in Asia
- China's New Industrialization Strategy: Was Chairman Mao Really Necessary?
- The Life Cyclists: Fisher, Keynes, Modigliani and Friedman
- The Airport Economist
- Strategic Adaptation: Cross-Cultural Differences in Company Responses to Economic Crisis
- Adapting Legal Cultures (Onati International Series in Law and Society)
Additional info for Enforceability promises european contract law
Fenton (1777) 2 Cowp. 544. Ball v. Hesketh (1697) Comb. 381. Cumber v. Wane (1721) 1 Strange 426, followed in the famous case of Foakes v. Beer (1884) 9 57 Stilck v. Myrick (1809) 2 Camp. 317, 6 Esp. 129. App. Cas. 605. 59 They did not explain why, if that was so, consideration was sometimes present when there was no exchange. Nevertheless, once this step had been taken, the common law of contract began to look on paper as though it had the structure of continental law. Contracts were either bargains, in which case they were enforceable without a formality in assumpsit, or they were liberalities, in which case they were enforceable with the formality of a seal in covenant.
Does it matter if Albert has taken a job that requires him to have a car but does not pay enough for him to rent one? As we have seen, in common law, just as sometimes consideration was found for some promises that were not bargains, sometimes it was not found for promises which were not favours or gifts. Since these promises are often made in a commercial context, one wonders what reason there might be for refusing to enforce them. Certainly, the reason is not to protect the promisor against his own generous impulses, as it might be in other contexts.
See Dig. 3. J. Gordley, ‘Good Faith in Contract Law in the Medieval Ius Commune’, in R. Zimmermann and S. ), Good Faith in European Contract Law (2000), 93. H. Grotius, De iure belli ac pacis libri tres, ed. B. J. A. 1–7; S. 8–10. J. Domat, Les loix civiles dans leur ordre naturel, 2nd edn (Paris, 1713), liv. 1, tit. 1, § 1, nos. 5–6; § 5, no. 13; R. Pothier, Traité des obligations, in M. ), Oeuvres de Pothier, 2nd edn, vol. II (Paris, 1861), § 42. 6 t h e e n f o rc e a b i l i t y o f p ro m i s e s Whether gratuitous promises should be binding on consent was initially less clear.