This dissertation analyses the application of civil liability in precontractual relations under the Lithuanian civil law. In the general part of the thesis the detailed analysis of precontractual relations’ phase is presented, as well as the genesis of development of precontractual liability and its antagonistic aims are considered. This part concludes with the question of applicable legal regime of civil liability in precontractual relations. The thesis special part is devoted to the analysis of two, under the opinion of the author, the most problematic conditions of precontractual civil liability: the unlawful precontractual actions and the concept of precontractual damage. It is noted that the opposing aims of precontractual liability – ensuring the freedom of negotiations v. keeping the parties’ confidence for the conclusion of contract – will be achieved only when the scope of civil liability in precontractual relations will depend on and will be related with the progress of negotiations. Therefore regardless of negotiations progress and in case when all necessary conditions of the precontractual liability are present, the aggrieved party should be compensated for any kind of negotiations’ costs and any other direct precontractual damages which are not unreasonably high and for which the party had not been taken the risk. In addition, when the negotiations are considered deeply advanced, the aggrieved party should receive the remuneration of indirect damages which should... [to full text] / Disertacijoje nagrinėjamas civilinės atsakomybės taikymo esant ikisutartiniams santykiams klausimas Lietuvos civilinėje teisėje. Darbo bendrojoje dalyje yra pateikiama detali ikisutartinių santykių stadijos analizė, nagrinėjama ikisutartinės atsakomybės vertinimo genezė bei jos taikymui keliami specifiniai tikslai, taip pat didelis dėmesys skiriamas ikisutartinei atsakomybei taikytino teisinio rėžimo tyrimui. Disertacijos specialioji dalis skirta dviejų, autorės nuomone, šių dienų teisėje daugiausia klausimų keliančių civilinės atsakomybės ikisutartiniuose santykiuose taikymo sąlygų analizei, tai – neteisėtiems ikisutartiniams veiksmams ir ikisutartinių nuostolių koncepcijai. Darbe pagrindžiama išvada, kad civilinei atsakomybei iki pagrindinės sutarties sudarymo keliami antagonistiniai tikslai – užtikrinti derybų laisvę ir apsaugoti pasitikėjimą sutarties sudarymu – gali būti pasiekti priklausomai nuo derybų pažangos laipsnio taikant nevienodą civilinės atsakomybės apimtį. Todėl teigiama, kad neatsižvelgiant į derybų pažangos laipsnį ir esant ikisutartinės atsakomybės taikymo sąlygų visetui, sąžiningai šaliai turi būti kompensuojami bet kokios rūšies tiesioginiai ikisutartiniai nuostoliai, o toli pažengusių derybų atveju civilinės atsakomybės esant ikisutartiniams santykiams apimtis yra platesnė ir apima prarastos galimybės pinigine verte ribotų netiesioginių nuostolių atlyginimą.

