Culpa in Contrahendo

Beschreibung

In the Roman law tradition up to Savigny, culpa was not considered to be a causa obligationis. Rudolf v. Jhering rejected this dogma 150 years ago. His "discovery" of culpa in contrahendo finally introduced a general basis for liability in legal relations based on nothing but bona fides (good faith). However, the stage at which precontractual reliance becomes worthy of protection is not yet defined. In this study, the author explores why culpa in contrahendo is nevertheless still retained.
In the Roman law tradition up to Savigny, culpa was not considered to be a causa obligationis. Rudolf v. Jhering rejected this dogma 150 years ago. His "discovery" of culpa in contrahendo finally introduced a general basis for liability in legal relations based on nothing but bona fides (good faith). However, the stage at which precontractual reliance becomes worthy of protection is not yet defined. In this study, the author explores why culpa in contrahendo is nevertheless still retained.

Autor*in

Jörg Benedict
Geboren 1966; Studium der Rechtswissenschaft, Philosophie, Soziologie an den Universitäten Greifswald und Rostock; 2007-08 Vertretungsprofessur (Universität Rostock); 2008-09 Vertretungsprofessur (LMU München); seit 2010 Lehrstuhlinhaber für "Bürgerliches Recht, Europäisches Privatrecht, Rechtsgeschichte und Rechtsphilosophie" und Dekan der Juristischen Fakultät der Universität Rostock.

Themen in »Culpa in Contrahendo«

Bürgerliches Recht Rechtsgeschichte Rechtsdogmatik Rechtsphilosophie

Stimmen zu »Culpa in Contrahendo«

Details

Link teilen