미국 계약법상 Promissory Estoppel 법리 연구
Study on the Promissory Estoppel under the American Contract Law
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The concept of promissory estoppel and, the term itself, was coined by Samuel Williston in the 1920 edition of his treaties where he pulled together an assortment of cases where promises without consideration had been enforced on one theory or another. The common thread through these cases was that the promisee had relied on the promise. In 1932, through the combined efforts of Williston and Corbin, Section 90 of the Restatement of Contracts adopted the concept as an orthodox doctrine of contract law. Since its adoption by the Restatement, the courts have greeted it with broad support. Although in its original formulation, it was a substitute for (or the equivalent of) consideration, it has since grown from a consideration substitute to a doctrine that provides a remedy for many promises or agreements that fail the test of enforceability under many traditional contract doctrines, including indefiniteness, failure to comply with the Statute of Frauds, non-compliance with the parol evidence rule and more. Promissory estoppel has been an expansion of equitable estoppel. In addition to is equitable estoppel ancestry, promissory estoppel has been extracted as a general principle from a number of recurring decisions where promises were enforced under conditions which were difficult, and sometimes impossible, to explain in terms of the doctrine of consideration. The essence of the promissory estoppel idea is that the maker of a promise may be bound by that promise, even though it is not supported by consideration, if the promisee relies upon the promise to her detriment, and the promisor should have foreseen this reliance. The promise will be enforced only if injustice can be avoided by the enforcement of the promise. The most common measure of damages in promissory estoppel actions is the expectation measure or reliance measure case by case. Promissory estoppel has been applied in the following areas: promises in the family, promises to make a gift of land, gratuitous agencies and bailments, charitable subscriptions and marriage settlements, reliance offers, promises under indefinite agreement, promises made during the course of preliminary negotiations and so on. Because promissory estoppel may be used in any context in order to do justice, the damages to be awarded may be generally limited to the amount to avoid the injustice. The Restatement (Second) has embraced and enlarged the concept. Promissory estoppel may now be viewed as a mender of ailing contracts.
Abstract
The concept of promissory estoppel and, the term itself, was coined by Samuel Williston in the 1920 edition of his treaties where he pulled together an assortment of cases where promises without consideration had been enforced on one theory or another. The common thread through these cases was that the promisee had relied on the promise. In 1932, through the combined efforts of Williston and Corbin, Section 90 of the Restatement of Contracts adopted the concept as an orthodox doctrine of contract law. Since its adoption by the Restatement, the courts have greeted it with broad support. Although in its original formulation, it was a substitute for (or the equivalent of) consideration, it has since grown from a consideration substitute to a doctrine that provides a remedy for many promises or agreements that fail the test of enforceability under many traditional contract doctrines, including indefiniteness, failure to comply with the Statute of Frauds, non-compliance with the parol evidence rule and more. Promissory estoppel has been an expansion of equitable estoppel. In addition to is equitable estoppel ancestry, promissory estoppel has been extracted as a general principle from a number of recurring decisions where promises were enforced under conditions which were difficult, and sometimes impossible, to explain in terms of the doctrine of consideration. The essence of the promissory estoppel idea is that the maker of a promise may be bound by that promise, even though it is not supported by consideration, if the promisee relies upon the promise to her detriment, and the promisor should have foreseen this reliance. The promise will be enforced only if injustice can be avoided by the enforcement of the promise. The most common measure of damages in promissory estoppel actions is the expectation measure or reliance measure case by case. Promissory estoppel has been applied in the following areas: promises in the family, promises to make a gift of land, gratuitous agencies and bailments, charitable subscriptions and marriage settlements, reliance offers, promises under indefinite agreement, promises made during the course of preliminary negotiations and so on. Because promissory estoppel may be used in any context in order to do justice, the damages to be awarded may be generally limited to the amount to avoid the injustice. The Restatement (Second) has embraced and enlarged the concept. Promissory estoppel may now be viewed as a mender of ailing contracts.
참고문헌 (65)
- 서희원, "영미법강의, 개정판" (2002), 박영사
- 양명조, "미국계약법" (1996), 법문사
- 오시영, "채권각칙" (2010), 도서출판학현사
- 이상윤, "영미법, 개정판" (2009), 박영사
- 이은영, "채권각론, 제5판" (2005), 박영사
- 윤남순, "기초미국계약법 I" (2012), 진원사
- 윤남순, "미국 계약법상 구두증거배제원칙, In 횡천이기수교수화갑기념논문집 「지식사회와 기업법」" (2005), 박영사
- Samuel Williston, "The Law Of Contracts §139" (1920), Voorhis & Co.
