미국법상 약속적 금반언에 기한 전계약적 책임

• 영문명: Precontractual Liability Based on Promissory Extoppel under American Law
• 발행기관: 한국사법학회(구 한국비교사법학회)
• 저자명: 이혜리(Hye-Ri Lee)
• 간행물 정보: 『비교사법』比較私法 제15권 제4호, 447~481쪽, 전체 35쪽
• 주제분류: 법학 > 법학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2008.12.30

영문 초록

Since parties in entering the contract strongly wish to maximize the possibility of its successful completion, they spent substantial amount of time in negotiation. During this negotiation, a party often might mislead other party to think the contract would be entered although they have not formalized the contract yet. Relying on such appearance, the other party might result in incuring the expense in preparing so that he or she can successfully enter the contract. Under such circumstance, Korean law provides the remedy for the other party based on tort law since there is no contract has been established. On the other hand, the American law classifies the different basis for precontractual liability(unjust enrichment resulting from the negotiations, misrepresentation made during the negotiations, agreement to negotiation in good faith, specific promise made during the negotiations-promissory estoppel). Especially the American case(Hoffman v. Red owl Stores) has found the precontractual liability by ruling that the act of reliance by the promisee to his detriment provided a substitute for consideration and promissory estoppel. furthermore, such promissory estoppel originally was invoked as a substitute for consideration rendering a gratuitous promise enforcible as a contract. However, under Hoffman case, it is not clear when promissory estoppel should be applied. Not only that, the court does not illustrate the extent of damage the court could provide under promissory estoppel. After Hoffman case, there are many different theories relating to promissory estoppel in precontractual liability. Different theories argue whether promissory estoppel is based on torts law or contract law or both or either. However, it seems that which part of civil law that promissory estoppel is based on does not matter if promissory estoppel provides the basis for remedy under precontractual liability. In order to accomplish the above goal we need to come up with more stable and definite formular for its application and damages for the loss.

목차

Ⅰ. 서론

Ⅱ. 전계약적 책임(Precontractual Liability)

Ⅲ. 약속적 금반언의 원칙 일반론

Ⅳ. 약속적 금반언 원칙의 요건과 효과

Ⅴ. 결론

【참고문헌】

[Abstract]

키워드

전계약적 책임 약속적 금반언의 원칙 계약교섭의 결렬 신뢰이익 계약체결상의 과실 교섭의 부당파기 Precontractual Liability Promissory Estoppel Reliance Damage Negotiation Injustice Precontractual Reliance