Contracts: 'Pre-contractual' Understandings and the Duty to Negotiate in Good Faith

Source: Law and Legal developments

---

'Pre-contractual' Understandings and the Duty to Negotiate in Good Faith A previous post highlighted an ICSID case on how negotiations between parties can unexpectedly result in a binding legal relationship being formed. For any contractual liability to arise, it is essential that the parties must have an intention to enter into a legal relationship. This test – whether such an intention was present – will often be useful in determining whether "agreements in principle" or "memorandums of understanding" or like documents can – without any further contract – be enforceable under principles of contract law. In seeing whether understandings reached by parties are binding, the remarks of Parker J in Von Hatzfeldt-Wildenburg v. Alexander [1912] 1 Ch. 284 appear to be relevant. According to him, the absence or presence of a binding contractual relationship depends on whether the preparation of a formal document was a condition of the contract; or whether the formal document was to be merely a record of the expressed will of the parties. In the former case, no binding contractual relationship exists; in the latter, it does. Under Parker J's test, if the preliminary understanding is sufficiently definite, it will be presumed that parties intended to enter into a binding legal relationship. The leading Indian textbook, Pollock and Mulla, summarised the position by saying that what needs to be determined is "… whether the formal document is of such a nature that it was the very condition of the contract or whether it was commemorative of the evidence on the point…" (12th edn., page 213) Insofar as the existence of a duty to negotiate in good faith is concerned; in an extreme form, the contents of this duty might be expressed thus: "A party who manifests a willingness to enter into a contract at given terms should not be able to freely retract from her manifestation. The opposing party, even if he did not manifest assent, and unless he rejected the terms, acquires an option to bind his counterpart to her representation or charge her with some liability in case she retracts…" (Omri Bin-Shahar, Contracts without Consent: Exploring a New Basis for Contractual Liability, 152 U. Penn. L. Rev 1829) Common law is unlikely to recognise such a broad formulation of the duty. Indeed, since Routledge v. Grant (1828), it is settled law that a party is free to withdraw its offer, unless there is a consideration for the offer being kept open. Further, in Watford v. Miles [1992] 1 All ER 453, specifically, the House of Lords held that there could be no duty to negotiate in good faith for an undefined amount of time. This position is distinct from the position in many civil law countries – under civilian systems, offers cannot easily be revoked, unless they are made expressly subject to revocation. Civilian systems are, then, more likely to impose an obligation to conduct negotiations in good faith (this is covered within the civilian doctrine of 'culpa in contrahendo'). The Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG) – born out of a compromise between common law and civil law systems – also recognizes such a 'good faith' obligation in Article 7. Nonetheless, it cannot be said that common law refuses to recognise any good faith obligation at all. For instance, an Australian case – Renard Constructions v. Minister for Public Works (1992) 26 NSWLR 234 – suggests that a duty to negotiate in good faith can be imposed on grounds of reasonableness. Claims may arise under quasi-contract principles too. [Note: On the role of good faith in international sales transactions under the CISG, see John Klein, Good Faith in International Transactions. India is not yet a party to the CISG. On the advantages and disadvantages of ratifying the CISG, see this article]