영미계약법상 Promissory Estoppel 원칙 — 중국계약법상 Promissory Estoppel도입의 입법론적 근거 —
Promissory Estoppel under the Contract of Britain and the United States
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
"Promissory Estoppel" is one of contract theories of Anglo -American Law. In other word, "My word is my bond." According to the contract theory of Anglo-American Law, formation and modification of contract can not be enforced without Consideration. However, in reality, situation like these happen. A person, A, promised to donate $50,000 to S university for the construction of a new building. S university trusted A's promise and started the construction, but A changed his/her mind not to donate. A person, B, promised C to support his/her tuition fee when he/she quits job and enter university. C trusted this and quit his/her job, but B changed his/her mind. In these cases, victims have no legal evidences to exercise their rights. Before 40's in 20th century, judges used "Equitable Estoppel" to solve these kind of cases. Then judges try their best to find valid Consideration. A British judge, Lord Cairns, proposed an idea of "Promissory Estoppel" when he was hearing 'Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway Co. trial in 1877, but he could not come into the spotlight. This idea had introduced by a British judge, Lord Denning, in 1947, and Anglo-American Law and many scholars have been conducting this principle in many legal cases so far. This article regarding "Promissory Estoppel" of Anglo-American Law would compare with and complement the Chinese Contract law.
Abstract
"Promissory Estoppel" is one of contract theories of Anglo -American Law. In other word, "My word is my bond." According to the contract theory of Anglo-American Law, formation and modification of contract can not be enforced without Consideration. However, in reality, situation like these happen. A person, A, promised to donate $50,000 to S university for the construction of a new building. S university trusted A's promise and started the construction, but A changed his/her mind not to donate. A person, B, promised C to support his/her tuition fee when he/she quits job and enter university. C trusted this and quit his/her job, but B changed his/her mind. In these cases, victims have no legal evidences to exercise their rights. Before 40's in 20th century, judges used "Equitable Estoppel" to solve these kind of cases. Then judges try their best to find valid Consideration. A British judge, Lord Cairns, proposed an idea of "Promissory Estoppel" when he was hearing 'Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway Co. trial in 1877, but he could not come into the spotlight. This idea had introduced by a British judge, Lord Denning, in 1947, and Anglo-American Law and many scholars have been conducting this principle in many legal cases so far. This article regarding "Promissory Estoppel" of Anglo-American Law would compare with and complement the Chinese Contract law.
참고문헌 (19)
- 이덕환, "英美法上 約束的 禁反言의 法理", ~ (2007)
- 윤진수, "美國 契約法上 Good Faith 原則", ~ (2003)
- 최낙균, "契約締結上의 過失責任에 關한 考察", ~ (2005)
- 양명조, "미국계약법" (1996), 법문사
- 명순구, "미국계약법입문" (2004), 법문사
- 이호정, "영국계약법" (2006), 경문사
- 한종솔, "미국계약법" (2009), 진원사
- 付春明, ""英美合同法上的"允诺禁反言"原则及其对我国的借鉴"", ~ (2006)
- 张卫彬, "论国际法中的禁止反言原则", ~ (2008)
- 田友方, "允诺禁反言原则论" (1999), 西安政治学院学报
- 冯守尊, "缔约过失与禁反言制度", ~ (2004)
- 王军, "美国合同法" (1996), 中国政法大学出版社
- 杨桢, "英美契约法论" (1997), 北京大学出版社
- "Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd. KB 130", ~ (1947)
- Ricketts v, "Scothorn", Neb, 57(51) (1898)
- Combe v, "Combe", KB, 2, pp.215~ (1951)
- In Katz v, "Danny Dare", S.W.2d, 610, pp.121~ (1980)
- Hoffman v, "Red Owl Stores. Inc", N. W. 2d, 133, pp.267~ (1965)
- Cyberchron Co, "Calidata Systems Develop", F.3d, 47, pp.39~ (1995)