FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123  
124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   >>  
ld be sacrificed in the process, it would seem that the individual interest in promised advantages should be secured to the full extent of what has been assured to him by the deliberate promise of another. Let us put this in another way. In a former lecture I suggested, as a jural postulate of civilized society, that in such a society men must be able to assume that those with whom they deal in the general intercourse of the society will act in good faith, and as a corollary must be able to assume that those with whom they so deal will carry out their undertakings according to the expectations which the moral sentiment of the community attaches thereto. Hence, in a commercial and industrial society, a claim or want or demand of society that promises be kept and that undertakings be carried out in good faith, a social interest in the stability of promises as a social and economic institution, becomes of the first importance. This social interest in the security of transactions, as one might call it, requires that we secure the individual interest of the promisee, that is, his claim or demand to be assured in the expectation created, which has become part of his substance. In civil-law countries the interest of the promisee, and thus the social interest in the security of transactions, is well secured. The traditional requirement of a _causa ciuilis_, a civil, i.e., legal, reason for enforcing a pact, gave way before natural-law ideas in the eighteenth century. Pothier gave over the contract categories of the Roman law as being "very remote from simplicity." Then came the rise of the will theory of legal transactions in the nineteenth century. French law made intention of gratuitously benefiting another a _causa_. The Austrian code of 1811 presumed a _causa_, requiring a promisor to prove there was none. And this means that he must prove the promise was not a legal transaction--that there was no intention to enter into a binding undertaking. In the result, abstract promises, as the civilian calls them, came to be enforced equally with those which came under some formal Roman category and with those having a substantial presupposition. Modern Continental law, apart from certain requirements of proof, resting on the same policy as our Statute of Frauds, asks only, Did the promisor intend to create a binding duty? Likewise in civil-law countries the enforcing machinery is modern and adequate. The oldest method of enforcem
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123  
124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   >>  



Top keywords:

interest

 

society

 

social

 
promises
 

transactions

 

enforcing

 

century

 

security

 
promisee
 

intention


binding

 
promisor
 

countries

 
demand
 

undertakings

 

assured

 

assume

 
secured
 

individual

 

promise


French

 
intend
 

create

 

substantial

 

nineteenth

 

gratuitously

 
benefiting
 

Austrian

 
theory
 

presumed


method

 

oldest

 

categories

 

contract

 
enforcem
 
remote
 
presupposition
 

machinery

 

requiring

 

simplicity


adequate

 

modern

 
Likewise
 

Modern

 

abstract

 

civilian

 
result
 

undertaking

 

resting

 

formal