<p>The general contract law principle of loyalty between negotiators, in deliberation, leads to a duty of disclosure for negotiators. The extent of this duty of disclosure is influenced by many different factors; amongst others the type of agreement, the negotiators knowledge and opportunity of procuring knowledge. The general duty of disclosure is both a part of the contract law principle of loyalty between negotiators in negotiating a contract, and an indirectly statutory obligation, that, if neglected will lead to nullification of the agreement. The legislator has stated that the general contract law, Lag (1915:218) om avtal och andra rättshandlingar på förmögenhetsrättens område (avtalslagen), should be used to regulate negotiating of contracts, including the negotiation of contracts of employment. In arbetsdomstolens judging, additional factors have been weighed in, and the judgement is done also through the use of a concept taken from employment law, the concept of ”saklig grund för uppsägning”. Arbetsdomstolen appear to prefer using employment law and principles of protection for the employee, even though the legislators opinion was that general contract law should regulate negotiations of contracts of employment. This way, other factors are included in the judging of the duty of disclosure when seeking employment than in the general judging of duty of disclosure. Amongst other the interests of society and the will of protecting the person seeking employment, affects arbetsdomstolens judging of the duty of disclosure in negotiating contracts of employment. The thesis arguments that this interpretation, of the confines between contract law and employment law, is contrary to the statements of the legislator, and also an unfit interpretation of the principle of duty of disclosure, in terms of reaching partition of risks between negotiators of contracts of employment.</p>

The general contract law principle of loyalty between negotiators, in deliberation, leads to a duty of disclosure for negotiators. The extent of this duty of disclosure is influenced by many different factors; amongst others the type of agreement, the negotiators knowledge and opportunity of procuring knowledge. The general duty of disclosure is both a part of the contract law principle of loyalty between negotiators in negotiating a contract, and an indirectly statutory obligation, that, if neglected will lead to nullification of the agreement. The legislator has stated that the general contract law, Lag (1915:218) om avtal och andra rättshandlingar på förmögenhetsrättens område (avtalslagen), should be used to regulate negotiating of contracts, including the negotiation of contracts of employment. In arbetsdomstolens judging, additional factors have been weighed in, and the judgement is done also through the use of a concept taken from employment law, the concept of ”saklig grund för uppsägning”. Arbetsdomstolen appear to prefer using employment law and principles of protection for the employee, even though the legislators opinion was that general contract law should regulate negotiations of contracts of employment. This way, other factors are included in the judging of the duty of disclosure when seeking employment than in the general judging of duty of disclosure. Amongst other the interests of society and the will of protecting the person seeking employment, affects arbetsdomstolens judging of the duty of disclosure in negotiating contracts of employment. The thesis arguments that this interpretation, of the confines between contract law and employment law, is contrary to the statements of the legislator, and also an unfit interpretation of the principle of duty of disclosure, in terms of reaching partition of risks between negotiators of contracts of employment.

The subjects of the Doctoral Dissertation is the problem of disclosing information seen in a horizon of legal intercourse, genesis of this information, historical development and it’s implementation into practice. An obligation to disclose information seen in a horizon of legal intercourse is analyzed from the theoretical and practical points of view. This reflects upon the structure of thesis - in the first part theoretical questions linked with the obligation to disclose information, and in the other parts - peculiarities and problems of its practical implementation. In theoretical part of the work the genesis of the obligation to disclose information that links with legal intercourse of insurance, also the main theories and doctrines which interpret and predicate existing of the obligation to disclose information in the sphere of legal intercourse. An attention must be paid also to this fact that in theoretical part of the thesis the main attention is paid to analysis the research results of obligation to disclose information and being in other social sciences. The law must be seen as a tool concerning with a regulation of social relationships and that is why when performing scientific researches we must not limit ourselves only with methods of legal regulation or with the subject and regulating the positive law. The other branches of science help to disclose peculiarities