No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Unifying European Contract Law: Identifying a European Pre-contractual Obligation to Inform
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2017
Extract
The movement towards common principles of European contract law has been described as inevitable. In the words of one of its foremost proponents, ‘it is a historic law that this unification is going to happen sooner or later’. It has been difficult to ignore in recent years the volume of work discussing developments in this area of law. One might note, in particular, the Private Law in European Context series published by Kluwer Law International and the Cambridge University Press Common Core of European Private Law project. Further, the publication of Communications by the EC Commission in 2001, 2003 and 2004 has served to promote an ongoing discussion on the nature and quality of the acquis communautaire and the ‘opportuneness’ of any form of non-sector-specific instrument in the area of European contract law. Such intervention, it has been said, forms ‘the riggings of a ship which is about to set sail’.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge 2005
References
1 Lando, O, ‘Is Codification needed in Europe?’ (1993) 1 European Review of Private Law 157 Google Scholar.
2 Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on European Contract Law, COM(2001)398 final (11 July 2001) [2001] OJ C255/1, presenting four non-exclusive options ranging from no EC action in this field (Option I) to the adoption of a uniform European contract law (Option IV). The latter option has received support from the European Parliament (since 1989) and from the European Council (since 1999).
3 Commission, A more coherent European Contract Law–An Action Plan, COM(2003)68 final, (12 Feb 2003) [2003]OJ C63/1. Comment Hesselink, MW, ‘The European Commission’s Action Plan: Towards a More Coherent European Contract Law’ (2004) 12 ERPL 397 Google Scholar, who notes the increasing influence of the intention to develop a common frame of reference (CFR).
4 Commission, European Contract Law and the Revision of the Acquis: The Way Forward, COM(2004)651 final (11 Oct 2004).
5 An interestingly neutral term: see 2003 report, above n 3, 2 and 23.
6 Yet, whilst the prospect of any core principles of European contract law appears to be postponed, this is still seen as a goal in some shape or form. This may be compared with the support given to an Exclusive Code by the majority of authors in Grundmann, S and Stuyck, J (eds), An Academic Green Paper on European Contract Law (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2002)Google Scholar.
7 C von Bar, ‘Paving the Way Forward with Principles of European Private Law’ in Ibid, 138.
8 Lando, O and Beale, H (eds), The Principles of European Contract Law Parts I and II (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2000), p.xxiii Google Scholar.
9 Ibid.
10 Lando, O, Clive, E, Prüm, A and Zimmermann, R (eds), The Principles of European Contract Law Part III (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2003)Google Scholar.
11 Hesselink, M, The New European Private Law (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2002) 46 Google Scholar.
12 Legrand, P famously in ‘European Legal Systems are not Converging’ (1996) 45 Inter national and Comparative Law Quarterly 52 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and in ‘Against a European Civil Code’ (1997) 60 MLR 44.
13 It has become almost a cliché in this context to cite Cicero, De Officiis III, 319.
14 Harris, D and Tallon, D (eds), Contract Law Today:Anglo-French Comparisons (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1989) 187 Google Scholar.
15 Kessler, F and Fine, E, ‘Culpa in contrahendo, Bargaining in Good Faith and Freedom of Contract; a Comparative Study’ (1964) 77 Harvard Law Review 401, 438CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
16 German law, for example, accepts that keeping silent may amount to fraud under para 123 of the BGB or support a claim that the contract be rescinded for a mistake concerning ‘such characteristics of a thing … which are considered essential in practice’ under para 119II (Eigenschaftsirrtum ). There is, however, no general duty to disclose unless the other party is found to have relied on the knowledge or expertise of its contracting party or where there is already a relationship based on mutual trust and good faith. See Brox, H, Allgemeiner Teil des BGB (26th edn, Cologne, Heymanns, 2002) 193–4Google Scholar and 208, Markesinis, BS, Lorenz, W and Dannemann, G, The German Law of Obligations. Vol. I. The Law of Contracts and Restitution: a Comparative Introduction (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1997) 209 Google Scholar and Ferrand, F, Droit privé allemand (Paris, Dalloz, 1997)Google Scholar No 245—there is no general obligation of disclosure in business contracts: BGH 13 July 1988 NJW 1989 764.
