culpa in contrahendo
English translation: culpa in contrahendo
| GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 00:26 Oct 20, 2002 |
| Spanish to English translations [PRO] Law/Patents | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
|  Selected response from: Luis Arri Cibils Local time: 18:03 | ||||||
Grading comment
| |||||||
| Summary of answers provided | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | abajo |
|
Answers
23 mins confidence: 
abajo Explanation: It means "liability for negotiations," o precontractual liability, i.e., liability that may arise when the parties negotiated a contract but no one was finalized. El termino no se traduce. Hay muchisimas referencias en la Net a textos en aleman, ruso, castellano e ingles que usan el termino en su forma latina. Abajo doy dos referencias que discuten el termino. Una en castellano, y otra en ingles. La inglesa usa la frase: liability for negotiations (culpa in contrahendo) Llegados a este punto, podemos comenzar afirmando que la doctrina de la culpa in contrahendo se desarrolló en Alemania en el año 1861 por R. Von Ihering, quien sugirió basándose en textos romanos, que la parte culpable debía responder de los daños ocasionados a la parte inocente que confió en la validez del contrato. Su pensamiento no contemplaba aquellas situaciones producidas por negociaciones fallidas. En ocasiones, se ha considerado a esta teoría como panacea a las incertidumbres y desigualdades generadas por el Derecho angloamericano, en temas de responsabilidad precontractual. Nuestro derecho reconoce la bona fides desde el Código de las Partidas, no obstante, el Código Civil, a semejanza del Derecho francés y a diferencia del Derecho italiano y del Derecho portugués no regula la responsabilidad precontractual. Parece como si los tratos previos y la culpa in contrahendo fueran unos auténticos desconocidos para el Código Civil. De ahí que, en lo que atañe a su naturaleza jurídica, serán las normas sobre responsabilidad extracontractual las que se aplicarán en la resolución de reclamaciones legales precontractuales. ___________________________________________________________ D. Liability for negotiations (culpa in contrahendo) National law differs with respect to the possibility to break off negotiations and with respect to the liability for negotiating in bad faith. There are also differences as to what qualifies as bad faith and what type of losses can be recovered. Example: Company A and Company B are negotiating for the sale of Company C owned by company A. A and B meet personally, and communicate by letters, e-mail and telephone. After four months A decides to break off the negotiations and to sell Company C to X with whom A has had contacts throughout the negotiations with B. First, B claims that the parties already had concluded a contract orally. Secondly, B claims compensation for the expectation interest since A broke off the negotiations although he was liable to continue negotiations. Thirdly, B claims that A should compensate him for the reliance interest since A negotiated in bad faith by discussing the deal in parallel with X. The additional uncertainties and problem in international transactions with respect to this case are (Please note that these questions are explanatory examples – not a part of the questionnaire): a) National law differs as to whether a contract such as this require a written contract to be signed, whether the parties impliedly have agreed that no contract is concluded before a written contract is signed, and what is required for long term negotiations before an oral contract is binding on the parties. b) National law differs with respect to the possibility to break off negotiations. Some national laws do not allow a party to break off negotiations at a late stage, but requires that a contract be concluded. Other jurisdictions allow a negotiating party to freely terminate the negotiations for whatever reason. c) National law furthermore differs with respect to the liability for negotiating in bad faith, what qualifies as bad faith and what type of losses can be recovered. PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS 1. Do you think it is a problem that the law in relation to culpa in contrahendo differs in different countries? 2. Would it be helpful if the rules on culpa in contrahendo in electronic communication were to be harmonized? http://www.seis.se/geanytt/ICC UNCITRAL questionnaire.doc |
| |
Grading comment
| ||
| Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) | ||
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
KudoZ™ translation help
The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.
See also:
Search millions of term translations