of social intercourse and give an opportunity to see social relationships from the other point of... [to full text] / Disertacijoje nagrinėjama informacijos atskleidimo pareiga draudimo teisiniuose santykiuose, jos kilmė, istorinė raida, paskirtis bei praktinio įgyvendinimo ypatumai. Ši tema nagrinėjama teoriniu bei praktiniu aspektu. Tai atsispindi ir darbo struktūroje – pirmoje dalyje analizuojami su pareigą atskleisti informaciją susiję teoriniai klausimai, o kitose praktinio realizavimo ypatumai bei problematika. Teorinėje darbo dalyje nagrinėjama pareigos atskleisti informaciją draudimo teisiniuose santykiuose genezė, pagrindinės teorijos bei doktrinos, kurios aiškina ir grindžia pareigos atskleisti informaciją egzistavimą teisiniuose santykiuose. Taip pat atkreiptinas dėmesys į tai, kad disertacijos teorinėje dalyje ypatingas dėmesys yra skiriamas kitų socialinių mokslų, nagrinėjančių pareigą atskleisti informaciją, tyrimų rezultatų analizei. Teisė yra tik įrankis visuomeniniams santykiams reguliuoti, todėl atliekant mokslinius tyrimus negalima apsiriboti tik teisinio reguliavimo metodais ir pozityviosios teisės reguliavimo objektu. Kitos mokslo šakos padeda atskleisti visuomeninio santykio ypatumus, suteikia galimybę pažvelgti į visuomeninius santykius kitomis akimis. Teorinėje darbo dalyje taip pat nagrinėjama, kaip pareiga atskleisti informaciją draudimo teisiniuose santykiuose atsirado bei evoliucionavo bendrosios ir kontinentinės teisės sistemose, taip pat kokios pareigos atskleisti informaciją draudimo teisiniuose santykiuose perspektyvos Europos sutarčių teisės kontekste... [toliau žr. visą tekstą]

Tillväxt genom företagsförvärv har under de senaste årtiondena blivit allt mer förekommande.Genom att köpa upp konkurrenter, leverantörer eller distributörer kan företag öka sinamarknadsfördelar och detta kan leda till högre vinst. Det råder ingen tvekan om attföretagsförvärv är en komplex och riskfylld transaktion. För att ta rätt beslut behöver köparenha god kunskap om vad köpet kan medföra. Av denna anledning genomförs en undersökningav företaget. Due Diligence är ett relativt nytt begrepp som i vardagliga ord innebärbesiktning av målföretaget. Undersökningen bidrar till att genomlysa det företag som skallförvärvas och används i slutet som beslutsunderlag för köparen.Due diligence är en typ av informationshantering mellan köpare och säljare. Detta innebär ettinformationsutbyte mellan parterna och därmed har köparen och säljaren förpliktelsergentemot varandra. Vid företagsförvärv regleras dessa förpliktelser med hjälp av köplagen.Köparens undersökningsplikt kopplas till att köparen inte får åberopa fel som denne kände tilleller förväntades känna till. Den upplysningsplikt som åligger säljaren innebär att allinformation som anses vara relevant och kan påverka köparens beslut skall presenteras.Utöver köparen och säljaren finns det ytterligare parter som är delaktiga vid ettföretagsförvärv. Då due diligence berör främst legala, finansiella och kommersiellaundersökningar är det vanligt förekommande att externa parter tas in som rådgivare. Detta dåde flesta företag inte besitter kunskapen att göra due diligence själv. De externa rådgivare somanlitas är vanligtvis advokater och revisorer.Syftet med vår studie är att undersöka vilken betydelse due diligence har vid företagsförvärv.Vidare undersöker vi ansvaret som åligger köparen och säljaren vid due diligence samt detansvar som rådgivare har vid due diligence.I uppsatsen har vi använt oss av en kvalitativ metod och tillämpat en abduktiv ansats. För attuppnå vårt syfte och kunna besvara våra forskningsfrågor har vi genomfört fyra semistruktureradeintervjuer, dessa ligger till grund för empirin. Samtliga är med personer som, istörsta mån, arbetar dagligen med att genomföra företagsförvärv. Intervjuade personer bestårav två finansiella rådgivare från revisionsbyråer samt två legala rådgivare.Efter genomförd studie kan vi konstatera att due diligence har stor betydelse vidföretagsförvärv. Inte minst för eventuella justeringar av köpeskillingen utan även att duediligence-materialet fungerar som beslutsunderlag vid slutförhandlingarna av förvärvet.Vidare visar studien att köparens och säljarens ansvar stämmer bra överens med köplagensbestämmelser. Lagen används som underlag men är inte det faktiska regelverket somtillämpas, istället hänvisar man till det avtal som skrivs mellan köpare och säljare.Avslutningsvis kan vi konstatera att revisorer och advokater som genomför due diligence harett stort ansvar både under och efter genomför due diligence. Agerar rådgivaren vårdslöst kandenne bli skadeståndsskyldig. Således krävs det att både revisorer och advokater begränsar sittansvar redan innan due diligence genomförs. / Growth through mergers and acquisitions has during the last few decades increasedexponentially. The company in charge of the purchase can increase their market share andcompetitive advantages by acquiring competitors, distributors or suppliers. There is no doubtin that it is a complex and risky process. To make the right decision the buyer needs to havein-depth knowledge of the company and what the transaction might result in. For this reason athorough