17 See V Roppo, ‘Formation of Contract and Pre-contractual Information from an Italian and Romance Perspective’, paper delivered at the SECOLA 2004 conference not yet published.
18 ‘Good faith and fair dealing’ are defined by the Commission at para 1.201 as ‘community standards of decency, fairness and reasonableness in commercial transactions’, above n 8, 113. ‘Good faith’ is seen as subjective, meaning honesty and fairness in mind, whilst ‘fair dealing’ is regarded as objective and indicates the observance of fairness in fact: above n 8, 115–116.
19 Lando, O and Beale, H (eds), The Principles of European Contract Law Parts I and II, above n 8, 253 Google Scholar.
20 The literature on good faith is voluminous. Whilst some authors have sought to highlight the differences between different states—see, for eg M Bridge, ‘Does Anglo-Canadian Contract Law Need a Doctrine of Good Faith?’ [1984] Can Bus LJ 385—other authors have been more optimistic: Lücke, HLK, ‘Good Faith and Contractual Performance’ in Finn, PF (ed), Essays on Contract (Sydney, The Law Book Company Ltd, 1987)Google Scholar. See, generally, Zimmermann, R and Whittaker, S, Good Faith in European Contract Law (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000)Google Scholar.
21 Fabre-Magnan, M, ‘Defects of Consent in Contract Law’ in Hartkamp, A, Hesselink, M, Hondius, E, Perron, E du and Joustra, C (eds), Towards a European Civil Code (2nd edn, The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 1998)Google Scholar.
22 Davies v London & Provincial Marine Insurance Co (1878) 8 Ch D 469, 474 per Fry J. See also Keates v Cadogan (1851) 10 CB 591.
23 See Lord Atkin in Bell v Lever Bros [1932] AC 161, 227: ‘Ordinarily the failure to disclose a material fact which might affect the mind of a prudent contractor does not give the right to avoid the contract. The principle of caveat emptor applies’.
24 Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597, provided, of course, that no representation has been made to induce this assumption.
25 See Lord Atkin in Bell v Lever Bros [1932] AC 161, 224.
26 Ibid . As Halson has remarked, this ‘is really no more than an application of the more general disinclination on the part of the common law to recognise a duty to negotiate in good faith’ Halson, R, Contract Law (Harlow, Longman, 2001) 31 Google Scholar.
27 [2004] 2 P & CR 30. See also Pawlowski, M, ‘Things that Go Bump in the Night’ (2000) 144 Solicitors’ Journal 1166 Google Scholar. cf. Taylor v Hamer [2003] 1 EGLR 103, CA. This case received much adverse comment in the British press. The Guardian newspaper described the decision as one which ‘is likely to cause confusion among house-sellers and their legal advisers, and perhaps even encourage dishonesty’: Guardian (13 March 2004).
28 Beale, HG (ed), Chitty on Contracts (29th edn, London, Sweet and Maxwell, 2004) 6–152 Google Scholar, Bower, GS Spencer, Turner, AK and Sutton, RJ, The Law Relating to Actionable Non-Disclosure (2nd edn, London, Butterworths, 1990)Google Scholar paras 7.06–7.16, although Treitel, GH, Law of Contract(11th edn, London, Sweet and Maxwell, 2003) 398 Google Scholar, finds that it is confined to unusual defects of title which a reasonably prudent purchaser could not be expected to discov er: see Molyneux v Harvey [1903] 2 KB 487.
29 The so-called ‘Sellers Property Information Form’. See Abbey, RM and Richards, MB, A Practical Approach to Conveyancing (6th edn, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004)Google Scholar.
