Classification of Contractual Agreements in Comparative and Islamic Jurisdictions: Does it Make Any Sense?
Abstract Comparative legal systems differ in the organization of the manifestation of parties’ expressions when making legal transactions where an external action does not reflect the real intention of this party. Most jurisdictions, including Islamic law, follow the objective theory of agreements while the Conterminal legal system adopts the subjective approach. Despite the fact that many scholars spent much efforts to clarify this classification, the importance of this classification may be modest; these legal systems organize some basic doctrines, with regard to the formation of a contract (namely: the revocability of offer, the need for communication of acceptance and the rules of interoperation), in a manner that may contradict with its general theory of making agreement. In other words, the organization of these doctrines has very little significant differences in result between these legal systems. Islamic law has the same result as well. This article aims at explaining these doctrines and differences.
Culpa in Contrahendo, Bargaining in Good Faith, and Freedom of Contract: A Comparative Study
The common law appears to have no counterpart to the German doctrine of culpa in contrahendo: that contracting parties are under a duty, classified as contractual, to deal in good faith with each other during the negotiation stage, or else face liability, customarily to the extent of the wronged party's reliance. In this comparative study Professor Kessler and Mrs. Fine find, however, that notions of good faith and fair dealing are frequently expressed in the American contract law affecting preliminary negotiations, firm offers, mistake, and misrepresentation, and that the doctrines of negligence, estoppel, and implied contract, among others, have at the same time served many of the doctrinal functions of culpa in contrahendo.
La inseguridad jurídica en normas de contratación estatal
It is established by different studies that the issue of government procurement has been marred by several factors, the test objective to publicize these factors, we take as starting point the constant conflict between the branches of government to try and organize this subject; will collect and analyze diverse regulatory and case material in order to achieve evidence and demonstrate the different concepts of constant change that produces excessive regulation of the subject procurement and is in turn causing rapid changes that result in legal uncertainty for our law on the Contract Status.