investigation of the company is carried out. Due diligence is a relatively newconcept which highlights the process of examining a company. The examination providesdetailed information and is thereby used a tool when making the final decision, to buy or notto buy.Due diligence is used as an information trade between buyers and sellers. As with alltransactions, this exchange means that both parties have obligations to each other. When itcomes to mergers and acquisitions these obligations are regulated by means of the Sales ofGoods Act. The buyer’s duty to examine is linked to that the buyer may not invoke defectswhich he was aware of, or was expected to know. The duty of disclosure imposed on theseller means that all information which is deemed relevant and which may affect the buyer’sdecision should be presented. In addition to the buyer and the seller, there are more partiesinvolved in a business transaction of this kind. As the due diligence process primarilyconcerns legal, financial and commercial studies, it is very common for external parties to behired in order to conduct the due diligence process in these areas. The reason behind it isbecause most companies do not possess knowledge to do it themselves. External consultantshired are lawyers and accountants.The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of the due diligence process in mergers andacquisitions. Further, we explore the responsibility linked to to buyers and sellers in a duediligence process. In addition we also explore the responsibility linked to the lawyers andaccountants involved in the process.The study is conducted by means of a qualitative method where we apply an abductiveapproach. To achieve the purpose of our study and answer our research questions we heldfour semi-structured interviews, these form the base for our empirical data. All interviewedare with people who work with due diligence on a daily basis. Two of the interviewees areconsultants from accounting firms, and the other two are legal advisors.The paper shows that due diligence is of great importance in acquisitions. Not only for anyadjustments in purchase sum, but also that it is a useful tool when making a final decision.Furthermore, the paper also shows that the obligations buyer and seller has rhymes pretty wellwith those written in the Sales of Goods Act. The act is use as a basis but it is not the actualrules that apply, instead you refer to the agreement signed between buyer and seller. Lastly wecan note that the obligations related to accountants and lawyers are fairly strict. If theconsultant acts recklessly, the consultant may be sued. Thus, both accountants and lawyerslimit their responsibility before the due diligence process commences.This study is written in Swedish.

La tesi ha per oggetto lo studio del fenomeno dei patti parasociali occulti nell’ambito di s.p.a. aperte al mercato del capitale di rischio e quotate. La prima parte del lavoro si concentra sulle norme dell’ordinamento italiano che prevedono obblighi di trasparenza degli accordi tra azionisti, senza trascurare gli altri principali sistemi europei e quello statunitense. Il secondo capitolo sviluppa l’analisi dei diversi profili in relazione ai quali il fenomeno del patto parasociale occulto reagisce ed influisce sull’interpretazione e sull’applicazione della disciplina dell’opa obbligatoria da concerto. Inoltre, si fornisce un’illustrazione delle modalità attraverso le quali dovrebbe essere possibile pervenire alla prova dell’esistenza di siffatti accordi. Nell’ultimo capitolo si prende in esame la responsabilità degli azionisti per la violazione del dovere di disclosure e, soprattutto, per la mancata promozione dell’opa obbligatoria da patto occulto. Si argomenta nel senso che tale condotta possa integrare altresì un’ipotesi di insider trading (o, eventualmente, di manipolazione del mercato) e si procede ad una ricostruzione del danno risarcibile e del relativo nesso causale, traendo spunto, in particolare, dai risultati emersi nell’esperienza statunitense. / The thesis concerns the shareholders’ agreements - within a corporation - that are kept secret, breaching a legally imposed duty of disclosure. The first part of the analysis focuses on the rules that contain such a duty of disclosure, mainly as regards the Italian regulation but also through a consideration of other legal systems. The second chapter develops the study by showing how the not-disclosed shareholders’ agreements could vary the way in which the regulation of the mandatory bid should be interpreted and applied. Moreover, an illustration about the possible ways to get the evidence of the existence of these agreements is provided. In the final chapter, the liability of the shareholders - mainly based on the breach of the duty to promote a mandatory bid - is taken into consideration, especially through a comparison with the American legal system as for the damages caused by an insider trading conduct and the causal connection: it is argued, in fact, that the violation of the rules regarding both the disclosure of the agreements and the mandatory bid should be also identified as a case of insider trading (or market manipulation).