30 Question 13 of the standard Law Society form, which has since been withdrawn.
31 Adopting the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in Economides v Commercial Assurance Co plc [1998] QB 587.
32 Para 50.
33 A general duty of disclosure had been argued at first instance before HH Judge Langan QC, but was rejected and this finding was not appealed.
34 See Clarke, MA, The Law of Insurance Contracts (4th edn London, Lloyd’s of London Press, 2002)Google Scholar.
35 Identifying which terms are material has proven to be an ongoing problem in insurance law: see, recently, Drake Insurance plc v Provident Insurance plc [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 268 Google Scholar,
36 See London Assurance v Mansel (1879) LR 11 Ch D 363; Lambert v Co-operative Insurance Society [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 485. Contracts for family settlements are also treated as contracts uberrimae fidei: Gordon v Gordon (1816) 3 Swan 400; Greenwood v Greenwood (1863) 1 DJ & S 28.
37 See Martin, JE, Hanbury & Martin’s Modern Equity (16th edn, London, Sweet and Max well, 2001)Google Scholar ch 21.
38 See also the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which places a duty on those responsible for producing listing particulars to ensure that they contain, at the very least, adequate information to enable investors and their professional advisers to make informed decisions about the issuer and securities in question: see ss 80 and 82. There is also some authority that a duty to disclose may arise by virtue of trade custom. For example, in Jones v Bowden (1813) 4 Taunt 847, 128 ER 565, the court held that it was usual in a sale by auction of drugs to state in the broker’s catalogue if any damage had been suffered after transport by sea.
39 In this Act, terms are implied as to title (s 12), sale by description (s 13), quality or fitness for purpose (s 14) and sale by sample (s 15). See also the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.
40 s 14 (2C)(a). The seller is equally not liable for defects which ought to have been revealed by an examination by the buyer before the contract is made: s 14(2C)(b).
41 See Nicholas, B, The Pre-contractual Obligation to Disclose information in Harris, D and Tallon, D (eds), Contract Law Today (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989) 170 Google Scholar. For criticism of this approach, see Farnsworth, EA, ‘Comments on Professor Waddams’ “Precontractual Duties of Disclose” (1991) 19 Can Bus LJ 351 Google Scholar.
42 Note that, in contrast to the Sale of Goods Act 1979, the seller does not have to be acting ‘in the course of a business.’
43 Art 1642.
44 See Art 1645; Ghestin, J, Conformité et garanties dans la vente (Paris, LGDJ, 1983)Google Scholar; Cass civ, 24 Nov 1954 JCP 1955.8565; Cass civ, 21 Nov 1972 Bull civ I No 257 224, JCP 1974 II 17890 note J Ghestin; Cass com, 15 Nov 1973 D 1972.211. Similar provisions exist also for contracts of lease, lease and hire of services, and loan (Arts 1721, 1792, 2270, 1891 and 1898).
45 In addition to other protective concepts such as duress and undue influence which target abuse of the contracting process. Liability for misrepresentation, in contrast, focuses on the active conduct by the defendant in making an unambiguous false statement of existing or past fact which is addressed to the claimant and on which the claimant has reasonably relied.
46 See Van Oppen v Trustees of Bedford College [1990] 1 WLR 235.
47 [1988] QB 665.
48 As Bingham LJ stated, ‘She was entitled to know from the defendants that the safeguard, subject to which access [to the children] had been ordered, was no longer effective’ [1988] QB at 677.
49 See Smith v Land and House Property Corpn (1884) 28 Ch D 7 (statement of opinion by someone with superior knowledge interpreted as statement of fact) and Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch D 459 (statement of intention treated as a statement of fact as to the present state of one’s mind).
50 See, eg, Horsfall v Thomas (1862) 1 H & C 90, 158 ER 813 (although because the buyer had not examined the gun, it could not be said to have induced him to enter the contract) and Dimmock v Hallett (1866) LR 2 Ch App 21.