Disertacijoje nagrinėjamas civilinės atsakomybės taikymo esant ikisutartiniams santykiams klausimas Lietuvos civilinėje teisėje. Darbo bendrojoje dalyje yra pateikiama detali ikisutartinių santykių stadijos analizė, nagrinėjama ikisutartinės atsakomybės vertinimo genezė bei jos taikymui keliami specifiniai tikslai, taip pat didelis dėmesys skiriamas ikisutartinei atsakomybei taikytino teisinio rėžimo tyrimui. Disertacijos specialioji dalis skirta dviejų, autorės nuomone, šių dienų teisėje daugiausia klausimų keliančių civilinės atsakomybės ikisutartiniuose santykiuose taikymo sąlygų analizei, tai – neteisėtiems ikisutartiniams veiksmams ir ikisutartinių nuostolių koncepcijai. Darbe pagrindžiama išvada, kad civilinei atsakomybei iki pagrindinės sutarties sudarymo keliami antagonistiniai tikslai – užtikrinti derybų laisvę ir apsaugoti pasitikėjimą sutarties sudarymu – gali būti pasiekti priklausomai nuo derybų pažangos laipsnio taikant nevienodą civilinės atsakomybės apimtį. Todėl teigiama, kad neatsižvelgiant į derybų pažangos laipsnį ir esant ikisutartinės atsakomybės taikymo sąlygų visetui, sąžiningai šaliai turi būti kompensuojami bet kokios rūšies tiesioginiai ikisutartiniai nuostoliai, o toli pažengusių derybų atveju civilinės atsakomybės esant ikisutartiniams santykiams apimtis yra platesnė ir apima prarastos galimybės pinigine verte ribotų netiesioginių nuostolių atlyginimą. / This dissertation analyses the application of civil liability in precontractual relations under the Lithuanian civil law. In the general part of the thesis the detailed analysis of precontractual relations’ phase is presented, as well as the genesis of development of precontractual liability and its antagonistic aims are considered. This part concludes with the question of applicable legal regime of civil liability in precontractual relations. The thesis special part is devoted to the analysis of two, under the opinion of the author, the most problematic conditions of precontractual civil liability: the unlawful precontractual actions and the concept of precontractual damage. It is noted that the opposing aims of precontractual liability – ensuring the freedom of negotiations v. keeping the parties’ confidence for the conclusion of contract – will be achieved only when the scope of civil liability in precontractual relations will depend on and will be related with the progress of negotiations. Therefore regardless of negotiations progress and in case when all necessary conditions of the precontractual liability are present, the aggrieved party should be compensated for any kind of negotiations’ costs and any other direct precontractual damages which are not unreasonably high and for which the party had not been taken the risk. In addition, when the negotiations are considered deeply advanced, the aggrieved party should receive the remuneration of indirect damages which should... [to full text]

Submitted by Felipe Assis de Castro Alves Nakamoto (felipe.acan@gmail.com) on 2018-01-18T11:34:14Z No. of bitstreams: 1 A RESPONSABILIDADE PRÉ-CONTRATUAL _ ANÁLISE JURÍDICA DO ROMPIMENTO DAS NEGOCIAÇÕES NO BRASIL, NA ALEMANHA E NA INGLATERRA (versão final).pdf: 884367 bytes, checksum: e21fb3b27e98ff5f791fe9b3e3337c70 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Laura Odette Dorta Jardim null (laura@franca.unesp.br) on 2018-01-18T11:54:16Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 A RESPONSABILIDADE PRÉ-CONTRATUAL _ ANÁLISE JURÍDICA DO ROMPIMENTO DAS NEGOCIAÇÕES NO BRASIL, NA ALEMANHA E NA INGLATERRA (versão final).pdf: 884367 bytes, checksum: e21fb3b27e98ff5f791fe9b3e3337c70 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-01-18T11:54:16Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 A RESPONSABILIDADE PRÉ-CONTRATUAL _ ANÁLISE JURÍDICA DO ROMPIMENTO DAS NEGOCIAÇÕES NO BRASIL, NA ALEMANHA E NA INGLATERRA (versão final).pdf: 884367 bytes, checksum: e21fb3b27e98ff5f791fe9b3e3337c70 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-11-08 / O presente trabalho tem como objetivo analisar as consequências jurídicas da responsabilidade pré-contratual, sobretudo aquelas decorrentes da ruptura de negociações. Para tanto, empregou-se a metodologia comparada, uma vez que a figura da responsabilidade pré-contratual é oriunda da Alemanha e lá também encontrou grande desenvolvimento. Como ponto de contraste, elegeu-se a análise do sistema jurídico inglês que, por conta de sua peculiaridade sistemática – common law – e por razões filosófico-econômicas não prevê a responsabilização