Causal motive and its legal significance in contract law
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu25.2020.304Abstract
The author of this article analyses the problem of motives for entering into a contact and their legal significance and systematically considers the impact of an error in motive on the legal validity of a contract in German law as well as in Russian law. In German law, an error in the properties of a person or an object is regarded by some experts as a mistake in the motive that testifies to its legal significance. In Russian law, in addition to an error in the object, the mistake in the motive is an error in regard to a circumstance that a party mentions in its expressed will or on which it bases itself evidently to another party when entering into a contract. The article also explores situations of subsequent failure to fulfill the motive in light of national (German and Russian) doctrines of the influence of a subsequent change of circumstances on the contract’s fate. The author concludes that the criterion which make it possible to distinguish a legally relevant motive from motives that have no legal significance is characteristic of the causality of the motive. The causality of the motive presumes that such a motive served as a key factor in predetermining the decision of the interested party to enter into a contract. It is the error in the causal motive or its subsequent non-implementation that affects the dynamics of the contract and it can lead to the effective avoidance of a contract or its termination (alteration) accordingly. The author also compares the consequences of non-implementation of a motive in civil law and the English doctrine “frustration of purpose”. In English law, non-implementation of a motive according to the doctrine of “frustration of purpose” leads to the automatic termination of a contact. On the basis of mentioned research, the author concludes that the common criterion in civil and English law that stipulates the legal effect of the error in motive or its nonimplementation is the causality of the motive.
Keywords:
contract, contractual obligations, motive, error, error in motive, change of circumstances, termination of a contract, alteration of a contract
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Baibak, Vsevolod V., Karapetov, Artem G. 2017. Analysis of problematic issues of application of art. 178 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on avoidance of contract due to the mistake. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiia Rossiiskoi Federatsii 9: 70–102. (In Russian)
Baranauskas, Egidijus, Zapolskis, Paulius. 2009. The effect of change in circumstances on the performance of contract. Jurisprudence 4 (118): 197–214.
Birks, Peter. 2014. The Roman law of obligations. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Brunner, Christoph. 2009. Force majeure and hardship under general contract principles: Exemption of non-performance in international arbitration. Austin, Boston, Chicago, New York, The Netherlands, Kluwer Law International.
Cohn, Ernst J. 1946. Frustration of contract in German law. Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law 28 (3/4): 15–25.
Dastis, Juan Carlos M. 2015. Change of Circumstances (Section 313 BGB) Trigger for the Next Financial Crisis? European Review of Private Law 23 (1). Max Planck Private Law Research Paper 15/10: 92–99.
Duvernois, Nikolai L. 2004. Collections on civil law. In 2 vols, vol. 2. Moscow, Zertsalo Publ. (In Russian)
Dozhdev, Dmitrii V. 2018. Adaptation and rescission of contract due to the fundamental change of the circumstances: European civilian tradition and modern trends. Trudy Instituta gosudarstva i prava Rossiiskoi akademii nauk 13 (1): 103–121. (In Russian)
Dozhdev, Dmitrii V. 2018. Adaptation and rescission of contract due to the fundamental change of the circumstances: European civilian tradition and modern trends. Trudy Instituta gosudarstva i prava Rossiiskoi akademii nauk 13 (2): 143–172. (In Russian)
Efimova, Liudmila G. 2004. Abstract and causal obligations and bargains in Russian law. Vestnik Vysshego arbitrazhnogo suda Rossiiskoi Federatsii 4: 121–131. (In Russian)
Egorov, Andrei V. (ed.). 2012. Actual problems of civil law: Collection of works by graduates of the Russian School of Private Law 2009. Moscow, Statut Publ.
Em, Vladimir S., Tiutriumov, Igor M. (eds). 2004. Laws civil. Second book. Moscow, Statut Publ. (In Russian)
Fed’ko, Aleksei G. 2012. Invalidity of bargains, concluded under the influence of mistake. Aktual’nye problemy grazhdanskogo prava: sbornik rabot vypusknikov Rossiiskoi shkoly chastnogo prava 2009 goda, ed. by Andrei V. Egorov: 96–123. Moscow, Statut Publ. (In Russian)
Gambarov, Iurii S. 1911. Civil law. General part. St. Petersburg, Tipografiia M. M. Stasyulevicha Publ. (In Russian)
Gibbon, William. 1948. Discharge of contract by frustration. University of New Brunswick Law School Journal 2 (1): 12–27.
