No

No

Absente en tant que telle dans le discours des juristes civilistes français, la normativité précontractuelle constitue un phénomène juridique à part entière, dont l'appréhension suppose de suspendre provisoirement le raisonnement habituel par lequel le juriste appréhende la période précontractuelle.Signalée par les fautes précontractuelles, la normativité précontractuelle est distincte de la normativité générale et abstraite, inhérente à la période précontractuelle, que des différents dispositifs du Code civil (p. ex. art. 1109 et s.) et des principes jurisprudentiels (p. ex. la bonne foi) indiquent. Concrète, la normativité précontractuelle apparaît dans un premier temps tel un rapport normatif, établi entre les précontractants en situation de négociation. Décelable en rétrospective d'un contrat critiqué à l'occasion d'une faute simple ou qualifiée, ce rapport se constate également dans la perspective d'un contrat en négociation et constitue la réalité matérielle de cette normativité particulière. Dans un second temps, la normativité précontractuelle renvoie, dans l'ordre des concepts, à une norme. Endogène, celle-ci se manifeste dans l'environnement évolutif, au sein duquel les précontractants se placent volontairement pour déterminer le contenu de leur contrat futur.Point de jonction d'une norme spécifique précontractuelle et d'un rapport noué entre les précontractants, la normativité précontractuelle tient en échec la théorie des sources d'obligations, dans la mesure où celle-ci, considérée comme répertoriant les sources de normativité, ne parvient pas à expliquer celle-là par une seule source. Éclectique et complexe, la normativité précontractuelle échappe, quant à sa représentation, à une construction juridique. Fabriquée dans une discussion normative qui suppose d'envisager les précontractants dans le rapport qui les unit l'un à l'autre, la norme précontractuelle concrète se réalise, au cas par cas, sous l'action originale du juge, lorsque celui-ci reconnaît, rétrospectivement, sa présence ou non, à l'issue d'une bataille argumentative à laquelle les précontractants, parties au procès, participaient, pour mettre en avant l'intérêt qui les animaient lors des négociations et qu'ils entendent désormais faire privilégier par le juge, dans la pesée des intérêts.Hypothèse de quasi-droit, la mise en évidence de la normativité précontractuelle et sa mise à l'épreuve invitent le juriste à repenser les chemins de la normativité pour faire entièrement place à l'irréductible sociabilité qui caractérise le droit. / Absent as such in the discourse of French civil lawyers, the pre-contractual normativity is a legal phenomenon. Its comprehension supposes temporarily suspending the usual reasoning by which a jurist apprehends the pre-contractual period.Revealed through mistakes committed during pre-contractual negotiations, pre-contractual normativity is distinct from general and abstract normativity of the pre-contractual period and indicated in various provisions of the Civil Code (art. 1109 et seq.) and jurisprudential principles (e.g. good faith). As it is concrete, pre-contractual normativity firstly appears as a normative relationship, established between negotiators in the process of negotiating, whether the contract is finally signed or not. This relationship is the material reality of this particular normativity. Secondly, pre-contractual normativity sends back to a norm. As it is endogenous, it is revealed in the evolving environment, in which the negotiators voluntarily place themselves to settle the content of their future contract.Pre-contractual normativity is where a specific pre-contractual norm and a relationship forged between negotiators meet. It renders ineffective the theory of sources of obligations, since the latter, which is known for listing the sources of normativity, fails to explain the former with a single source. Pre-contractual normativity is eclectic and complex and thus, defies a single theorization in the way it is presented. Created in the process of a normative discussion which supposes considering negotiators in the relationship that unites them to one another, the concrete pre-contractual norm is achieved, case-by-case, under the supervision of a judge, who afterwards recognizes a presence or absence of such a norm at the end of a debate in which the negotiators – who have become party to the case - actively take part. The aim is to put forward the interests that stir them during the negotiations and that they now intend to have the judge's favor in his balancing of interests.The demonstration of pre-contractual normativity and its modus operandi are hypothesis of quasi-law and invite jurists to rethink the paths to normativity to give way to the completely inherent sociability that characterizes the law.