por danos decorrentes do período negocial em uma figura unitária, tal como ocorre na Alemanha. No Brasil, a discussão centra-se na natureza jurídica e na divergência suscitada tanto pela doutrina quanto pela jurisprudência, fato de dificulta seu entendimento e impõe a superação de alguns conceitos clássicos, de modo a conformar o mundo jurídico à adequada proteção das relações sociais. Dessa forma, estribado na boa-fé objetiva, o Brasil desenvolve uma responsabilização pré-contratual distinta da Alemanha, com muitos traços de responsabilidade extracontratual. Espera-se, portanto, colaborar com o debate acerca de tão tumultuada figura que é a responsabilidade pré-contratual brasileira. / The objective of this study is to analyze the legal consequences of precontractual liability, especially those resulting from the rupture of negotiations. For this, the use of comparative methodology was employed, since the idea of precontractual responsibility comes from Germany and there found great development. As a point of contrast, we chose to analyze the English legal system which, because of its systematic peculiarity - common law - and for philosophical-economic reasons does not have a unitary remedy for damages stemming from liability on the negotiations period, such as occurs in Germany. In Brazil, the discussion focuses on the legal nature and divergence raised by both doctrine and jurisprudence, which makes difficult to understand the concept of precontractual liability and imposes the duty to overcome some classic concepts, in order to adapt the legal world to the adequate protection of social relations. Thus, based on objective good faith, Brazil develops a precontractual liability distinct from Germany, with many traits of extra-contractual liability. It is hoped, therefore, to cooperate with the debate about such a tumultuous solution which is the Brazilian precontractual liability.

Diese Arbeit behandelt das Thema "Rechtsinstitut der vorvertraglichen Haftung in Theorie und Praxis". Die ganze Arbeit ist in drei Teile gegliedert und zwar "Der Begriff der Vorvertraglichen Haftung", "Die Komparative Analyse der ausländischen Rechtsordnungen" und "Das tschechische Konzept der vorvertraglichen Haftung". Das Hauptziel dieser Arbeit ist, die praktischen Aspekte der vorvertraglichen Haftung zu beschreiben, was aber ohne ausreichende theoretische Grundlagen unmöglich ist. Die Doktrin culpa in contrahendo (Verschulden beim Vertragsabschluss) wird Rudolph von Jhering zugeschrieben, denn er hat im Jahre 1861 als erstes die charakteristischen Züge der vorvertraglichen Obligationen beschrieben. Der Autor ordnet in dem ersten Teil dieser Arbeit noch die vorvertragliche Haftung in das Rechtssystem ein. Die zum Teil von dem Autor entworfene Definition dient dann in dem zweiten und dritten Teil zu dem einfacheren Vergleich der Konzepte von vorvertraglicher Haftung in verschiedenen Rechtsordnungen. In dem zweiten Teil wird zuerst das deutsche Konzept der culpa in contrahendo beschrieben, wie es sich von R. von Jhering über die Schuldrechtsmodernisierung bis zum heutigen Tag entwickelt hat. Die Entwicklung der deutschen Auffassung der vorvertraglichen Haftung von der materiellen zur formalen...

Formation of a contract is nowadays more sophisticated than it formerly used to be due to major progress in communication technologies and technical development, and therefore, looking on negotiation process only through the notions of offer and acceptance alone appears to be somewhat insufficient. It is not unusual and infrequent that long term and complicated dealings take place prior to the conclusion of a contract, especially in more or less complex business matters. During various negotiation stages, many parties may incur different kinds of significant expenses in order to prepare well for the next phase of the negotiations and, eventually, for the targeted contractual performance. For the conclusion of a contract it may also be necessary to inform the other party about the terms and conditions which are essential for the first party's final decision about the contract, while some of this information might be considered as strictly confidential. Although the fundamental principle of contractual freedom allows the parties to act freely in negotiations and the contractual process is generally regarded as a non-binding relationship, there are some restrictions set up with the aim to protect good faith of the parties and support their fair dealings. According to the abovementioned, a situation...