In recent years the popularity of Islamic insurance policies has grown rapidly with many companies across the world providing this service. London is said to be the hub for Islamic finance. It is well known for welcoming innovative financial methods. The FSA have already authorised the insurance company Salaam Halal to provide policies based on Shariah principles. The FSA, however, announced that they must operate within the same legal framework as all other insurance policies. Consequently English law has to be applied in Islamic policies taken in this country. However, in many aspects, Shariah principles contradict English insurance law. This thesis aims to discover how they contradict and recommend how the Islamic insurance policies can be applied in English law without breaking Shariah principles. As Shariah principles merely provide a wide boundary within which any law can be applied, this thesis analyses English insurance law first, and then discusses how Islamic insurance policies can operate within the English framework. In many cases, English insurance law crosses the boundary of Shairah principles due to its unfair consequences. Consequently making English insurance law fairer could be the best solution to allow the use of Islamic insurance policies under English law. Pragmatically, the thesis focuses mainly on problems within current English insurance law and recommends possible solutions. In many cases, the solutions suggested by the Law Commission are found to be incapable of establishing fairness. The majority part of this thesis is spent trying to establish a fairer framework for English insurance law. This fairer English insurance law is found to be Shariah compliant in most cases. In some cases it is not complaint due to operational differences between the two legal systems. In these cases, the thesis recommends that the Islamic insurer should incorporate certain terms to make policies Shariah compliant without breaching English insurance law.

Summaries in English and Afrikaans / Wanvoorstelling van wesenlike feite deur omiss/o aan 'n versekeraar kan tot gevolg he dat die versekeringskontrak ongeldig verklaar word ingevolge die gemene reg. In Mutual and Federal Insurance Co Ltd v Oudtshoorn Municipality 1985 (1) SA 419 (A) is beslis dat wesenlikheid bepaal moet word vanuit die oogpunt van die redelike man. In 'n paging om bewys van die wesenlikheid van feite te vermy, het versekeraars vereis dat aansoekers die voorstellings in die kontrak moat waarborg. Dit het tot gevolg gehad dat voorstellings wat in die kontrak gewaarborg is outomaties wesenlik was. Sedert die invoering van artikel 63(3) van die Versekeringswet 27 van 1943 deur die wetgewer gedurende 1969, is die wesenlikheid van voorstellings egter 'n vereiste, selfs waar dit in die kontrak gewaarborg is. Versekeraars sou dus in die toekoms nie agter kontraktuele wanvoorstellings kon skuil nie. Hierdie maatreel het meer beskerming aan die versekerde gebied. In Qilingele v South African Mutual Life Assurance Society 1993 (1) SA 69 (A) is die toets vir wesenlikheid, soos vereis deur artikel 63{3), aangespreek. Dit het die vraag laat ontstaan of daar twee aparte toetse vir wesenlikheid bestaan, naamlik gemeenregtelik en statuter, en of daar een algemene toets bestaan. / Misrepresentation by omissio of material facts to an insurer may lead to an insurance contract being declared invalid in terms of the common law. In Mutual and Federal Insurance v Oudtshoorn Municipality 1985 (1) SA 419 (A) it was decided to determine materiality in the eyes of the reasonable man. To avoid proving materiality of facts, the insurers required proposers to warrant the representations in the contract. This resulted in the facts automatically being material. In 1969 parliament, .however, enacted section 63(3) of the Insurance Act 27 of 1943 whereby materiality of presentations, even where it was warranted in the contract, became a requirement. Therefore insurers could in future not hide behind contractual misrepresentations. This provided more protection to the insured. Qilingele v SA Mutual Life Assurance Society 1993 (1) SA 69 (A) addresses the test for materiality as required by section 63(3). This resulted in the question whether two separate tests for materiality in terms of common law and statute, or only one exists. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL.M.

