I. Introduction
The principle of good faith has been one of the most relevant general principles of the Continental European legal tradition. Emerging from the Roman law, good faith has gained a very important role in the general theory of contracts. Both legal traditions, Civil Law and Common Law have adopted this principle as a duty in which parties to a contract must perform their obligations. However, with regard to its application to concrete cases, both legal systems have articulated their own theories and analysis of this principle.
For the purpose of analyzing these different, and sometimes similar, approaches to the principle of good faith, I will begin by providing a general definition of good faith and its etymology. Then, I will introduce general notions of both Common Law and Civil Law legal systems, pointing out their main distinctions. And lastly, I will focus on how both legal systems have recognized and adopted good faith in their Contract Law. For Common Law I will focus my analysis in American Law, and for Civil Law I will focus in French and Argentine law.
II. Good Faith (Etymology and Definitions)
What is “good faith”? To answer this question it is necessary to look into the etymology of these two words. Good, as understood within the context of good faith, comes from the Latin bonus-bona, which makes reference to something that has goodness. On the other hand, faith- from the Latin fides- means complete trust or confidence in someone or something. These two words combined together form “Bona Fide”, which means authentic, genuine, real; made or done in a honest and sincere way. Furthermore, according to the Oxford English Dictionary good faith means fidelity, loyalty, honesty of intention in entering into...
... middle of paper ...
...y employs the adversarial model, in which litigants have a more active role, contesting with each other to put forth a case before an independent decision-maker.
Conclusion:
Conclusively, the duty of good faith in contract law does not seem to vary significantly between these two legal systems. In fact, we can notice that it is a single concept with a wide range of interpretations but with the same roots. In any case, good faith implies honesty, loyalty, faithfulness, and absence of fraud or malice between the parties to a contract. In Common Law specially related as the duty to preform a contract in good faith, and in Civil Law as a rule in which parties shall behave acting loyalty and fair dealing, even before the parties have entered into the contract, that is to say, during the phase of negotiation until the extinction of the obligations arising out of it.
Justices Heydon and Crennan found that the intention should be determined by “the words used, not a subjective intention which may have existed but which cannot be extracted from those words.” They went on further to suggest that the “subjective intention is irrelevant both to the question of whether a trust exists and to the question of what its terms are.” Justices Heydon and Crennan made analogy between the form of intention required in express trusts with the intention of contracts, statutes and The Constitution, that is, they are all to be construed objectively.
If you were to take a survey on views of faith, you would come up with a million different definitions. To me, faith is taking risks in situations where there is no fear of the outcome. Faith is confidence, sureness, and bravery. If you have no faith, then you have no reason to go out in the world and survive. Faith is also a positive mindset and energy you embody. According to the book, “What is Faith?”, the author, Terrence W. Tilley feels that faith is a relationship between the one who has faith and the irreducible energizing source of meaning and center of value in one’s life. In the definition, “One” means the object of faith and the relationship between them. He takes the concept of faith from a late writer, David Foster Wallace, to key point his argument in the book. Wallace’s concept was that we don’t understand what faith is and how faith shapes the course of our lives. Tilley supports his claim by discussing the common misunderstandings of faith.
Twomey, D. (2013). Anderson's Business Law and the Legal Environment, Comprehensive Volume [VitalSouce bookshelf version]. Retrieved from http://digitalbookshelf.southuniversity.edu/books/9781285696683/id/L35-1-7
(7) H. L., Hart, The Concept of Law, ch. VIII, and D., Lyons, Ethics and the rule of law, Cambridge University Press, 1989, p. 78 ff,
The law of contract in many legal systems requires that parties should act in good faith. English law refuses to impose such a general doctrine of good faith in the field of contract law. However, despite not recognizing the principle, English contract law is still influenced by notions of good faith. As Lord Bingham affirmed, the law has developed numerous piecemeal solutions in response to problems of unfairness. This essay will seek to examine the current and future state of good faith in English contract law.