OF DIPLOMA THESIS THE THEORETICAL CONCEPTION OF PRE-CONTRACTUAL AND CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY Author: René Cienciala Supervisor: doc. JUDr. Karel Beran, Ph.D. Department: Department of Legal Theory and Legal Doctrines The purpose of my thesis was to analyse theoretical aspects of precontractual and contractual liability under Czech law. I particularly focused on precontractual liability (also known as culpa in contrahendo) due to its unclear and unresolved theoretical conception among Czech jurisprudence. The thesis consists of eleven chapters including one annex. After short introduction, I briefly analysed the meaning of a general term legal responsibility/ liability in the second chapter, and a historical background including the original Jhering's conception of culpa in contrahendo in the third part of the thesis. The fourth chapter is devoted to defining the scope of precontractual liability and specific precontractual duties and/or obligations during a contract negotiation under both current and revised civil law. I comprehensively analysed underlying principles of a concept of precontractual liability, its general nature and a nature of precontractual relationship in the fifth part of the thesis. I also tried to provide theoretical description and definition of the conception of culpa in...

Ainda que inexistente um mandamento legal expresso no Direito brasileiro, é intuitivo pensar a responsabilidade civil a partir da recondução da parte levada a um estado hipotético na qual estaria não fosse o evento que obriga à reparação. Esse pensamento, reiterado na afirmação de que a indenização deve reconstituir (mesmo que de maneira aproximativa) o status quo ante, corresponde à função compensatória da responsabilidade civil. Ocorre, porém, que no que toca ao dano patrimonial ocorrido no iter negocial (ou seja, na responsabilidade pré-negocial ou na negocial) haveria de se anotar que a situação hipotética sem o dano nem sempre é anterior ao evento lesivo, podendo ser posterior a ele. É o que se passa, com evidência, na indenização pelo equivalente ao descumprimento contratual, em que se confere ao credor lesado algo que ele não possuía antes, em lugar do cumprimento da obrigação. É essa dualidade de direcionamentos, vinculada a uma fórmula comparativa de obtenção do dano indenizável, que compõe o significado das expressões interesse (contratual) positivo e interesse (contratual) negativo. No primeiro caso, reconduz-se o lesado a uma situação positiva em relação ao contrato, que se poderia chamar de ad quem. Ela corresponde à situação em que o lesado estaria se o contrato houvesse sido adequadamente cumprido. No segundo caso, reconduz-se a parte a uma situação negativa em relação ao contrato, que se poderia chamar de a quo. Corresponde, por sua vez, à situação em que estaria não houvesse iniciado as negociações voltadas ao contrato. A dualidade representada por esse par de conceitos, proposto originalmente por Rudolf von Jhering em meados do século XIX, é ainda pouco explorada no Direito brasileiro, embora não se possa qualificá-la como desconhecida. Os conceitos mostram-se não apenas plenamente compatíveis com a regras de responsabilidade civil nacionais, como extremamente úteis à solução de problemas centrais localizados no diálogo entre esse ramo do Direito Civil e o Direito dos Contratos. É nesse locus que a tese se desenvolve, para sustentar a aplicabilidade dessa distinção ao Direito Privado brasileiro como, essencialmente, uma nova forma de pensar o dano in contrahendo e o dano contratual. A lógica da aplicação dos conceitos permite revisitar a forma pela qual usualmente se enxerga a relação jurídica de reparação e, não apenas, também reaviva a compreensão de aspectos essenciais da transformação do Direito das Obrigações, os quais compõem, em grande medida, o substrato da aplicação da distinção. Para tanto, buscou-se inicialmente fomentar a apresentação teórica do interesse positivo e do interesse negativo estudando seu significado, seus desenvolvimentos teóricos e sua adequação ao Direito brasileiro ao que se segue a proposição de sua aplicação. Dada as limitações do texto, essa depuração é realizada estritamente no âmbito da responsabilidade pela não formação do contrato (responsabilidade pré-negocial) e da responsabilidade negocial propriamente dita, compondo a segunda parte do trabalho. / Despite the absence of any express rule to this effect in Brazilian Law, it is nevertheless intuitive to think of civil liability as a commandment to restore the parties to the position each would have enjoyed if the event giving rise to liability had never occurred. This understanding of civil liability is frequently expressed as the idea that damages should bring the aggrieved party to the status quo ante, by way of compensating him for the damages suffered. In regards to material damages suffered during the contractual iter (i.e. in precontractual liability or in liability