Summaries in English and Afrikaans / Wanvoorstelling van wesenlike feite deur omiss/o aan 'n versekeraar kan tot gevolg he dat die versekeringskontrak ongeldig verklaar word ingevolge die gemene reg. In Mutual and Federal Insurance Co Ltd v Oudtshoorn Municipality 1985 (1) SA 419 (A) is beslis dat wesenlikheid bepaal moet word vanuit die oogpunt van die redelike man. In 'n paging om bewys van die wesenlikheid van feite te vermy, het versekeraars vereis dat aansoekers die voorstellings in die kontrak moat waarborg. Dit het tot gevolg gehad dat voorstellings wat in die kontrak gewaarborg is outomaties wesenlik was. Sedert die invoering van artikel 63(3) van die Versekeringswet 27 van 1943 deur die wetgewer gedurende 1969, is die wesenlikheid van voorstellings egter 'n vereiste, selfs waar dit in die kontrak gewaarborg is. Versekeraars sou dus in die toekoms nie agter kontraktuele wanvoorstellings kon skuil nie. Hierdie maatreel het meer beskerming aan die versekerde gebied. In Qilingele v South African Mutual Life Assurance Society 1993 (1) SA 69 (A) is die toets vir wesenlikheid, soos vereis deur artikel 63{3), aangespreek. Dit het die vraag laat ontstaan of daar twee aparte toetse vir wesenlikheid bestaan, naamlik gemeenregtelik en statuter, en of daar een algemene toets bestaan. / Misrepresentation by omissio of material facts to an insurer may lead to an insurance contract being declared invalid in terms of the common law. In Mutual and Federal Insurance v Oudtshoorn Municipality 1985 (1) SA 419 (A) it was decided to determine materiality in the eyes of the reasonable man. To avoid proving materiality of facts, the insurers required proposers to warrant the representations in the contract. This resulted in the facts automatically being material. In 1969 parliament, .however, enacted section 63(3) of the Insurance Act 27 of 1943 whereby materiality of presentations, even where it was warranted in the contract, became a requirement. Therefore insurers could in future not hide behind contractual misrepresentations. This provided more protection to the insured. Qilingele v SA Mutual Life Assurance Society 1993 (1) SA 69 (A) addresses the test for materiality as required by section 63(3). This resulted in the question whether two separate tests for materiality in terms of common law and statute, or only one exists. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL.M.

À l’heure actuelle, le droit du cautionnement est une matière totalement désagrégée. Cet éclatement du droit du cautionnement provient essentiellement de l’abondance et de la superposition des textes : on ne compte plus les multiples interventions du législateur, ni les rebondissements jurisprudentiels. La matière aurait pu être simplifiée si elle avait bénéficié de la réforme du droit des sûretés avec l’ordonnance du 23 mars 2006. Mais il n’en est rien.Associée au droit des sociétés, cette matière en devient d’autant plus complexe. En droit des sociétés, le cautionnement est une garantie des plus répandues. Il constitue la plupart du temps, pour la société, un acte dangereux car il peut avoir des conséquences préjudiciables pour celle-Ci. En même temps, la réglementation doit garder une certaine souplesse afin de respecter les exigences de rapidité de la vie des affaires. Cette conciliation est délicate à réaliser.Cette étude se propose d’appréhender le lien existant entre le cautionnement et les règles du droit des sociétés. Pour mener à bien cette entreprise, il convenait d’envisager le sujet sous deux angles, à savoir d’une part le cautionnement donné par une société, et d’autre part, celui consenti au profit d’une personne morale.Un tel cautionnement qu’il soit donné par une société, ou en sa faveur, est de nature à soulever des difficultés au regard des principes gouvernant le droit des sociétés. C’est pourquoi, certaines règles ont été fixées. Le cautionnement se trouve ainsi gouverné par des règles de droit des sociétés spécifiques, au-Delà des règles de droit commun qui le régissent. Mais cela passe également par l’exploitation du formalisme supposé protéger la caution personne physique, les obligations du créancier telles que l’obligation d’information, de mise en garde, le principe de proportionnalité…Si la loi Dutreil a échoué dans son impératif de cohésion et de simplification du droit du cautionnement, peut-On dire que l’avenir est à une unification des différentes législations relatives au cautionnement ? / At present, surety law is a matter that has totally been breaking apart. This fragmentation of surety law is mainly due to the abundance and overlapping of legislative acts: there are more interventions on the part of the legislator, more jurisprudential developments than we can count. The matter could have be simplified, had it benefited from the reform of security law in accordance with the order of 23 March 2006. But that was not the case.In relation to corporate law, the subject is becoming even more complex. In corporate law, surety is the most widespread guarantee. To a company it represents, most of the time, an unsafe act because it may suffer adverse consequences from it. At the same time, regulation should retain some flexibility to meet the speed requirements of the business world. This is a delicate balance to achieve.This study aims at grasping the relationship between surety and the rules of corporate law. To carry out this undertaking, it was appropriate to consider the subject from two different angles, namely the surety bond as it is issued by a company, and that as granted for the benefit of a legal person.Such guarantee whether it is granted by a company or to it, is liable to give rise to difficulties with regard to the principles governing corporate law. Which explains why certain rules have been set. The guarantee is therefore governed by specific corporate rules that transcend the common law rules made to that effect. But it also involves meeting the formal requirements designed to protect the individual guarantor, and binding the creditor to obligations such as the duty of disclosure, duty of warning, the principle of proportionality ...If the Dutreil law has failed to observe the requirements of cohesion and simplification of surety law, can we therefore say that the future is dependent on a unification of the various laws pertaining to surety?