51 See Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597.
52 [1936] Ch 575. See also Davies v London & Provincial Marine Insurance Co (1878) 8 Ch D 469, 475 and Hudson, AH, ‘Making Misrepresentations’ (1969) 85 LQR 524 Google Scholar.
53 Romer LJ at [1936] Ch at 586.
54 [1976] QB 801. Contrast Howard Marine and Dredging Co Ltd v Ogden & Sons (Excavations) Ltd [1978] QB 574, CA.
55 Note also the use of the collateral warranty to circumvent the strict rules of privity: Shanklin Pier v Detel Products Ltd [1951] 2 KB 854.
56 Above n 8, 256.
57 Recueil Fenet I, 463f: ‘[u]n homme qui traite avec un autre homme doit être attentive et sage; il doit veiller à son intérêt, prendre les informations convenables et ne pas négliger ce qui est utile’. The translations in the text are my own.
58 See, eg, Breton’s note to Cass civ, 30 May 1927 Gaz Pal 1927.2.338; S 1928.1.105.
59 See Cass civ, 19 May 1958, Bull civ I, 198. Until this date, concealment had not amounted to dol: see Cass civ, 17 Feb 1874 S 1874.1.248.
60 M Juglart, ‘L’obligation de renseignements dans les contrats’ [1945] Revue trimestrielle de droit civil 1: ‘cet esprit de solidarité qui caractérise notre époque, par réaction contre l’individ ualisme excessif du XIXe siècle’.
61 See, eg, Ghestin, J, Traité de droit civil: La formation du contrat (3rd edn Paris, LGDJ, 1993)Google Scholar No 566 et ff, ‘La réticence, le dol et l’erreur sur les qualités substantielles ‘ D 1971 Chr 247, note to Civ, 3 Feb 1981, D 1984 Jur 457 and, notably, in Contract Law Today, above n 41.
62 See Loi 13 July 1930, s15, which forms part of Insurance Code: see now Art L112–2, L112–3, L113–2, L 113–4 of the Insurance Code. Note also Art 348 in the original version of the Code de commerce: liability for false declarations in contracts of marine insurance, which was interpreted to cover non-disclosure.
63 ‘Tout professionnel vendeur de biens ou prestataire de services doit, avant la conclusion du contrat, mettre le consommateur en mesure de connaître les caractéristiques essentielles du bien ou du service’. See also Art L113–3 on price and other conditions of sale: ‘[a]ll product vendors or service providers must, by means of marking, labelling, bill-posting or by any other appropriate procedure, inform the consumer of prices, any limitations of contractual liability and special terms of sale, in accordance with the procedures laid down by orders issued by the ministre chargé de l’économie, subsequent to consultation with the Conseil national de la con sommation’. Note also Art L141–1 (seller of a cessions de fonds de commerce must give the buyer certain information without which the buyer will be able to annul the contract) [originally décret-loi 29 June 1935] and loi 10 Jan 1978 and loi 13 July 1979, now Titre 1 of Livre III, Code de la consommation (information to be included in consumer credit agreements). Regulations extend to loan agreements (Art L 311–10, C.com.), and distribution/franchise agreements (Art L330–3, C.com).
64 Delebecque, P and Pansier, F-J, Droit des obligations: Contrat et quasi-contrat (3rd edn, Paris, Litec, 2003) No 136 Google Scholar.
65 Art 1117 provides for relative nullity: ‘La convention contractée par erreur, violence ou dol, n’est point nulle de plein droit; elle donne seulement lieu à une action en nullité ou en rescision, dans les cas et de la manière expliqués à la section VII du chapitre V du présent titre’.
66 See Cass civ, 29 Nov 1968, Gaz Pal 1969 I 63; Cass com, 14 Mar 1972, D 1972.653 note J Ghestin.
67 Art 1110 (erreur ): ‘[e]rror is a ground for annulment of an agreement only where it rests on the very substance of the thing which is the object thereof’.
