Comparison Between The Liability Of Faults And Promissory Estoppel

According to traditional contract law, civil law system focus on the subjective meaning of a desired between the contracting parties, adhere to the "not yet reached adesired, not have a contract, no contract have no responsibility" absolute contract theory. In this principle, even when the contracting party with a Faults, and thus cause losses to the other side, if the contract is not formed, the party at Faults does not take responsibility. On the other hand, according to Anglo-American traditional contract law, consideration is the basis of an effective contract; only consideration can put the contract into law enforcement. In such a strict doctrine of consideration, many free gift contracts without consideration can not be enforced; the losses suffered can't be compensated. Therefore, in order to reduce and prevent and correct this unfair phenomenon, the two law system formed such corrective mechanism: Culpa in Contrahendo and Promissory Estoppel.The two systems are both based on the principles of good faith, to protect the reliance interest of the parties in the contracting process, to guarantee the safety of transactions and maintain the order of market economy. However, because of Two Legal own unique legal system and cultural traditions, there are differences in specific aspects between Culpa in Contrahendo and Promissory Estoppel. This thesis analyses the similarities and differences of the two systems from the point of comparative law about their origin, theoretical basic, composing element and applicable range. There are five parts.The first part of this article looked at the evolution of two systems and the development process to proceed, examined their backgrounds, the legal connotations. And through a comparative analysis revealed that the two were both based on the principle of good faith, played the similar functions—protected reliance interest and preserve the safety of transactions.In the second part of the paper, the author studied their respective legal component and carried out a comparative analysis. The loss of reliance interest is one of their elements. But the two systems adopted the different subjective elements: Faults liability principle and the principle of no-Faults liability. The third part, focused on their scope of application, and carried out comparative analysis of the cases and application of the results.In the fourth part of this article, the author studied their scopes of compensation and analyzed the similarities and differences of the two systems about the interests protected the scopes of compensation and methods of remedies. Although both of the two protected the reliance interests, because of Two Legal own unique legal system and cultural traditions, there were some differences.In the fifth part of the article, the author studied the current system situation of our Liability of Faults. Then through the analysis about the legislative shortcomings of Faults liability system in our country, the author putted forwards some the perfection suggestion for reference.