Reconsidering Consensualism and the Role of Consent in Contract

Abry, Kane

doi:10.1007/978-3-031-37641-2_8

Kane Abry¹⁷

Part of the book series: Studies in the History of Law and Justice ((SHLJ,volume 27))

54 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter rejects the idea whereby consent alone makes the contract. It discusses how consensualism instates a normative system whereby the validity and enforceability of contract does not merely rely on consent. Instead, it is reason that determines whether an agreement is valid and enforceable. It establishes a system of value judgements independent from consent such as commercial good sense, good faith, morality, natural equity, natural justice, and public order as what truly makes a contract enforceable as they determine, expand or restrict the circumstances in which consent can or cannot operate. Altogether, they normativise consent and set up standards of conduct. Thus, this chapter challenges the primacy and self-sufficiency of consent as what makes the contract, thereby considering the otherwise overlooked implications of consensualism.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 139.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 179.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Pothier (2011) §3, p. 5; Gounot (1912), p. 5; Josserand (1939) at [154]; Guerriero (1975), p. 125; Gobert (2000) Article 37208, p. 878; Frison-Roche, MA in Jamin and Mazeaud (1999), p. 21; Mahouachi (2001), p. 40; Terré, F, Simler, P, Lequette, Y (2002) at [134]. See also, French Civil Code, ex-Article 1101 contra French Civil Code, Article 1101 (current); French Civil Code, ex-Article 1108, °1 contra French Civil Code, Article 1128, °1.
2.
French Civil Code, ex-Article 1134 contra French Civil Code, Articles 1103, 1104, and 1193 (current); French Civil Code, ex-Article 1135 contra French Civil Code, Article 1194 (current).
3.
Loysel (1679), p. 357: ‘on lie les bœufs par les cornes et les hommes par les paroles, et autant vaut une simple promesse de convenance que les stipulations du droit romain’. [My own translation]: ‘One binds oxen by the horns, and men by words. The same applies as much to simple promises of convenience as to stipulations under Roman law’.
4.
Pothier (2011) §3, p. 5.
5.
Terré et al. (2019), p. 88.
6.
See also, Schmidt-Szalewski (1989), pp. 11–36; Ghestin (1980), pp. 3–4; Terré, F, Simler, P, Lequette, Y (2002), pp. 57; Bénabent (2014), pp. 13-12; Larroumet (2003), pp. 65ff; Colin et al. (1959), pp. 307ff.
7.
Gomaa (1968) at [17] et seq.
8.
Gnassounou (2019), pp. 421–423; Le Bideau (2015), pp. 154ff; Ripert (1928), pp. 24ff, 39.
9.
French Civil Code, ex-Article 1135 and the case law underneath contra French Civil Code, Article 1194; Colmar, 2 May 1855, D.P., 1856.2.9; Lyon, 18 April 1856, D. 1856.2.200; Cour de cassation, Chambre civile, 8 June 1857, S.1858.1.305; Montpellier, 16 July 1866, S.1867.2.115; Paris, 3 December 1871, D.1873.2.185; French Civil Code, ex-Article 1134, section 3 contra French Civil Code, Article 1104 and the case law underneath. See also Lévy (1899), pp. 361ff; Lévy (1910), pp. 700, 717ff.
10.
Laithier (2004) at [119].
11.
Fuller and Perdue (1936) at [52], pp. 373ff contra French Civil Code, ex-Article 1142 and the case law underneath at °3.
12.
Lecuyer (1998) at [54], pp. 44ff.
13.
Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Ex Rep 850; Omak Maritime Ltd v Mamola Challenger Shipping Co Ltd [2010] EWHC 2026 (Comm), [2010] 2 C.L.C. 194; Surrey CC and Mole DC v Bredero Homes Ltd [1993] 3 All E.R. 705; Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corp Ltd [2013] EWHC 111 (QB), [2013] 1 All ER (Comm) 1321; Hooper v Oates [2013] EWCA Civ 91, [2013] 1 P. & C.R. DG22; McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission [1951] HCA 79, (1951) 84 CLR 377, High Court (Australia); Commonwealth v Amann Aviation [1991] HCA 54, (1991) 174 CLR [64], High Court (Australia).
14.
Ripert (1936), pp. 57ff; Jamin (1997) at [598] and [60]; Ancel (1998) at [60], pp. 88ff.
15.
Fuller and Perdue (1936), p. 52. Compare to Barnett (1996), p. 534 contra pp. 518–519ff; Graham-Suit v. Clainos, 756 F.3d 724, 749-50 (9th Cir. 2013); Bocksel v. DG3 North America, Inc., 2016 WL 873138, (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2016) at *10.
16.
Waddams (1993), pp. 183–210, 8, 109ff, 513.
17.
Robertson (2000).
18.
Consideration is the practical cause, counterpart or technical element structuring of contracts in common law. It structures contract around the economic exchange that it underpins similarly to commutativity in Roman law regarding innominate contracts. This idea also echoed in French law under Domat’s pen regarding causa. See Atiyah (1989), p. 124. Compare to Domat (1828) Liv I, Tit I, Sec I, §5-6, p. 122-124 and Sec V, § 13-14, p 151, Liv I, Tit VI, p 236.
19.
Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Ex Rep 850; Omak Maritime Ltd v Mamola Challenger Shipping Co Ltd [2010] EWHC 2026 (Comm), [2010] 2 C.L.C. 194; Surrey CC and Mole DC v Bredero Homes Ltd [1993] 3 All E.R. 705; Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corp Ltd [2013] EWHC 111 (QB), [2013] 1 All ER (Comm) 1321; Hooper v Oates [2013] EWCA Civ 91, [2013] 1 P. & C.R. DG22; McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission [1951] HCA 79, (1951) 84 CLR 377, High Court (Australia); Commonwealth v Amann Aviation [1991] HCA 54, (1991) 174 CLR [64], High Court (Australia).
20.
French Civil Code, ex-Article 1382: ‘Tout fait quelconque de l'homme, qui cause à autrui un dommage, oblige celui par la faute duquel il est arrivé à le réparer’ contra French Civil Code, Article 1240 (current): ‘Tout fait quelconque de l'homme, qui cause à autrui un dommage, oblige celui par la faute duquel il est arrivé à le réparer’.
21.
French Civil Code, ex-Article 1142: ‘Toute obligation de faire ou de ne pas faire se résout en dommages et intérêts en cas d'inexécution de la part du débiteur’.
22.
French Civil Code, Article 1221 (current): ‘Le créancier d'une obligation peut, après mise en demeure, en poursuivre l'exécution en nature sauf si cette exécution est impossible ou s'il existe une disproportion manifeste entre son coût pour le débiteur de bonne foi et son intérêt pour le créancier’.
23.
Toullier (1824) at [217]; Duranton (1844) at [108] et seq.; Larombière (1885) at [2]; Page (de) (1934) at [93].
24.
French Civil Code, ex-Article 1142 and the case law underneath contra French Civil Code, Article 1221 and the case law underneath.
25.
Herman, S in Blanc-Jouvan (2005), pp. 521ff, 522; Meyvis et al. (2019) w-012-2852; Smits et al. (2008), pp. 31–46; Italian Civil Code, Article 1453.
26.
MacQueen and Thomson (2016), pp. 251ff, especially 252.
27.
Eisenberg and Miller (2013), pp. 1ff; Chitty on contracts (2018) 27-015 et seq., pp. 1190ff.
28.
Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58, [1967] All ER 1197.
29.
Tallon (1994) at [21] et seq.; Herman, S in Blanc-Jouvan, X (Société de Législation Comparée) (2005), pp. 521ff, 527; Eisenberg and Miller (2013), pp. 1ff; Chitty on contracts (2018) 27-015 et seq., pp. 1190ff.