- Richard A. Lord, "Williston on Contracts (4th)" (2012), Westlaw
- Arthur L. Corbin, "Corbin on Contracts §8.9" (1996), Holmes
- "4 A.L.I. Proceedings", ~
- Annot, "83 ALR3d 1294", 1294~ (1978)
- Annot, "97 ALR3d", 1054~
- Annot, "Promissory Estoppel of Lending Institution Based on Promise to Lend Money", ALR 5th, 18, pp.307~
- A. Simpson, "A History of the Common Law of Contract" (1975)
- Barnett, "The Death of Reliance", J.Leg.Ed, 46, pp.518~ (1996)
- Barnett, "Beyond Reliance: Promissory Estoppel, Contract Formalities, and Misrepresentations", Hofstra L.Rev, 15, pp.443~ (1987)
- Becker, "Promissory Estoppel Damages", Hofstra L.Rev, 16, pp.131~ (1987)
- Becker, "Beyond Reliance: Promissory Estoppel, Contract Formalities, and Misrepresentations", ofstra L.Rev, 15, pp.443~ (1987)
- Billing, "The Problem of Consideration in charitable Subscriptions", Cornell L.Q, 12, pp.467~ (1927)
- Calamari, "The Law of Contracts" (1998), West
- Closen, "The Construction Bidding Cases; Application of Traditional Contract, Promissory Estoppel, and Other Theories to the Relations Between General Contractors and Subcontractors", John Marshall L.Rev, 13, pp.565~ (1980)
- Comment, , U.Chi.L.Rev, 37, pp.559~ (1970)
- Echevarria, "A Precedent Embalms a Principle: The Expansion of the D’Oench, Duhme Doctrine", Cath.U.L.Rev, 43, pp.745~ (1994)
- Eisenberg, "The World of Contract and the World of Gift", Cal.L.Rev, 85, pp.821~ (1997)
- Farber, "Beyond Promissory Estoppel: Contract Law and the Invisible Handshake", U.Chi.L.Rev, 52, pp.903~914 (1985)
- Farnsworth, "Contracts (3rd Ed.)" (1999), Aspen
- Feinman, "The Last Promissory Estoppel Article", Fordham L.Rev, 61, pp.303~ (1992)
- F. Maitland, "The Forms of Action at Common Law 2" (1936)
- Fridman, "Promissory Estoppel", Can.B.Rev, 35, pp.279~ (1957)
- Fridman, "Promissory Estoppel", Ill.L.Rev, 28, pp.419~ (1933)
- Fridman, "Promissory Estoppel", Minn.L.Rev, 22, pp.843~ (1938)
- Fridman, "Promissory Estoppel", Va.L.Rev, 20, pp.214~ (1933)
- Galves, "Might Does Not Make Right: The Reform of the Federal Government's D'Oench, Duhme", Minn.L.Rev, 88, pp.1323~ (1996)
- Henderson, "Promissory Estoppel and Traditional Contract Doctrine", Yale L.J, 78, pp.343~ (1969)
- Holdsworth, Debt, "Assumpsit and Consideration", Mich.L.Rev, 11 (1913)
- Holmes, "Restatement of Promissory Estoppel", Willamette L.Rev, 32, pp.263~ (1996)
- Katz, "When Should an Offer Stick: The Economics of Promissory Estoppel in Preliminary Nagotiations", Yale L.J, 105, pp.1249~ (1996)
- Kelly, "The Phantom Reliance Interest in Contract Da", Wis.L.Rev, 1992, pp.1775~
- Kessler, "Culpa in Contrahendo, Bargaining in Good Faith, and Freedom of Contract: A Comparative Study", Harv.L.Rev, 77 (1964)
- Knapp, "Reliance in the Revised Restatement: The Proliferation of Promissory Estoppel", Colum.L.Rev, 81, pp.52~ (1981)
- Kniffin, "Innovation or Aberration: Recovery for Reliance on an Offer as Permitted by the New Restatement (Second) Contracts", U.Detroit L.Rev, 62, pp.23~ (1984)
- Kostritsky, "A New Theory of Assent-Based Liability Emerging Under the Guise of Promissory Estoppel", Wayne L.Rev, 33, pp.895~ (1987)
- Kostritsky, "Reshaping the Precontractual Liability Debate: Beyond Short Run Economics", U.Pitt.L.Rev, 58, pp.325~ (1997)
- Metzger, "The Parol Evidence Rule: Promissory Estoppel's Next Conquest?", Vand.L.Rev, 36, pp.1383~ (1983)
- Metzger, "The Emergence of Promissory Estoppel as an Independent Theory of Recovery", Rutgers L.Rev, 35, pp.472~528 (1983)
- Metzger, "Promissory Estoppel and Third Parties", Southwestern L.J, 42, pp.931~ (1988)
- , Val.U.L.Rev, 6, pp.352~ (1972)
- , Va.L.Rev, 53, pp.1720~ (1967)
- "Another Look at Construction Bidding and Contracts at Formation", Va.L.Rev, 53, pp.1720~ (1967)
- , U.Chi.L.Res, 23, pp.96~ (1955)
- , Colum.L.Rev, 56, pp.251~ (1956)
- , Vand.L.Rev, 13, pp.705~ (1960)
- "Public Employee Benefits - A Promissory Estoppel Approach", Wm. Mitchell L.Rev, 10, pp.287~ (1984)
- Page, "Consideration: Genuine and Synthetic", Wis.L.Rev, 1947, pp.483~
- Perillo, "Twelve Letters from Arthur L. Corbin to Robert Braucher Annotated", Wash. & Lee L.Rev, 50, pp.755~769 (1993)
- Schultz, "The Firm Offer Puzzle", U.Chi.L.Rev, 19, pp.237~ (1952)
- Seavey, "Reliance upon Gratuitous Promises or Other Conduct", Harv.L.Rev, 64, pp.913~ (1951)
- Sharp, "Promises, Mistakes and Reciprocity", U.Chi.L.Rev, 19, pp.28~ (1952)
- Shattuck, "Gratuitous Promises - A New Writ?", Mich.L.Rev, 35, pp.908~ (1937)
- Thel, "The Promissory Basis of Past Consideration", Va.L.Rev, 78, pp.1045~1081 (1992)
- Weiland, "The Construction Bidding Cases; Application of Traditional Contract, Promissory Estoppel, and Other Theories to the Relations Between General Contractors and Subcontractors", John Marshall L.Rev, 13, pp.565~ (1980)
- White, "Uniform Commercial Code (5th Ed.)" (2000), West Publishing
- Williams, "What To Do When There's No “I Do”", Wash.L.Rev, 70, pp.1019~ (1995)
- Yorio, "The Promissory Basis of Section 90", Yale L.J, 101, pp.111~125 (1991)