Research On The Reliance Interest In Contract Law

The reliance interest occupies an important position in contract damages, because of lacking the accurate knowledge on the definition of the reliance interest and the relevant theory of the reliance interest, the relevant laws about the reliance interest are insufficient in our country. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to learn from other countries relative mature norms, using the method of linking theory with reality. From the perspective of the concept of the reliance interest and to explore foreign scholars on the basis of viewpoint, rationally define the concept of reliance interest, and runs through to the main text of this exposition. The research about the theory on reliance interest includes following four aspects:The first part, mainly about the reliance interest in the form of theory and the reliance interest reasonably defined. In 1861, the German legal science highly respected person Yelin (Jhering), in his masterpiece, "Damages of Fault, Invalid or non-perfect Contract, "the text proposes The Fault Liability theory. That is the fault of the parties which leases because they were not set up to the reliance deeds relatively effective. The compensation should be based on reliance damage. Yelin's greatest contribution theory, lies in one kind of similar contract's having affirmed that the interested party comes into being because of establishing behavior trusting relation. It proposed change of the classical theory established by the law of "no contract no responsibility". In 1936, Fuller gentleman through its paper "The Reliance Interest in Contract Damages" the publication, advanced the reliance interest theory. One relief way which the Fuller wants through the reliance interest theory, to cause which to grant by the faith creates in the harm into contract compensation, on the other hand, theory on the reliance interest has also expanded the scope of the contract, according to Britain and the United States because of the traditional consideration theory, many cases do not have any responsibility for the violation of reliance, theory on the reliance interest makes the party full of relief, expansion of non-contractual liability for contractual obligations.The reliance interest is the interest which the party takes a reasonable cost performance pay based on reliance, available through the other payments cover (back) interest. Reliance interest is not the interest of the process which a contract can be formed, performed or terminated (in this process because the only cost to pay, is inherent interest loss), but the interest of fulfilling its part of the contract. The reliance interest here is not a new interest, but has to pay reasonable compensation for the cost of the contract. However, the contract has no to be formed, invalid, revoked or removed, the party who pays a reasonable cost to fulfill the contract fails to recover the cost, the loss of state benefits are not realized, it has been called the reliance interest loss. The second part describes the extension of the reliance interest and legal stereotypes. Protection of the reliance interest, usually exists in form of the Fault Liability for Entering into a Contract for damages to be achieved. In the stage of default Liability, no matter what responsibility means to use, regardless of the civil law countries actual effect discusses on the surface look like to protect the contract to obtain thorough fulfilling, to protect the benefit of fulfilling and the interests of the injured party, in essence, it protects the reliance and the reliance interest of promisee and enables the reliance interest to achieve fulfilling extent, in another words, to achieve the expected level. Even in the latter stages of contractual obligations, with regard to losses caused by the reasonable reliance, if the relative party did not follow the principle of good faith according to the notification transaction to execute notice, assistance and confidentiality obligations, as a result, causing losses to the reliance, it should be compensated for their reliance interests.The third part is mainly about the relation between the reliance interest and the other contract interests. Between the reliance interest and restitution interest, reliance interest is broad enough to embrace restitution interest, reliance interest is equal to restitution interest when it is in the special condition; between the relation of reliance interest and expectation interest, expectation interest is attracted by reliance interest and is equal to essential reliance when it is maximum, which is restricted with expectation interest, but incidental reliance is not subject to expectation interest. At the same time, the reliance interest has its own particularity, the net reliance interest is the real reliance interest, which the restitution interest can not be intervened; reliance interest has filled in the contract cost paying rationally only, it is not a new subject in the inherent interests above the interests of the state. This is a crucial point which distinguishes expectations interests. Meanwhile, the reliance interest has stridden over after the contract sets up front , the contract is founded, until arriving at termination of contract groundless , have avoided the easy to return to the awkward situation restitution interest and expectation interest, second takes one only, contract compensation for damages forehead's comparatively accurate.The fourth part, the major concern is the standard for calculating reliance interest. Between the reliance interest and expectation interest, we found two overlapping projects often tend to make the same damages can be any one of those two names, in a word ,the elements of the reliance interest and expectation interest are combined in one suit. Therefore, it is contended that the plaintiff has listed the same injury twice under different rubrics. In dealing with this problem, this paper describes the general standard for calculating the reliance interest. At the same time, through the regulation of predictable restrictions and the regulation of loss mitigation in order to make reasonable restrictions on the reliance interest. From the practical needs of the transaction to come, if the responsibility of the default party is set a limit within foreseeable range by the predictable restrictions, it will play an important role to boost business and have the important effect even development of activity, ensuring flexible regularity of business being in progress. Through the regulation of loss mitigation to make a reasonable restriction on the reliance interest, in order to make the reliance interest not to expand as for the spread to the situation which cannot be limited, thereby protecting the reliance interest to achieve really. And when the damage occurred, the victim is the most effective way to control the expansion of the loss. Minimum cost from this responsibility. When he did not control the expansion of this risk, it is the loss of such an expansion should be assigned to him. Meanwhile, the responsibility will set the course for the prevention of the victims and have effective incentive to avoid wastage of resources.In a word, we must reinforce to admit the reliance interest. The objection to the all-or-nothing attitude is not simply that it often results in the plaintiff's getting all when a part would have made him whole. The more serious objection is that in those cases where a court balks at giving him all, he may get nothing when he urgently needed and deserved a part. This need makes it obvious that we cannot solve the problem of reimbursing reliance simply by converting the relied-on promise into a"contract"like every other contract. The need for compensating reliance must be treated as a distinct promissory interest, deserving recognition on its own account.