資訊是自主決定的基礎，而自主決定又同是私法自治與競爭秩序的核心基礎，隨著現代經濟社會的高度分工、專業化與複雜化，締約當事人間因資訊不對稱所導致的交易地位不對等問題，備受關注，因資訊不對稱所導致的契約失靈與市場失靈，亦亟待法律的介入調整，修正契約自由下的當事人自我負責原則，而資訊義務的強化，便成為民事法實質化過程中的一項重要工具。資訊義務(Informationspflicht)，意指提供資訊之義務，狹義意指當事人就特定事項，負有主動向他方告知及說明的義務，若將此義務再作廣義的延伸，則資訊的揭露必須真實完整。 由於資訊是一經濟財，具有財產價值，而資訊的搜集也需要投入成本及風險，因此，資訊的揭露會影響締約當事人的行為誘因，故在資訊義務的賦加上，涉及當事人私法自治利益的保障調和，若再加進法律經濟分析面向，則資訊的社會福祉效用、交易成本與效率觀點，也應被考慮，所以資訊誘因、資訊成本、資訊價值等觀點也應納入個案的利益衡量中，蓋契約法也具有經濟任務的功能面向。 關於我國法現行的締約前資訊責任規定，歸結現行民法詐欺規定、瑕疵擔保責任及締約上過失等規定，可以得出民法典對於資訊義務的違反，係採取「故意理論」(Vorsatzdogmatik)的立場。這個規範模式，是否可以滿足社會經濟環境變遷，引發檢討。對此，比較法上已有緩和故意理論而偏往過失責任發展的趨勢，而且在普通民法典之外的特別法，透過法令強制規定與行政管制的手段，針對特定的交易型態廣設諸多詳盡的資訊揭露規定，也反應了當事人的保護需求與強化資訊責任的必要性，故民法的相關規定也須實質化，以回應現實面的需求。從公平衡量的觀點，法律行為決定自由的保護是私法秩序的重要任務，過失違反資訊義務的風險，不能僅歸由被誤導之一方承擔，意思表示錯誤的規定，所能提供的救濟常常是不足夠的，過失責任的強化，可以強化當事人對於法律秩序的信賴，有助於降低契約準備成本和提升交換活動的效率，同時也可避免故意理論下因資訊欠缺所產生的免責特權，而對於資訊獲取提供必要的動力。然現行民法第二四五條之一，因其主客觀構成要件的嚴格性與功能的局限性，無法提供規範需求的滿足，有待更進一步的調整修正。在修法之前，從法律行為自我負責的實質化傾向、締約前資訊重要性的提升以及私法自治資訊義務的功能失常等因素，應可合理化法院在法律明文規定之外，以法律創設的方式從事規範的補充。對於締約前階段的法律關係，德國法學發展出來的締約上過失責任制度，為我國民法所繼受，並有部分案例類型的法典化，因此，經由締約上過失理論的運用，可以為締約前資訊義務的違反，提供法律創造的基礎。 資訊義務的功能在保障當事人的自主決定，使契約締結可以符合期待，雖然誠信原則可為資訊義務提供抽象的法律基礎，但對於具體的義務形成及內容，尚無法提供具體的指引，因此，如何合理化私法自治的限制與資訊風險的轉嫁，便有待資訊義務理論基礎與契約法理論的探討。雖然一般認為信賴責任理論可為締約上過失責任及締約前資訊義務提供理論依據，不過，實際上，雖然不實陳述責任可從信賴責任理論中導出，但是，對於說明義務而言，因單純的不作為尚未創設出信賴事實，因此，惟有將信賴轉化為規範上信賴或正當行為期待時，才能提供說理，惟何時存在規範上信賴或信賴的應然，仍須依靠其他指標，當事人一方在經濟生活中所從事的角色及專業，通常便成為他方當事人應然信賴與正當行為期待的基礎，縱經由對價思想將資訊經濟財概念引入，也會因資訊對價的難以具體化，而仍需依靠價格及角色期待的觀點來合理化，故依據信賴責任理論與對價思想，當事人一方的專業，時常是影響個案判斷的關鍵因素。