68 Cass civ, 23 Nov 1931, DP 1932.1.129 note L Josserand; Gaz Pal 1932.1.96. Erreur sur la substance has been extended to cover a failure to inform adequately a co-contractor: see Trib gr inst Paris, 4 Mar 1980, D 1980 IR 262 note J Ghestin; Civ, 29 Nov 1968, Gaz Pal 1969 I 63.
69 See also the famous Poussin case, which allowed the original sellers of a painting which they had been told was of the school of Carachi to annul the sale 15 years later when it was later exhibited at the Louvre as a Poussin. Their mistake was not that they had mistakenly sold the Poussin as work of a minor school (experts were still unclear whether it was really a Poussin), but that they had mistakenly thought that it was definitely not a Poussin when it might have been: Civ, 13 Dec 1983, D 1984.940 and Versailles, 7 Jan 1987 JCP 1988 II 21121 note J Ghestin (contrast Fragonard case of TGI de Paris, 6 Mar 1985 (inédit )).
70 Art 1116 (dol ): ‘[d]eception is a ground for annulment of a contract where the schemes used by one of the parties are such that it is obvious that, without them, the other party would not have entered into the contract. It may not be presumed, and must be proved’.
71 See, eg, Civ, 7 May 1974, D 1974 IR 176 (water supply), Civ, 6 Oct 1982, D 1982 IR 526 (permit for caravan), Civ, 19 June 1985, Bull civ I, No 210, 181, JCP 1985 IV 305 (real age of engine), Civ, 12 Nov 1987, Bull civ I No 293, 211, RTDC 1988.339 obs J Mestre (second hand lorry in poor state of repair) and Civ, 25 Feb 1987, Bull civ III No 36, 21, JCP 1987 IV 154, RTDC 1988.336 (appeal pending against administrative order).
72 Civ, 2 Oct 1974, D 1974 IR 252; Bull civ III 330.
73 Ghestin, J, Traité de droit civil: La formation du contrat (3rd edn, Paris, LGDJ, 1993) No 622 Google Scholar. See also Com, 13 Oct 1980, D 1981.IR.309 obs J Ghestin; Civ, 3 Feb 1981, D 1984 Jur 457 note J Ghestin, Com, 23 Nov 1982, JCP 1983 IV 47. See, generally, J Mestre RTDC 1995.352.
74 See Ghestin, J and Nicholas, B, ‘The Pre-contractual Obligation to Disclose Information’ in Tallon, D and Harris, J (eds), Contract Law Today (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1989)Google Scholar, G Cornu, ‘Du devoir de conseil’ [1972] RTDC 418, and P Le Tourneau, ‘De l’allégement de l’obligation de renseignements ou de conseil’, D 1987. Chron 101.
75 See P Jourdain, Juris-Classeur Contrat-Distrib fasc 35, V Responsabilité précontractuelle.
76 See Legrand, P, ‘Pre-contractual Disclosure and Information: English and French Law Compared’ (1986) 6 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 322, 341CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
77 ‘The pre-contractual obligation to disclose information’ in Contract Law Today, above n 41, ch 4. See also J Ghestin, note to Civ, 3 Feb 1981 n 73 above who recognises that recogni tion of the pre-contractual obligation to inform will alter the nature of dol, notably the interpretation of ‘intentional’ conduct.
78 Terré, F, Simler, P and Lequette, Y, Droit civil: Les obligations (8th edn, Paris, Dalloz, 2002) No 233 Google Scholar.
79 Fabre-Magnan, M, De l’obligation d’information dans les contrats. Essai d’une théorie (Paris, LGDJ, 1992)Google Scholar. See also Legrand, n 76 above, 338.
