An “Inducer” Third Person in Contractual Relations – Grounds and the Scope of Liability
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.60131/jlaw.1.2024.7944Keywords:
Pre-Contractual Relations, Culpa In Contrahendo Doctrine, Third Persons in the Pre-Contractual Stage, An “Inducer” Third Person, Reimbursement of the Expenses Incurred.Abstract
In parallel with the evolution of contractual relations, the pre-contractual stage acquires increasing significance, where, along with a future creditor and a debtor, partake third parties, who might influence the forming of the consent of the negotiating persons. The following article explores the issue of the engagement of said third parties in pre-contractual relations, the grounds for claiming damages from them and the scope of liability; More precisely, highlighted is the legal nature of the claims raised against “inducer” third persons, and how it differs from other claims in the law of obligations.
Despite the participation of third persons in a pre-contractual stage and the practical importance of asserting a claim against them, Georgian norms fail to adequately and extensively regulate the issue. Hence, through the comparative legal methodology, the paper analyses the topic through the Georgian and German normative order lens. Definitions presented in the German doctrine of “culpa in contrahendo”, as well as, judicial practice.
References
Civil Code of Georgia, Law №786 of 1997, Articles 129, 316-317, 412; https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/31702 [13.03.2024] (in Georgian).
Bichia M., Obligations Based on Law, Tb., 2016, 241 (in Georgian).
Vashakidze G., System of Complicated Obligations of the Civil Code, 2010, 88. (In Georgian).
Vashakidze G., The Civil Code Commentary, Tb., 2019, 44-47, 49. (In Georgian).
Kropholler J., German Civil Code, Study Comment, 13th rev. ed., translated by Chechelashvili Z., Darjania T., edited by Chachanidze E., Darjania T., Totladze L., Tb., 2014, § 311, Field 1, 197, 199-200 (in Georgian).
Lapanashvili A., The Importance of the Principle of Good Faith and the Fault of a Negotiation Participant at the Pre-contractual Stage, Tb., 2019.37 (in Georgian).
Lutringhaus P., Tort Law Tb., 2011, 19 (in Georgian).
Mariamidze G., Law of Obligations, General Part, Part I, Issue I, Tb., 2011, 45 (in Georgian).
Meladze G., Compensation for “Pure” Property Damages Arising from Negligent Provision of False Information, “Comparative Law Journal” 2/2020, 41 (in Georgian).
Meskhishvili K., Trending Issues of Private Law, Theory and Judicial Practice, Volume 1, Tb, 2020, 120. (In Georgian.)
Meskhishvili K., Pre-contractual Relations, a Preliminary Contract, Earnest Money (Comparative Legal Analysis), “Georgian Business Law Review,” Issue VI, 2017, 2017; 33-34 (in Georgian).
Rusiashcili G., Aladashvili A., Civil Code Commentary, Tb., 2019, 49 (in Georgian).
Rusiashcili G., General Law of Obligations, Collection of Case Study, Tb., 2020, 42 (in Georgian).
Rusiashcili G., Collection of Case Study, General Law of Obligations, Tb., 2020, 229 (in Georgian).
Rusiashvili G., “Pure Property Damages” – Violation of Due Diligence or a Safeguarding Norm?, “Georgian-German Journal of Comparative Law,” 4/2019; 1, 9 (in Georgian).
Svanadze I., General Tort Clause and Liability for Pure Property Damages, Tb., 2019, 41-42 (in Georgian).
Kochashvili K., Fault, as a Prerequisite for Civil Liability (Comparative Legal Study), “Law Journal №1“, 2009, 88-89 (in Georgian).
Chachava, S., “The Competition of Claims and Grounds for Claims,” Tb., 2010, 139 (in Georgian).
Chechelashvili Z., German Civil Code Translation, Tb., 2010, 74-75 (in Georgian).
Khunashvili N., The Principle of Good Faith in Contract Law, Tb., 2014, 150, 153 (in Georgian).
Hagenloch U., The Liability of an Architect in Germany, “Georgian-German Journal of Comparative Law,” 2/2024, 29 (in Georgian).
Ruling №ას-898-848-2015 of March 9, 2016, of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia (in Georgian).
Hondius Ewoud H.(ed.), Precontractual liability: reports to the XIIIth Congress, International Academy of Comparative Law, Montreal, Canada, 18 - 24 August 1990, Deventer 1991, 11.
von Jhering R., Culpa in contrahendo, Jahrbuch für Dogmatik 1861. http://dlib-zs.mpier.mpg.de/pdf/2084719/04/1861/20847190418610005.pdf [13.03.2024].
Kiršienė J., Leonova N., Qualification of Pre-Contractual Liability and the Value of Lost opportunity as a form of losses, Mykolo Romerio universitetas, 2009, 238.
Lowisch M., New Law of Obligations in Germany, R.L.R. 147. http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/acd/cg/law/lex/rlr20/Manfred141.pdf [13.03.2024].
Markesinis B., Unberath H., Johnson A., The German Law of Contracts, 2006; 97, 103, 192.
Markesinis B., Unberath H., Johnson A., The German Law of Torts, a Comparative Treatise, 2002, 60.
Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 1970, 1840-1841.
Thai Bao Anh. CULPA IN CONTRAHENDO IN ENGLISH LAW, Hanoi, 2006, 5. https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/7777563/culpa-in-contrahendo-in-english-law-bao-partners [13.03.2024].
Volens U., Expert’s Liability to a Third Person at the Point of Intersection of the Law of Contract and the Law of Delict, Juridica International, XVII, 2010, 187. https://www.juridicainternational.eu/public/pdf/ji_2010_XVII_176.pdf [13.03.2024].
Wendehorst C., Precontractual Liability in European Private Law, 1 JETL, 2010, 381.
Zimmermann R., The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition, Oxford, 1990, 245.
Zimmermann R., Whittaker S., Good Faith in European Contract Law, Cambridge University Press, 2000, 24.
BGH, judgment of June 17, 1991 - II ZR 171/90. https://research.wolterskluwer-online.de/document/5bdac224-b34f-44f1-81e0-c0cdfddca809 [13.03.2024].
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
