Culpa in Contrahendo: A Testimony to the Changing Methodologies in Private International Law
Maria-Anna Zachariasiewicz
University of Silesia in Katowice , Polandhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9356-4133
Maciej Zachariasiewicz
Kozminski University , Polandhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-2848-0216
Abstract
The concept of culpa in contrahendo traditionally encompasses cases of disloyal conduct by the parties during the negotiation stage of a contract. It applies to a broad range of factual scenarios. Furthermore, the legal nature of culpa in contrahendo has long been the subject of debate, with some legal systems favouring its classification as a contractual matter and others as a delict. In the realm of private international law, these issues present significant challenges in terms of legal characterization as aptly demonstrated by the well-known case of Tacconi v. Wagner (2002), in which the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delineated the application of Articles 5(1) and 5(3) of the Brussels Convention (now Articles 7(1) and 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation). The CJEU favored a tort-based qualification for claims arising from the breach of pre-contractual duties, but only insofar as they were not grounded in “obligations freely assumed by one party towards another.” Despite the stance taken by the CJEU – which reflects the traditional conflict-of-laws approach, strictly distinguishing torts from contracts – the EU legislator, in Article 12 of the Rome II Regulation (2007), adopted a solution that can be described as an “accessory connection.” According to this provision, the law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising from dealings prior to the conclusion of a contract – regardless of whether the contract was ultimately concluded – is the law that applies to the contract or that would have applied to it had it been entered into. Only in exceptional cases will the applicable law be determined by connecting factors traditionally associated with torts, such as the place of damage (Article 12(2)). Thus, regardless of the delictual nature of culpa in contrahendo, such obligations are governed by the law applicable to the contract, even in instances where the contract never materialized. The article explores various approaches to the conflict-of-law characterization of pre-contractual liability and contrasts tchem with the pragmatic method of identifying the spatial “center of gravity” of the relevant legal relationship. Additionally, the article examines how the “accessory connection” operates under Article 12 of the Rome II Regulation with respect to pre-contractual liability, highlighting its advantages. It argues that while the adopted solution does not entirely dispense with traditional conflict-of-laws characterization, it significantly diminishes its practical application, as the lex contractus will invariably apply. Consequently, the EU legislator favors an independent localization of the legal relationship based on pragmatic criteria – specifically, an accessory reference to the law applicable to the contract.
Keywords:
culpa in contrahendo, pre-contractual liability, Rome II Regulation, private international law, conflict-of-laws methodologiesSupporting Agencies:
The publication was created as a part of the research project “Contemporary trends in the methodology of private international law,” funded by Narodowe Centrum Nauki (No. UMO-2017/27/B/HS5/01258).References
Andreeva, Vésela Andreeva. “La Culpa in Contrahendo Y El Reglamento 1215/2012: Más Preguntas Que Respuestas.” Revista electrónica de estudios internacionales (REEI), no. 44 (2022). https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=8783260.
Basedow, Jürgen, Giesela Rühl, Franco Ferrari, and Pedro A. de Miguel Asensio. Encyclopedia of Private International Law, vol. 1. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017. (Crossref)
Basedow, Jürgen, Klaus J. Hopt, and Reinhard Zimmermann. The Max Planck Encyclopedia of European Private Law, 2 Bände. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Bollée, Sylvain. “A La Croisée Des Règlements Rome I Et Rome Ii: La Rupture Des Négociations Contractuelles.” Recueil Dalloz, no. 31 (2008): 2161–4.
Bourel, Pierre. Les Conflits De Lois En Matiére D’obligations Extracontractuelles. Paris: LGDJ, 1961.
Calliess, Gralf-Peter, ed. Rome Regulations: Commentary on the European Rules of the Conflict of Laws. Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2011.
Cartwright, John, and Martijn Hesselink. Precontractual Liability in European Private Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. (Crossref)
Colombo, Sylviane. “The Present Differences between the Civil Law and Common Law Worlds with Regard to Culpa in Contrahendo.” Tilburg Foreign Law Review 2 (1992): 341. (Crossref)
Dicey, Albert V., Lawrence A. Collins, and John H.C. Morris. Dicey, Morris and Collins on the Conflict of Laws. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2012.
Dickinson, Andrew. The Rome II Regulation: The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2010. (Crossref)
Egeler, Simone. Konsensprobleme Im Internationalen Schuldvertragsrecht. St. Gallen: Dike-Verl, 1994.
Farnsworth, E. Allan. “Duties of Good Faith and Fair Dealing under the Unidroit Principles, Relevant International Conventions, and National Laws.” Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law 3, no. 1 (1995): 45–64.