80 Fabre-Magnan uses the term ‘pertinente’, above n 79 No 157. Ghestin prefers ‘détermi nant’: note to Civ, 3 Feb 1981.
81 See Civ, 19 Jan 1977, Bull civ I No 40, 30.
82 Which she terms ‘ignorance illégitime’: above n 79, No 237.
83 Here, the relationship itself may be deemed to suggest a disparity. See, eg, Civ, 19 Jan 1965, D 1965.389, RTDC 1965.665 note G Cornu, Com, 27 Nov 1973, JCP 1974 II 17887, Com, 3 May 1983, Bull No 131 and Cass civ, 18 Apr 1989, Bull civ I No 150.
84 Cass com, 4 July 1989, Bull civ IV No 213, 143; RTDC 1989.737 obs J Mestre; Com, 4 May 1993, Bull civ IV No 163, 113, RTDC 1994.93 obs J Mestre (dealt with in English law by a half truth amounting to a misrepresentation, see Notts Patent Brick and Tile Co v Butler (1886) 16 QBD 778); Com, 25 May 1993, Bull civ IV No 211, 151; RTDC 1994.94 obs J Mestre.
85 See Civ, 21 July 1993, D 1994 Somm 237 note O Tournafond; Cass civ, 30 June 1992, Bull civ IV No 213, 145, Cass civ, 7 Nov 1984, JCP 1985 IV 27, Cass civ, 9 Feb 1982, JCP IV 154.
86 Cass civ, 24 Nov 1976, Bull civ I No 370, 291, D 1977 IR 88.
87 J Schmidt [1990] RIDC 545 at 553. See also Cass com, 25 Feb 1986, JCP 1988 II 20995 note G Virassamy; RTDC 1987.85 note J Mestre. As Durry remarked in 1972, ‘c’est la loyauté dans les affaires, en tout cas dans celles qui mettent en cause un professional et un particulier, que, de cette façon, on cherche à promouvoir’: G Durry RTDC 1972.410, 412.
88 See Rennes, 9 July 1975, D 1976.417 note J Schmidt; Civ, 23 Apr 1985, D 1985.558 note S Dion, RTDC 1986.340 note J Mestre; Civ, 28 Feb 1989, D 1989 IR 96; Civ, 4 May 1994, D 1994 IR 166.
89 See Civ, 27 Feb 1985, JCP 1985 IV 174 and Civ, 27 Feb 1985, JCP 1985 IV 320. Both use the same formula: there is an obligation on the professional to advise, to inform and to attract to the layperson’s attention any inherent disadvantages in the quality of the product chosen by the client. See also Rouen, 18 May 1973, JCP 1974 II 17867; Civ, 20 June 1979, D 1980 IR 38; Com, 7 July 1983, D 1983 IR 476; Civ, 22 Feb 1984, D 1984.386 note J Berr and H Groutel; Com, 18 May 1993, D 1994.142 note I Najjar (duty on bank to advise student investor).
90 Paris, 12 July 1972, Gaz Pal 1972.804 note J Megret. See also Cass civ, 16 Apr 1975, D 1976.514 note Chirez, A, where the organiser of a motor rally was obliged to inform drivers of the limitations of its insurance cover (contrast Reid v Rush and Tompkins Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 212 Google Scholar). Generally, P Le Tourneau, ‘De l’allégement de l’obligation de renseignements ou de conseil’, D 1987 Chron 101.
91 Civ, 3 Feb 1981, D 1984. 457 note J Ghestin (duty on company and its professional agents to inform buyers lacking expertise in this field), Com, 10 Feb 1987, Bull civ IV No 41, Com, 1 Dec 1992, D 1993 Somm 237 obs O Tournafond and Civ, 18 Oct 1994, D 1995.499 note A-M Gavard-Gilles (duty to inform in absence of contractual relationship).
92 Carbonnier, J, Droit civil: Les obligations (22nd edn, Paris, PUF, 2000) No 82 Google Scholar.
93 Duggan, A, Bryan, M and Hanks, F, Contractual Non-disclosure: an Applied Study in Modern Contract Theory (Melbourne, Longman, 1994) 38 Google Scholar.