Gongalo, Bronislav M. (ed.). 2016. Civil law: textbook. In 2 vols, vol. 1. Moscow, Statut Publ. (In Russian)
Gordley, James. 2009. Mistake in contract formation. Rus. ed. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava 4: 235–276. (In Russian)
Grimm, David D. 2003. Lectures on the doctrine of Roman law. Moscow, Zertsalo Publ. (In Russian)
Hay, Peter. 1961. Frustration and its solution in German law. The American Journal of Comparative Law 10 (4): 345–373.
Hondius, Ewoud, Grigoleit, Hans C. (eds). 2011. Unexpected circumstances in European contract law. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Johnston, Angus, Markesinis, Basil S., Unberath, Hannes. 2006. The German law of contract: A comparative treatise. 2nd ed. Oxford, Hart Publ.
Karapetov, Artem G. (ed.). 2018. Bargains, agency, limits of action: clause-by-clause commentary to the articles 153–208 of the Civil code of Russian Federation. Moscow, M-Logos Publ. (In Russian)
Kötz, Hein. 2017. European contract law. 2nd ed. London, Oxford University Press.
Kozlova, Natal’ia V., Iagel’nitskii, Aleksandr A. 2010. Termination of a civil contract in connection with significant change of circumstances. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Ser. 11. Pravo 3: 35–51. (In Russian)
Krivtsov, Aleksandr S. 2003. Abstract and material obligations in Roman and modern civil law. Moscow, Statut Publ. (In Russian)
Lomidze, Eduard Iu. 2011. Distribution of the risk of accidental non-achievement of a purpose between parties of a contract. Moscow, Wolters Kluver Publ. (In Russian)
Lowisch, Manfred. 2003. New law of obligations in Germany. Ritsumeikan Law Review 20: 141–156.
Luk’ianenko, Marina F. 2010. Estimated terms of civil law: reasonableness, good faith, significance. Moscow, Statut Publ. (In Russian)
Luzgina, Aleksandra V. 2012. Objective impediments to the fulfillment of a contract in the law of England, France, Germany. Aktual’nye problemy grazhdanskogo prava: sbornik rabot vypusknikov Rossiiskoi shkoly chastnogo prava 2009 goda, ed. by Andrei V. Egorov, 300–316. Moscow, Statut Publ. (In Russian)
McKendrick, Ewan. 2000. Contract law. London, Macmillan Press Ltd.
Nazykov, Artem L. 2007. “Clausula rebus sic stantibus” and its reception in Russian civil law. PhD Thesis in Law. South Federal University. (In Russian)
Novitskii, Ivan B. 1954. Bargains. Limitation of action. Moscow, Gosiurizdat Publ. (In Russian)
Novitskii, Ivan B. 2007. Foundations of Roman civil law. Moscow, Zertsalo Publ. (In Russian)
Novitskii, Ivan B., Lunts, Lazar’ A. 1950. The course of the Soviet civil law. The common theory of obligations. Moscow, Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo iuridicheskoi literatury Publ. (In Russian)
Novitskii, Ivan B., Pereterskii, Ivan S. (eds). 2004. Roman civil law. Moscow, Iurist’ Publ. (In Russian)
Petrova, Daria S. 2017. Change of the legal regime of the real property as the special case of frustration of purpose of the contract in Russian law. Imushchestvennye otnosheniia v Rossiiskoi Federatsii 5 (188): 80–86. (In Russian)
Petrova, Daria S. 2017. Frustration of purpose as the special case of frustration of a contract in English law. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiia RF 12: 158–173. (In Russian)
Poldnikov, Dmitrii Iu. 2011. Contractual theories in the classic period of ius commune (13th–16th centuries) . Moscow, Academia. (In Russian)
Poldnikov, Dmitrii Iu. 2015. The origins of the clause of constancy of circumstances (clausula rebus sic stantibus) in the doctrine of ius commune jurists. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Ser. 11. Pravo 3: 22–34. (In Russian)
Popov, Nikolai V. 2008. Theoretical and practical issues of alteration and termination of a civil contract in connection with change of circumstances. PhD diss. Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi institut intellektual’noi sobstvennosti Rospatenta. (In Russian)
Rasteriaev, Nikolai. 1900. Invalidity of legal bargains in Russian law. Part general and part special: dogmatic research. St. Petersburg, Obshchestvennaia Pol’za Publ. (In Russian)
Rosler, Hannes. 2007. Hardship in German codified private law — in comparative perspective to English, French and international contract law. European Review of Private Law 15 (4): 483–513.