for breach of contract), one should notice that the hypothetical situation on which the party would be without the occurrence of damages is not always a situation that existed previous to its occurrence. That is exactly what occurs in damages in lieu of performance, by which the aggrieved party receives compensation for something he in fact never had before. This duality of directions can be understood by the expressions expectation interest and reliance interest. According to the former, the plaintiff must be placed in a positive situation vis-à-vis the contract, a status that can be called ad quem. In other words, the plaintiff will get his benefit of the bargain, and will obtain what he would have received if the contract had been correctly performed. According to the latter, the aggrieved party must be placed in a negative situation vis-à-vis the contract, which can be called an status a quo. This seeks to recreate the situation in which the plaintiff would have been if the contract had never even been formed or its negotiations had never been initiated. This way of thinking about damages or this pair of concepts was originally proposed by Rudolf von Jhering in the mid-nineteenth century. While its application is still little explored in Brazilian Law, it is not completely unknown to the Brazilian jurisprudence. Both of these theories as to the proper function of civil liability are compatible with Brazilian liability rules, and may indeed represent extremely useful solutions to some fundamental problems in modern discourse on civil liability rules and the law of contracts. It is precisely at here that this thesis is developed, advocating for the full applicability of the foregoing concepts in the Brazilian Private Law, thereby leading to a new way of thinking about damages, both in contrahendo and in contractu. The inherent logic of both concepts allows not only to revisit the usual framework by which the law of damages is considered and applied, but also underlines some major transformations in the Law of Obligations. In order to prove its suitability, this thesis initially presents the theoretical foundations of expectation interest and reliance interest, and reviews the meaning and development of these concepts in the context of examining their compatibility with Brazilian law. This is followed by an argument proposing the application of these theories in situations involving both precontractual liability and breach of contract.

Ainda que inexistente um mandamento legal expresso no Direito brasileiro, é intuitivo pensar a responsabilidade civil a partir da recondução da parte levada a um estado hipotético na qual estaria não fosse o evento que obriga à reparação. Esse pensamento, reiterado na afirmação de que a indenização deve reconstituir (mesmo que de maneira aproximativa) o status quo ante, corresponde à função compensatória da responsabilidade civil. Ocorre, porém, que no que toca ao dano patrimonial ocorrido no iter negocial (ou seja, na responsabilidade pré-negocial ou na negocial) haveria de se anotar que a situação hipotética sem o dano nem sempre é anterior ao evento lesivo, podendo ser posterior a ele. É o que se passa, com evidência, na indenização pelo equivalente ao descumprimento contratual, em que se confere ao credor lesado algo que ele não possuía antes, em lugar do cumprimento da obrigação. É essa dualidade de direcionamentos, vinculada a uma fórmula comparativa de obtenção do dano indenizável, que compõe o significado das expressões interesse (contratual) positivo e interesse (contratual) negativo. No primeiro caso, reconduz-se o lesado a uma situação positiva em relação ao contrato, que se poderia chamar de ad quem. Ela corresponde à situação em que o lesado estaria se o contrato houvesse sido adequadamente cumprido. No segundo caso, reconduz-se a parte a uma situação negativa em relação ao contrato, que se poderia chamar de a quo. Corresponde, por sua vez, à situação em que estaria não houvesse iniciado as negociações voltadas ao contrato. A dualidade representada por esse par de conceitos, proposto originalmente por Rudolf von Jhering em meados do século XIX, é ainda pouco explorada no Direito brasileiro, embora não se possa qualificá-la como desconhecida. Os conceitos mostram-se não apenas plenamente compatíveis com a regras de responsabilidade civil nacionais, como extremamente úteis à solução de problemas centrais localizados no diálogo entre esse ramo do Direito Civil e o Direito dos Contratos. É nesse locus que a tese se desenvolve, para sustentar a aplicabilidade dessa distinção ao Direito Privado brasileiro como, essencialmente, uma nova forma de pensar o dano in contrahendo e o dano contratual. A lógica da aplicação dos conceitos permite revisitar a forma pela qual usualmente se enxerga a relação jurídica de reparação e, não apenas, também reaviva a compreensão de aspectos essenciais da transformação do Direito das Obrigações, os quais compõem, em grande