94 Legrand, P, ‘Information in Formation of Contracts: a Civilian Perspective’ (1991) 19 Can Bus LJ 318 Google Scholar, 332. Jourdain also sees this as the motivation for much intervention: D 1983 chron 139.
95 P Jourdain, ‘Le devoir de se renseigner’, D 1983 Chron XXV 139.
96 See J Mestre, ‘Les limites de l’obligation de renseignement’ [1985] RTDC 399. Note the limits identified in Civ, 8 Apr 1986, D 1986 IR 311, Civ, 14 June 1989, JCP 1991 2 21632 and Com, 9 Jan 1990, D 1990.173 (limit of bank’s duty to keep customers informed).
97 Essai d’une théorie de l’obligation d’information dans les contrats, (Paris, LGDJ 1992) No 256: ‘l’ignorance illégitime du créancier peut conduire à limiter, voire à supprimer, l’obligation d’information du débiteur’.
98 Above n 97, No 253.
99 Above n 97, No 274.
100 See also Mestre, RTDC 2001.356.
101 (Clin v Mme Natali ) Cass civ, 3 May 2000, JCP 2001 II 10510 note C Jamin; RTDC 2000.566 obs J Mestre and B Fagès and JCP 2000 I 272 note G Loiseau; P Delebecque, Def 2000.114; D Mazeaud Def 2000.1110. Contrast Civ 3e, 15 Nov 2000, JCP 2001.1.301 obs Y-M Serinet; RTDC 2001.355 obs J Mestre and B Fages.
102 Cass 3e civ, 21 Feb 2001 (Epx Plessis v Errera et al ) JCP I 330 note A Constantin; RTDC 2001.353 obs J Mestre.
103 The recent decision of the Commercial chamber on 12 May 2004 (D 2004.1599 note A Lienhard; RTDC 2004.500 obs J Mestre and B Fagès) highlights this conflict. Here, the company director of a company had persuaded two members of his family to sell their shares in the business without revealing negotiations with a third party for sale of the shares at a higher rate. The court did not find the company liable for dol par réticence even though it had failed to inform the shareholders of the negotiations with a third party. Mestre and Fagès suggest that ‘un rapprochement s’impose avec l’arrêt Baldus’. Nevertheless, the Court did find that the company director owed a fiduciary duty towards the shareholders, imposing on him an obligation de loyauté: a more limited solution, but still one which places a protective duty on one party towards another.
104 Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on Certain Aspects of the Sale of Consumer Goods and Associated Guarantees [1999] OJ L171/12.
105 [1990] OJ L58/59.
106 Council Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 Dec 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit [1987] OJ L42/48.
107 One may note the references in a number of cases to ‘equity’ or ‘good faith’ when choosing to intervene: see With v O’Flanagan [1936] Ch 575 and Dimmock v Hallett (1866) LR 2 Ch App 21.
108 See Winfield, PH, ‘The History of Negligence in the Law of Torts’ (1926) 42 LQR 184 Google Scholar.
109 See Jourdain, P, ‘La bonne foi dans la formation du contrat’ (1992) 43 Travaux de l’Association Henri Capitant des Amis de la Culture Juridique Française 121 ffGoogle Scholar.
110 Ghestin, J, Traité de droit civil: La formation du contrat (3 rd edn, Paris, LGDJ, 1993) No 599 Google Scholar. Carbonnier prefers to view the duty in terms of transparency which forces each party to act with sincerity towards each other: Carbonnier, J, Droit civil: Les obligations (22nd edn, Paris, PUF, 2000) No 82 Google Scholar.
111 See most recently, Kötz, H, ‘The Trento Project and its Contribution to the Europeanization of Private Law’ in Bussani, M and Mattei, U (eds), The Common Core of European Private Law (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2003) 211 Google Scholar, and Beale, H, ‘The Europeanisation of Contract Law’ in Halson, R (ed), Exploring the Boundaries of Contract Law (Aldershot, Dartmouth, 1996) 38 Google Scholar.
