지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This thesis seeks to provide a brief account of several points associated with legally binding letter of intent in contract actions to recover damages and illustrate some applications to the Korean law.
The summary of the thesis is as follows. The enforceability of letters of intent and other preliminary agreements has become the most difficult but important areas of contract law concerns since in many cases, a business deal consists of agreements to negotiate toward a final contract. In the United States, “all or nothing” structure of contractual liability, either there is full liability, or no liability. This paper pointed out that this structure increasingly has been replaced by a regime in which some liability emerges during precontractual negotiations. Some courts already have found this form of liability where the parties agree to negotiate in good faith under “the letter of intent”. Furthermore, if parties have expressed mutual commitment to the major terms of the agreement, the court will not treat the provisions as a completed contract, but may impose a duty of good faith upon the parties to conclude negotiations.
In deciding whether to uphold letter of intent, courts focus upon the intent of the parties as evidenced by the following five factors: the language of the letter of intent, the context of the negotiations, the existence of open terms, partial performance, and express demands for a finalized contract. Although courts look at the intent of the parties in determining whether letter of intent is binding, inconsistencies exist between the various states and courts have not formulated any bright-line test. Because no concrete rules exist, and the cases tend to be very fact specific, courts have much discretion in asserting precontractual liability where letter of intent involved; there is, consequently, a lack of predictability.
There are cases involved with preliminary agreement such as letter of intent in Korea. In such case, if the court finds the liability on party for breach, then it is based torts not contracts. Therefore, studies on the U.S. cases might suggest the new approach on this matter.
The summary of the thesis is as follows. The enforceability of letters of intent and other preliminary agreements has become the most difficult but important areas of contract law concerns since in many cases, a business deal consists of agreements to negotiate toward a final contract. In the United States, “all or nothing” structure of contractual liability, either there is full liability, or no liability. This paper pointed out that this structure increasingly has been replaced by a regime in which some liability emerges during precontractual negotiations. Some courts already have found this form of liability where the parties agree to negotiate in good faith under “the letter of intent”. Furthermore, if parties have expressed mutual commitment to the major terms of the agreement, the court will not treat the provisions as a completed contract, but may impose a duty of good faith upon the parties to conclude negotiations.
In deciding whether to uphold letter of intent, courts focus upon the intent of the parties as evidenced by the following five factors: the language of the letter of intent, the context of the negotiations, the existence of open terms, partial performance, and express demands for a finalized contract. Although courts look at the intent of the parties in determining whether letter of intent is binding, inconsistencies exist between the various states and courts have not formulated any bright-line test. Because no concrete rules exist, and the cases tend to be very fact specific, courts have much discretion in asserting precontractual liability where letter of intent involved; there is, consequently, a lack of predictability.
There are cases involved with preliminary agreement such as letter of intent in Korea. In such case, if the court finds the liability on party for breach, then it is based torts not contracts. Therefore, studies on the U.S. cases might suggest the new approach on this matter.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 의향서의 구속력에 대한 학자들의 견해
Ⅲ. 의향서 위반에 따른 책임
Ⅳ. 우리나라에서의 적용 가능성
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (17)
참고문헌 신청
1. [단행본] - 서헌재 / 1995 / 국제거래법 / 박영사
2. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 김동훈 / 1998 / 계약의향서(Letter of Intent)에 관한 연구 / 저스티스 31 (1)
3. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 박영복 / 2007 / 미국 계약법상 손해배상의 범위 / 민사법학 (35) : 377 ~ 417
4. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 윤진수 / 2003 / 美國 契約法上 Good Faith 原則 / 서울대학교 법학 44 (4) : 40 ~ 93
5. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 함윤식 / 2005 / 契約交涉의 不當破棄로 인한 責任 / 민사판례연구 (27) : 233 ~ 304
2. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 김동훈 / 1998 / 계약의향서(Letter of Intent)에 관한 연구 / 저스티스 31 (1)
3. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 박영복 / 2007 / 미국 계약법상 손해배상의 범위 / 민사법학 (35) : 377 ~ 417
4. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 윤진수 / 2003 / 美國 契約法上 Good Faith 原則 / 서울대학교 법학 44 (4) : 40 ~ 93
5. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 함윤식 / 2005 / 契約交涉의 不當破棄로 인한 責任 / 민사판례연구 (27) : 233 ~ 304
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
Letter of Intent에 관한 美國法 硏究
통상법률
2004 .02
-
Case Study on the Legal Effects of Letters of Intent
무역상무연구
2006 .12
-
국제계약에 있어서 의향서의 사용과 관련한 문제점
무역상무연구
2011 .08
-
영미법상 Pre-contractual Liability에 의한 손해배상에 관한 연구
경영법률
2010 .01
-
契約意向書(Letter of Intent)에 관한 연구
저스티스
1998 .03
-
미국에서의 계약 교섭 결렬에 따른 책임에 관한 법경제학적 검토
미국헌법연구
2012 .04
-
계약교섭(契約交涉)의 부당파기(不當破棄)로 인한 손해배상책임(損害賠償責任)
중앙법학
2009 .10
-
계약구속력의 근거에 관한 법이론적 고찰
원광법학
2011 .01
-
‘계약교섭의 부당파기에 따른 책임’과 ‘계약의 예약’
한양법학
2014 .02
-
중국계약법상 화물운송대리에서의 계약책임과 귀책원칙
무역상무연구
2015 .05
-
M&A계약교섭단계에서의 법적 책임에 관한 연구 : 대법원 2008.2.14 선고 2006다18969판결을 중심으로
증권법연구
2009 .06
-
사회안전과 계약체결상의 과실책임
법학연구
2018 .03
-
계약교섭의 부당파기
고려법학
2011 .01
-
계약교섭의 일방파기와 곤해배상책임
法學論文集
2006 .01
-
컴퓨터 소프트웨어의 오류와 민사책임
기업법연구
2006 .03
-
试论瑕疵担保责任在中国《合同法》上的定位
중국법연구
2013 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-360-000498575