La présente étude se propose de théoriser la pratique de l’entrée payante dans le contrat. Elle peut être envisagée comme l’obligation monétaire préalable et déterminante imposée à l’une des parties, conditionnant la conclusion d’un contrat. La réunion sous ce seul vocable d’un certain nombre d’obligations précontractuelles permet de dégager une vision unitaire de la question, avant de s’attacher à leurs particularités. L’entrée payante connaît, de fait, diverses manifestations et ses justifications le sont tout autant. « Engagement » ou « supplément », la validité de ces obligations interroge nécessairement au regard du principe de la liberté contractuelle. Si l’on ne peut nier l’existence d’instruments juridiques susceptibles d’en assurer le contrôle, ce dernier demeure néanmoins non efficient. Dès lors, doit être sérieusement envisagée la création d’une norme générale encadrant ces pratiques. / This study intends to theorize the application of admission charge into contracts. It can be regarded as a preliminary and decisive monetary obligation imposed upon one of the parties, determining the finalization of the contract. The union of several pre-contractual duties under this sole term allows to put forward a unified vision of the question before going into particularities. De facto, admission charge is subject to various manifestations and so are its justifications. «Engagement» or «supplementary» pre-contractual monetary obligation issues continue to arise regarding the validity of these obligations in accordance with the principle of freedom of contract. While there can be no denying the existence of legal instruments likely to ensure its regulation, it remains inefficient nonetheless. Henceforth, creating a general standard to regulate such practices ought to be seriously considered.

The times when closing of the contract was as simple as making an offer and receiving its acceptance are long over now. A variuosly long period preceeds an establishment of a contractual relationship. During such period, when a contract is being formed, the parties exchange their requests or essential information and negotiate the content of the contract. The longer this pre-contractual negotiation lasts, the more time, money or other means parties invest in good faith that they shall be compensated once the contract is concluded. In case the closing of the contract is not going to occur, because of a party's unfair dealings, the party in harm shall be entitled to engage liability of the other contractor. In these circumstances, the party in harm shall base its claim on a pre-contractual liability, also referred to as culpa in contrahendo. Apart from determining the pre-contractual obligations and liability for their breach in general fashion, the subject matter of this thesis is mainly an effective comparison of Czech and French relevant legal regulation. Since the legislation does not currently regulate the issue of pre-contractual liability, this thesis is focused primarily on the case law issued by courts from both states. In particular, the thesis analyzes the case law of the Czech Supreme...

The purpose of my thesis is to consider the importance of culpa in contrahendo which does not have a long tradition in the Czech law. However, since the 1 January 2014 it has become enshrined the Czech legal system. The instrument of culpa in contrahendo is connected with the need to protect the good faith of the parties to a contract which is an essential principle of modern contract law, particularly in continental legal systems. Despite the lack of the general duty to act in good faith while negotiating contracts in common law systems, we can see that English or American judges solve the practical problems resulting from dishonesty of one party to the contract through equitable principles such as misrepresentation or promissory estoppel. The importance of protecting good faith is visible even from international contract law documents that are important for the interpretation of national law. Chapter One contains the explanation of culpa in contrahendo as a practical instrument and I distinguish it from pre-contractual liability in the anglo-american legal systems. Despite the differences of the continental and common law systems of law, I consider, on the basis of the laws and court decision analysis, whether the Czech courts, in deciding the pre-contractual liability cases, are getting closer...

Culpa in Contrahendo Resumé The aim of this degree work is to introduce the institute of pre-contractual liability and its practical application. The work focuses on the position of this institute in the Czech legislation, its classification in the system of laws before the recodification of civil law, and its express regulation in Act No. 89/2012 Coll., Civil Code. Much attention is devoted to rulings of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic and its approach to the application of pre-contractual liability in specific cases. The degree work is divided into seven chapters. The first chapter defines the term 'Culpa in contrahendo', describes its origin in the work of a German jurist of genius, Rudolf von Jhering, and outlines the origin of the institute in Roman law. In this chapter is also a description of the first case of pre-contractual liability, 'Linoleumfall', which was resolved by the Imperial Court. The chapter also contains an overview of instances of pre-contractual liability embodied in foreign judicial codes. The second chapter describes the regulation of pre-contractual liability in the Czech body of laws before the recodification of civil law with illustrations of individual facts in issue formerly contained in Act No. 40/1964 Coll., Civil Code, and Act No. 513/1991 Coll., Commercial Code....

Pre-Contractual Liability (Culpa in Contrahendo) Summary The purpose of my thesis is to analyse the issue of pre-contractual liability from the microcomparative perspective which subsequently serves as the tool to characterise the main features of pre-contractual liability in the realm of Czech Civil and Commercial Codes. The reason for my research is to prove the existence and importance of pre-contractual liability in the Czech legal order as well as in the sphere of the European Union in the light of its respective case laws. The thesis is composed of five chapters, each of them dealing with different aspects of negotiation stage and pre-contractual liability. Chapter One is introductory and defines basic terminology, methodology used in the thesis, scope, and aims. Chapter Two examines chosen foreign legal regulations of pre-contractual liability. The essential attention is given to Germany, Austria, and Switzerland as those legal systems are very close to the Czech one (historically and geographically). The French view is also considered because legislators seek to prepare the reform of obligation laws. Finally, common law of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America is discussed and challenged because of its adverse approach to pre-contractual liability....