Given that it lies within the domain of equity, the case law indicates a great flexibility in its application, both in the substantive requirements of proof demanded by the courts and in the manner in which the courts will satisfy the equity. It is the first of these aspects of the doctrine that I will examine in this essay. I will look at the shift in the evidentiary requirements and what a representation (or an assurance of rights), a reliance (a change of position on the basis of that assurance) and a detriment (or unconscionable disadvantage) - the three pre-requisites for a successful claim - have come to mean with regard to case law and in particular the judgement of Judge Robert Walker in the Court of Appeal in Gillett v. Holt[1], in which the plaintiff had been given repeated assurances over many decades that he would inherit the defendant's estate, and remained in service to him at least p... ... middle of paper ... ... operty, 16th Ed, Butterworths K. Gray & S.F Gray - Land Law, 2nd Ed, Butterworths Professor Cedric D Bell - Land: The Law of Real Property, 3rd Ed, Old
...rence Etherton). The evidentiary requirements for the two concepts are different and it can be said that the constructive trust is more difficult to prove. Furthermore, depending on the facts of the case coupled with statutory provisions, either of the doctrine may prove to be more relevant in order to achieve the general aim that was identified at the beginning of the essay, which is the recognition of real property rights informally created .
Over the years, different jurisdictions had built their specific system of rules of conduct to govern behaviour. These legal systems, influenced by historical and cultural roots, can be distinguished in two families, the Civil law and the Common law legal systems. The distinctions lies in the process in which each decision is make by the judge and on the legal sources that shapes the law. Indeed, by contrast to the Common law system, which is largely based on Precedents, meaning the decisions that have already been made by judges in similar cases, the Civil law system is based on legislator’s decisions and legal codes with which judges have to justify their judgment . Consequently, instead of referencing to concepts and rules
HILLIARD, J. And O’SULLIVAN, J. (2012) The Law of Contract [Online] 5th Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available from - http://books.google.co.uk/ [Accessed: 2nd January 2014]
In this essay I will be discussing how the formal theory of the rule of law is an erroneous means of establishing laws within a state. A central theme to addressing this is essay is the distinction between formal and substantive theories of the rule of law. In order to reach my conclusion of the formal theory being proven to be insufficient, one must first appreciate the significant advantages which the substantive theory obtains. However, before doing so, I will briefly mention the importance of the rule of law in society and the requirements it needs to fulfil.
This judgment given set criterion which is still been used in the modern court system and due to this case it was developed that an offer of contract can be unilateral and doesn’t have to be made to a specific party only. Also it was developed to that the acceptance of an offer does not require a notification and that once the concerned party purchases the product the contract is active then and there itself. And it was also established that purchase of an item is a fine example of consideration and therefore makes it a valid contract. (Smith, 2000).
It is argued that the key factor in ADR application is that all it’s’ method are designed to assist the disputing parties resolve their differences in a manner that is creative and most suited to the particular dispute. Yet these achievements are not sweeping enough to conclude that the adversarial procedures are irrelevant. Though some people see ADR methods as supplanting the adversarial system, but these thoughts could only hold water where the courts in many jurisdictions are unable to resolve all disputes in a manner appealing to litigants, but until then ADR methods will be designated as collaborative dispute resolution system with the conventional litigation system.
Lord Atkins, established the ‘Neighbour Principle” that sought to consider the third party beyond the agreement between the manufacturer and purchaser. This argument formed the Obiter Dictum, defined as a ‘remark’ or an ‘accessory argument’ stated during a ruling (Palmirani, et al. 2012, p.
The relationship between law and morality has been argued over by legal theorists for centuries. The debate is constantly be readdressed with new cases raising important moral and legal questions. This essay will explain the nature of law and morality and how they are linked.
The Lotus case garners attention due to the fact that it was among the first cases dealing with whether jurisdiction was assumed in accordance with principles of international law. While the Lotus case was heard in the context of criminal jurisdiction over a collision in the high seas, the Lotus principle has been applied in a variety of other cases in varying contexts. For this reason, the judgment of the Permanent Court of International Justice is critiqued for specifically answering only the question in the special agreement as the continued application of the Lotus Principle as a general principle in other contexts such as anti-trust regulations may lead to ambiguous results.