112 See, generally, Waddams, SM, ‘Pre-contractual Duties of Disclosure’ in Cane, P and Stapleton, J (eds), Essays for Patrick Atiyah (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1991)Google Scholar. For analysis of the basis of law and economics, see Kronman, A, ‘Mistake, Disclosure, Information and the Law of Contracts’ (1979) 7 Journal of Legal Studies 1 Google Scholar, Kronman, A, ‘Contract Law and Distributive Justice’ (1980) 89 Yale LJ 472 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Trebilock, MJ, The Limits of Freedom of Contract (Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press, 1993) 106–18Google Scholar, and Duggan, A, Bryan, M and Hanks, F, Contractual Non-Disclosure (Harlow, Longman, 1994)Google Scholar.
113 See B Nicholas, ‘The Pre-contractual Obligation to Disclose Information’ in D Harris and D Tallon (eds), Contract Law Today 185.
114 Legrand, P, ‘Pre-contractual Disclosure and Information: English and French Law Compared’ (1986) 6 OJLS 322 at 332CrossRefGoogle Scholar: ‘It was appropriate, in other words, that the moral obligation of information should be made an actionable civil obligation.’
115 Fabre-Magnan, M, ‘Duties of Disclosure and French Contract Law: Contribution to an Economic Analysis’ in Beatson, J and Friedmann, D (eds), Good Faith and Fault in Contract Law (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1995) 108 Google Scholar. See also Legrand, P, ‘De l’obligation précon tractuelle de renseignement: Aspects d’une réflexion métajuridique (et paraciviliste)’ (1989) 21 Ottawa L Rev 585 Google Scholar.
116 Carbonnier, J., ‘Le juste et l’inefficace pour un non-devoir de renseignements’ [1985] RTDC 91, especially No 83 Google Scholar.
117 Notably in her work, De l’obligation d’information dans les contrats. Essai d’une théorie, above n 97. There seems, however, to be a growing awareness of economic literature in France.
One may note, for example, the inclusion of Brousseau’s essay ‘L’économiste, le juriste et le contrat’ in the recent tribute to Professor Ghestin: Goubeaux, G et al, Le contrat au début du XX1e siècle: Etudes offertes à Jacques Ghestin (Paris, LGDJ, 2001) 153 Google Scholar ff.
118 Fontaine, M, Le processus de formation du contrat (Paris, LGDJ, 2002) 856 Google Scholar. See also ‘Fertilisations croisées du droit des contrats’ in Le contrat au début du XX1e siècle, above n 117.
119 See P Malaurie, note on Cass com, 27 Feb 1996, D 1996.518 and D Mazeaud on Civ 1, 17 July 2001, D 2002.71.
120 See C Jamin, ‘Plaidoyer pour le solidarisme contractuel’ in Goubeaux et al, above n 117.
121 Cass civ, 3 May 2000, JCP 2001 II 10510 note C Jamin.
122 See Treitel, GH, Law of Contract (11th edn, London, Sweet and Maxwell, 2003)Google Scholar ch 9; Beatson, J, Anson’s Law of Contract (28th edn, Oxford, OUP, 2002)Google Scholar ch 6.
123 Grégoire Loiseau has thus recognised that a true acceptance of the Principles may have to lead to change to the nature of French contract law: ‘La qualité du consentement’ in Rémy-Corlay, P and Fenouillet, D (eds), Les concepts contractuels français à l’heure des Principes du droit européen du contrats (Paris, Dalloz, 2003) 69 Google Scholar.
124 See Erp, S van, ‘The Pre-contractual Stage’ in Hartkamp, A, Hesselink, M, Hondius, E, Perron, E du and Joustra, C (eds), Towards a European Civil Code (2nd edn, The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 1998)Google Scholar who stresses the need for comparative research to overcome social, economic and political obstacles to harmonisation.
125 (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1979).
- 1
- Cited by