Rudokvas, Anton D. 2017. Some problems of application of the article 431.2 of the Civil code of the Russian Federation due to the principle of good faith. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava 2: 31–47. (In Russian)
Sadikov, Oleg N. (ed.). 2006. Civil law: textbook. In 2 vols, vol. 1. Moscow, Kontrakt Publ, INFRA-M Publ. (In Russian)
Sanfilippo, Chezare. 2007. The course of Roman civil law. Moscow, Norma Publ. (In Russian)
Savigny, Friedrich C. von. 2012. The system of modern Roman law. Rus. ed. In 8 vols, vol. II. Moscow, Statut Publ. (In Russian)
Schapp, Jan. 2006. The system of German civil law. Rus. ed. Moscow, Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia Publ. (In Russian)
Shavaleev, Mikhail V. 2017. Contract law in the time of economic instability: How a substantial change of circumstances affects obligatory force of a contract. Zakon 1: 110–121. (In Russian)
Schermaier, Martin J. 2015.The doctrine of mistake in the European legal thought. Rus. ed. Zakon 9: 188–206. (In Russian)
Shmidt-Rimpler, Walter. 2016. On the issue of basis of legal transaction. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava 5: 212–247. (In Russian)
Starodubtsev, Konstantin N. 2005. Significant change of circumstances as the ground for alteration or termination of a contract. PhD Thesis in Law. Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi institut intellektual’noi sobstvennosti Rospatenta. (In Russian)
Treitel, Guenter H. 2004. Frustration and force majeure. 2nd ed. London, Sweet & Maxwell.
Treitel, Guenter H. 2011. The law of contract. 13th ed. London, Sweet & Maxwell.
Windscheid, Bernhard. 1874. The textbook of Pandects Law. Vol. 1. General part. Rus. ed. St. Petesrburg, Gieroglifov i Nikiforov Publ. (In Russian)
Zagorovskii, Aleksandr. 1890. Duress, mistake and fraud and its influence to the legal bargain. Iuridicheskii vestnik 1: 3–21. (In Russian)
Zeits, Aleksandr G. 1928. The influence of a change of conditions to the force of contracts. Irkutsk, Izd-vo Irkutskoi sekеktsii nauchnykh rabotnikov Publ.
Zezekalo, Aleksandr Iu. 2008. Mistake in significant characteristics of the object of a bargain. Vestnik Vysshego arbitrazhnogo suda RF 3: 28–43. (In Russian)
Zezekalo, Aleksandr Iu. 2011. Mistake in concluding a bargain. Tomsk, Tomskii Universitet Publ. (In Russian)
Zezekalo, Aleksandr Iu. 2015. What’s new in the rules on the invalidity of legal transactions made under mistake. Zakon 9: 73–88. (In Russian)
Zimmermann, Reinhard. 1990. The law of obligations. Roman foundations of the civilian tradition. Cape Town, Juta & Co, Ltd.
Zweigert, Konrad, Kötz, Hein. 2000. Introduction to comparative jurisprudence in the sphere of private law. In 2 vols, vol. 2. Rus. ed. Moscow, Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia Publ. (In Russian)
Downloads
Published
30.12.2020
How to Cite
Petrova , D. S. (2020). Causal motive and its legal significance in contract law. Pravovedenie, 64(3), 373–399. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu25.2020.304
Issue
Section
Articles
License
Articles of "Pravovedenie" are open access distributed under the terms of the License Agreement with Saint Petersburg State University, which permits to the authors unrestricted distribution and self-archiving free of charge.