La période précontractuelle est une période importante dans la vie de la plupart des contrats de nos jours, en raison de la mondialisation et de la complexité des relations juridiques et économiques entre les parties. Dès lors, cette période soulève de nombreux problèmes et questions concernant sa définition, ses dispositions, les droits et les obligations des parties, la nature de la responsabilité durant cette phase, etc. La complexité de l’étude de cette période réside dans sa division en deux phases : les négociations précontractuelles et les contrats préparatoires. Malgré l’importance de cette période vitale et la nécessité de répondre aux questions soulevées par celle-ci, beaucoup de régimes juridiques négligent de réglementer cette période, comme le droit égyptien et le droit français avant l’ordonnance n° 2016-131 du 10 février 2016 portant réforme du droit des contrats, du régime général et de la preuve des obligations, qui a tenté de codifier cette période. A-t-il réussi sa mission ? Le Code civil égyptien peut-il s’inspirer de l’expérience du législateur français ? Le but de cette thèse est donc de répondre à ces questions dans un cadre juridique analytique comparatif. / Pre-contractual phase form an important part of contracts’ life cycle; for reasons including globalization and the complexity of legal and economic relations gathering the concerned parties. Building on this importance this phase arises numerous problems and questions concerning its definition, regulation, rights and duties of the parties and nature of liability during this stage including the negotiations and preparatory contracts. Despite the importance and vitality of this phase, and the necessity to answer the risen questions legislations tend to neglect the regulation of this period. A perfect example of this lack of legislative action is the Egyptian law in addition to the French one preceding the major contract law reform that took place in 2016. This reform tried to codify this period. The question rising in this regard is the following: did this reform attend its mission? If so, can the Egyptian civil code be inspired by the experience of the French legislature? This thesis aims to answer these questions using a comparative analytical legal approach.

Dans un contexte de mondialisation, face à l’accroissement des échanges et la complexification des contrats internationaux, les négociations précontractuelles ont pris une dimension particulière : création de nouvelles obligations, étirement de la durée des pourparlers, multiplications des contrats préliminaires, tout conduit à transformer cette simple période de transition en une étape primordiale de la vie contractuelle. Les différentes phases de négociation entre partenaires internationaux vont ainsi générer des contentieux qui intéressent le droit international privé. En effet, la valeur juridique de la négociation diverge d’un régime juridique à un autre. Alors que les Etats de common law adoptent une conception individualiste des pourparlers avec pour principe une liberté contractuelle très étendue, la civil law circonscrit la liberté contractuelle par le respect d’un devoir de bonne foi. Par conséquent, il apparaît essentiel, pour les parties, de connaître avec certitude le droit applicable à leur relation précontractuelle.Or les règles de conflits existantes, supposées garantir la sécurité juridique des parties à la négociation en leur assurant une certaine prévisibilité des solutions, ne sont pas adaptées à l’heure actuelle. Dans cette perspective, l’objet de la recherche s’attache à considérer les spécificités de la période précontractuelle et les questions de droit international privé s’y rattachant et tente d’y apporter des réponses efficaces en proposant des règles de conflits adaptées, afin de garantir la sécurité juridique à laquelle aspirent les parties à la négociation. / In a context of globalization, facing increased trade and the increasing complexity of international contracts, pre-contractual negotiations take a special dimension: creating new obligations, stretching the length of talks, multiplications of preliminary contracts, are leading to transform this simple transition in a primordial stage of contracts. The different phases of negotiation between international partners and will generate interest litigation private international law.Indeed, the legal negotiation differs from one legal regime to another. Common law countries adopt an individualistic principle for talks with extensive contractual freedom, whereas civil law circumscribes the freedom of contract in respect of a duty of good faith. Therefore, it is essential for the parties to know with certainty the law applicable to their pre-contractual relationship.However, the existing conflict rules, supposed to guarantee the legal security of the negotiating parties by ensuring predictability solutions are not appropriate at this time. In this perspective, the purpose of the research focuses on considering the specificities of the pre-contractual period and issues of private international law relating thereto and attempts to provide effective responses by providing conflict rules adapted to ensure legal certainty aspired parties to the negotiation.