Farnsworth, E. Allan. “Precontractual Liability and Preliminary Agreements: Fair Dealing and Failed Negotiations.” Columbia Law Review 87, no. 2 (1987): 217–94. (Crossref)
Formation of Contracts and Precontractual Liability. Paris: ICC Publishing, 1993.
Giliker, Paula. “A Role for Tort in Pre-Contractual Negotiations? An Examination of English, French, and Canadian Law.” International & Comparative Law Quarterly 52, no. 4 (2003): 969–93. (Crossref)
Giliker, Paula. Pre-Contractual Liability in English and French Law. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2002.
Hage-Chahine, Najib. “Culpa in Contrahendo in European Private International Law: Another Look at Article 12 of the Rome II Regulation.” Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business 32, no. 3 (2011): 451–540.
Hohloch, Gerhard. “Culpa in contrahendo w prawie prywatnym międzynarodowym.” Problemy Prawne Handlu Zagranicznego 19/20, (2000): 11–26.
Hondius, Ewoud H. Precontractual Liability: Reports to the XIIIth International Congress of Comparative Law, Montreal, Canada, 18–24 August 1990. Deventer: Kluwer Law and Taxation, 1991.
Huber, Peter, ed. Rome II Regulation: Pocket Commentary. Köln: Otto Schmidt, 2011. von Ihering, Rudolf. “Culpa in Contrahendo Oder Schadenersatz Bei Nichtigen Oder Nicht Zur Perfektion Gelangten Verträgen.” Jahrbücher für die Dogmatik des Heutigen Römischen und Deutschen Privatrechts 4, (1961): 1–112.
Kessler, Friedrich, and Edith Fine. “Culpa in Contrahendo, Bargaining in Good Faith, and Freedom of Contract: A Comparative Study.” Harvard Law Review 77, no. 3 (1964): 401–49. (Crossref)
Kocot, Wojciech J. “Culpa in Contrahendo as the General Ground for Precontractual Liability in Polish Civil Code.” OER Osteuropa Recht 67, no. 2 (2021): 202–18. (Crossref)
Kocot, Wojciech J. Odpowiedzialność przedkontraktowa. Warsaw: C.H. Beck, 2013.
Kuhne, Gunther. “Reliance, Promissory Estoppel and Culpa in Contrahendo: A Comparative Analysis.” Tel-Aviv University Studies in Law 10, (1990): 279–96.
Leible, Stefan, and Matthias Lehmann. “Die Neue Eg-Verordnung Über Das Auf Außervertragliche Schuldverhältnisse Anzuwendende Recht (‘Rom II’).” Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft, no. 10 (2007): 721–35.
Łętowska, Ewa, ed. System Prawa Prywatnego, vol. 5, Prawo zobowiązań – część ogólna. Warsaw: C.H. Beck, 2006.
Machnicka, Agnieszka. Przedkontraktowe porozumienia – Umowa o negocjacje i list intencyjny. Studium prawnoporównawcze. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer, 2007.
Magnus, Ulrich, and Peter Mankowski, eds. Rome II Regulation. Köln: Otto Schmidt, 2019. (Crossref)
Mankowski, Peter. “Der Vorschlag Für Die Rom-I–Verordnung.” IPRax: Praxis des Internationalen Privat-und Verfahrensrechts 26, no. 2 (2006): 101–13.
Mankowski, Peter. “Die Qualifikation Der Culpa in Contrahendo – Nagelprobe Für Den Vertragsbegriff Des Europäischen Izpr Und Ipr.” IPRax: Praxis des Internationalen Privat-und Verfahrensrechts, no. 2 (2003): 127–35.
Max Planck Institute for Foreign Private and Private International Law. “Comments on the European Commission’s Green Paper on the Conversion of the Rome Convention of 1980 on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations into a Community Instrument and Its Modernization.” Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 68, no. 1 (2004): 1–118. (Crossref)
Medicus, Dieter. “Zur Entdeckungsgeschichte Der ‘Culpa in Contrahendo’.” In Festschrift Für Max Kaser Zum 80. Geburtstag. Vienna: Böhlau, 1986.
Michoński, Dominik. “Contractual or Delictual? On the Character of Pre-Contractual Liability in Selected European Legal Systems.” Comparative Law Review 20, no. 2 (2015): 151–75. (Crossref)
Mirmina, Steven A. “A Comparative Survey of Culpa in Contrahendo, Focusing on Its Origins in Roman, German, and French Law as Well as Its Application in American Law.” Connecticut Journal of International Law 8, (1992): 77–107.