此外，正當行為期待的觀點，不僅為當事人的個別保護提供基礎，也可在制度總體層面上，與減少交易成本的經濟觀點相配合，蓋經由誠正期待的保護，將締約前資訊風險歸由最小成本之一方負擔，可降低交易過程中的摩擦，增進分工專業經濟活動的效率，故資訊義務與自主決定的保護，也可將契約法的市場面向納入，經濟活動有效運作的保護，長期上可確保個人的決定自由，而個人決定自由的確保，也可促進市場有效競爭及維護市場調控，有助於整體制度的穩定。。 對於資訊義務的成立，在客觀因素上，可從「資訊需求」與「資訊期待可能性」，加以觀察。在交易過程中，可設想參與交易的當事人會具備最低必要資訊與一般基礎知識，以免在交易過程中須時時探查相對人能力而迭生調查成本，而當事人就自己商業領域範圍內之事項及一般的公開資訊，應可期待其為自力的資訊獲取，以免資訊努力的重覆投入，故原則上只有對於他方當事人無法自主獲取的特定重要資訊，才有主動說明的義務。所謂重要資訊，係指對於締約決定具有重要意義之事項，主要是指會影響契約目的實現的情事。經由此一重要性門檻，可以為契約嚴守原則(pacta sunt servanda)提供最低保護，確保契約效力的安定性，同時也意味著完全的資訊對等與完全的資訊揭露，係與契約自由及自我負責的基本原則，並不相符。對於資訊義務人的資訊期待可能性，應依交易觀點而為判斷，除特殊專業外，義務人的行為或表示、特別信賴的表徵、契約性質、交易性質、契約中的利益地位等等，也可推知資訊的期待可能性，此外，資訊誘因與資訊價值的社會福祉因素，以及具體個案中締約當事人雙方的利益平衡，也應納入考慮。在主觀因素上，在故意責任之外，另外建構過失責任，將督使當事人在交易過程中為必要注意。在法律效果上，違反資訊義務者，被害人得請求撤銷或廢棄契約，請求損害賠償，也享有拒絕履行抗辯權，此外，其亦可選擇調整契約作為損害賠償的方式。在故意責任時可適用詐欺規定及侵權行為規定，而過失責任時則依締約上過失請求，倘若締約前資訊義務的內容，涉及契約給付而成為契約內容一部分時，應被債務不履行責任所吸收。 在現代經濟交易過程中，廣告為締約前資訊問題的大宗紛爭來源，為現今競爭法與民事法的重要議題，不實廣告規範可增加事業投機行為的成本，減少廣告不實的誘因。廣告雖可傳遞資訊，然無法期待事業就全部不利事項予以全盤揭露，基於效能競爭及交易資訊透明化的要求，特定重要交易資訊的隱匿，會使交易相對人就產品比較、價格比較或條件比較，發生困難，減損購買決定自由與競爭正當秩序。對此，公平交易法雖未如德國不正競爭防止法增設廣告揭露事項的明文規定，但透過公平交易法第二十一條廣告規定及第二十四條禁止欺罔行為規定，還是可以發揮實際上的規範效用。不實廣告規定，雖係以行政管制方式為主，但亦有民事責任效果，雖然，違反不實廣告規定所締結之契約，係屬後續契約，原則上並不會違反禁止規定與公序良俗而當然無效，但公平交易法第三十條及第三十一條的妨害排除請求權及損害賠償請求權，仍可為個人提供一定的保護，此外，民法與消費者保護法的可適用性，並不被公平交易法所排斥，彼此間的相互補充，將可使當事人自主決定的保護，更加完整。