medida, o substrato da aplicação da distinção. Para tanto, buscou-se inicialmente fomentar a apresentação teórica do interesse positivo e do interesse negativo estudando seu significado, seus desenvolvimentos teóricos e sua adequação ao Direito brasileiro ao que se segue a proposição de sua aplicação. Dada as limitações do texto, essa depuração é realizada estritamente no âmbito da responsabilidade pela não formação do contrato (responsabilidade pré-negocial) e da responsabilidade negocial propriamente dita, compondo a segunda parte do trabalho. / Despite the absence of any express rule to this effect in Brazilian Law, it is nevertheless intuitive to think of civil liability as a commandment to restore the parties to the position each would have enjoyed if the event giving rise to liability had never occurred. This understanding of civil liability is frequently expressed as the idea that damages should bring the aggrieved party to the status quo ante, by way of compensating him for the damages suffered. In regards to material damages suffered during the contractual iter (i.e. in precontractual liability or in liability for breach of contract), one should notice that the hypothetical situation on which the party would be without the occurrence of damages is not always a situation that existed previous to its occurrence. That is exactly what occurs in damages in lieu of performance, by which the aggrieved party receives compensation for something he in fact never had before. This duality of directions can be understood by the expressions expectation interest and reliance interest. According to the former, the plaintiff must be placed in a positive situation vis-à-vis the contract, a status that can be called ad quem. In other words, the plaintiff will get his benefit of the bargain, and will obtain what he would have received if the contract had been correctly performed. According to the latter, the aggrieved party must be placed in a negative situation vis-à-vis the contract, which can be called an status a quo. This seeks to recreate the situation in which the plaintiff would have been if the contract had never even been formed or its negotiations had never been initiated. This way of thinking about damages or this pair of concepts was originally proposed by Rudolf von Jhering in the mid-nineteenth century. While its application is still little explored in Brazilian Law, it is not completely unknown to the Brazilian jurisprudence. Both of these theories as to the proper function of civil liability are compatible with Brazilian liability rules, and may indeed represent extremely useful solutions to some fundamental problems in modern discourse on civil liability rules and the law of contracts. It is precisely at here that this thesis is developed, advocating for the full applicability of the foregoing concepts in the Brazilian Private Law, thereby leading to a new way of thinking about damages, both in contrahendo and in contractu. The inherent logic of both concepts allows not only to revisit the usual framework by which the law of damages is considered and applied, but also underlines some major transformations in the Law of Obligations. In order to prove its suitability, this thesis initially presents the theoretical foundations of expectation interest and reliance interest, and reviews the meaning and development of these concepts in the context of examining their compatibility with Brazilian law. This is followed by an argument proposing the application of these theories in situations involving both precontractual liability and breach of contract.

The thesis deals with questions of pre-contractual liability which is seen as a very specific institute whose conception is diverse in different EU countries and also outside. The main research question is a difference between pre-contractual liability perception in the different countries and its full description in relation to the negotiations of business contracts with an emphasis on Czech law. In the first part, the author analyses historical background of pre-contractual liability in relation to Roman law and German-Austrian legal systems in which the professor Jhering developed that construction of culpa in contrahendo. In the following chapters, the author deals with the description and nature of pre-contractual liability, particularly in questions of whether they are contractual or delictual liability and enter into details the basic facts, example and extent of damages with respect to the European concept of pre-contractual liability. He concludes that the pre-contractual liability is in the European concept as delictual liability, with regard to the decision of European Court of Justice. The author simultaneously mentions that although similar facts in the legal systems, the extent of damages is very different when there is a clear dichotomy between positive and negative interesse. The...

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。