Nygh, Peter. Autonomy in International Contracts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. (Crossref)
O’Brien, John. Conflict of Laws, 2 ed. London: Cavendish, 1999. (Crossref)
Patrzek, Katrin. Die Vertragsakzessorische Anknüpfung Im Internationalen Privatrecht: Dargestellt Anhand Des Deliktsrechts, Der Geschäftsführung Ohne Auftrag, Des Bereicherungsrechts Und Der Culpa in Contrahendo. München: VVF, 1992.
Pazdan, Maksymilian, ed. Prawo Prywatne Międzynarodowe. Komentarz. Warsaw: C.H. Beck, 2018.
Pazdan, Maksymilian, ed. System Prawa Prywatnego, vol. 20B, Prawo Prywatne Międzynarodowe. Warsaw: C.H. Beck, 2014.
Pazdan, Maksymilian. “Zbieg odpowiedzialności cywilnej ex contractu i ex delicto w prawie prywatnym międzynarodowym.” In Rozprawy z prawa cywilnego.
Księga pamiątkowa ku czci Witolda Czachórskiego, edited by Jan Błeszyński and Jerzy Rajski, 281–96. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1985.
Plender, Richard, and Michael Wilderspin. The European Private International Law of Obligations. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2009.
Popiołek, W. System Prawa Handlowego. Warsaw: C.H. Beck, 2013.
Radwański, Zbigniew, and Adam Olejniczak. Zobowiązania – część ogólna. Warsaw: C.H. Beck, 2005.
Schmidt-Kessel, Martin. “Zur Culpa in Contrahendo Im Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht: Urteilsanmerkung Zu Eugh, Urteil Vom 17. September 2002-C-334/00.” Zeitschrift für europäisches Privatrecht 12, no. 4 (2004): 1019–33.
Scoles, Eugene F., Peter Hay, Patrick J Borchers, and Symeon C. Symeonides. Conflict of Laws. St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1992.
Sobolewski, Przemysław. “Culpa in Contrahendo w polskim prawie cywilnym.” Studia Iuridica 56, (2013): 37–51.
Tetley, William. “Good Faith in Contract: Particularly in the Contracts of Arbitration and Chartering.” Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 35, no. 4 (2004): 561–616.
Vicente, Dário Moura. “Culpa in Contrahendo and the Brussels Ibis Regulation.” In Research Handbook on the Brussels Ibis Regulation, edited by Peter Mankowski, 311–28. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020. (Crossref)
Vicente, Dário Moura. “Precontractual Liability in Private International Law: A Portuguese Perspective.” Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 67, no. 4 (2003): 699–725. (Crossref)
Wojewoda, Michał. Zakres prawa właściwego dla zobowiązań umownych. Nowa regulacja kolizyjna w Konwencji rzymskiej z 1980 r. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer, 2007.
Wójtowicz, Ewa. Zawieranie Umów Między Przedsiębiorcami. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer Polska, 2010.
Zachariasiewicz, Maria-Anna. “Culpa in Contrahendo in Polish Law.” In Tort Law in Poland: Germany and Europe, edited by Bettina Heiderhoff and Grzegorz Żmij, 133–50. Munich: Sellier European Law Publisher, 2009.
Zachariasiewicz, Maria-Anna. “Kwalifikacja ‘culpa in contrahendo’ w prawie prywatnym międzynarodowym.” Problemy prawa prywatnego międzynarodowego 3, (2008): 35–61.
Zachariasiewicz, Maria-Anna. “Z Rozważań Nad Naturą Prawną Culpa in Contrahendo.” In Rozprawy z prawa prywatnego, prawa o notariacie i prawa europejskiego: Ofiarowane Panu Rejentowi Romualdowi Sztykow, edited by Edward Drozd, Aleksander Oleszka, and Maksymilian Pazdan, 331–54. Kluczbork: Klucz-DruK, 2007.
Zachariasiewicz, Maria-Anna. “Zasada dobrej wiary jako kryterium oceny zachowania stron w toku negocjacji w ujęciu prawnoporównawczym (“culpa in contrahendo”).” In Rozprawy prawnicze: księga pamiątkowa profesora Maksymiliana Pazdana, eds. Leszek Ogiegła, Wojciech Popiołek, and Maciej Szpunar,1501–18. Kraków: Zakamycze, 2005.
Żarnowiec, Łukasz. “Prawo właściwe dla odpowiedzialności z tytułu culpa in contrahendo na podstawie przepisów rozporządzenia Parlamentu Europejskiej I Rady (We)–Rzym II.” Europejski Przegląd Sądowy, no. 2 (2010): 21–8.
Kozminski University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2848-0216