References

Books

Atiyah PS (1989) An introduction to the law of contract, 6th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Bénabent A (2014) Droit des obligations, 14th edn. LGDJ, Paris
Google Scholar
Blanc-Jouvan, X (Société de Législation Comparée) (2005) De tous horizons. Mélanges en l’honneur de Xavier Blanc-Jouvan. Société Législation Comparée, Paris
Google Scholar
Burrows A et al (2018) Chitty on contracts, vol 1, 33rd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London
Google Scholar
Colin A, Capitant H, Julliot de la Morandière L (1959) Traité de droit civil, vol 2. Dalloz, Paris
Google Scholar
Domat J (1828) Les lois civiles dans leur ordre naturel. Firmin Didot Père et Fils, Paris
Google Scholar
Duranton A (1844) Cours de droit civil français suivant le Code civil, vol 10, 4th edn. Thorel & Guilbert, Paris
Google Scholar
Frison-Roche MA (1999) Unilatéralité et consentement. In: Jamin C, Mazeaud D (1999) L’unilatéralisme et le droit des obligations. Économica, Paris
Google Scholar
Ghestin J (1980) Traité de droit civil. Les obligations. Le contrat, 1st edn.. LGDJ, Paris.
Google Scholar
Gnassounou B (2019) La Parole donnée. Le contrat comme représentation collective. Classiques Garnier, Paris.
Google Scholar
Gomaa NK (1968) Théorie des sources de l’obligation. LGDJ, Paris
Google Scholar
Gounot E (1912) Le principe de l'autonomie de la volonté en droit privé. Contribution à l'Étude critique de l'individualisme juridique. Rousseau, Paris
Google Scholar
Guerriero MA (1975) L’acte juridique solennel. LGDJ, Paris
Google Scholar
Josserand L (1939) Cours de droit civil positif français. Sirey, Paris
Google Scholar
Laithier YM (2004) Etude comparative des sanctions de l’inexécution du contrat. LGDJ, Paris
Google Scholar
Larombière LVLJ (1885) Théorie et pratique des obligations, vol 1, 7th edn. A. Durand et Pedone-Lauriel, Paris
Google Scholar
Larroumet C (2003) Droit civil, Les obligations. Le contrat, Vol 3, 5th edn. Economica, Paris
Google Scholar
Le Bideau C (2015) Engagement et désengagement contractuel. Etude de droit de la consommation et de droit civil. UniversitÉ Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble
Google Scholar
Loysel A (1679) Institutes coutumières ou Manuel de plusieurs et diverses règles, sentences et proverbes, tant anciens que modernes, du droit coutumier et plus ordinaire de la France. Edme-Martin, Martin, Paris
Google Scholar
MacQueen H, Thomson J (2016) Contract law in Scotland, 4th edn. Bloomsbury Professional, Haywards Heath.
Google Scholar
Mahouachi M (2001) La liberté contractuelle des collectivités territoriales. Presses Universitaires d'Aix-Marseille, Aix-en-Provence
Google Scholar
Page (de) H (1934) Traité élémentaire de droit civil belge. Principes, doctrine, jurisprudence. Les incapables. Les obligations, 1st edn.. Bruylant, Brussels
Google Scholar
Pothier RJ (2011) Traité des obligations. Dalloz, Paris
Google Scholar
Ripert G (1928) Le Socialisme juridique d'Emmanuel Lévy: À propos de La vision socialiste du droit. LGDJ, Paris
Google Scholar
Schmidt-Szalewski J (1989) Jurisprudence française–Droit des contrats. Litec, Paris
Google Scholar
Smits JM, Haas D, Hesen G (2008) Specific performance in contract law; (GO TO THE LINE) Terré, F, Simler, P, Lequette, Y (2002) Droit civil, Les obligations, 8th edn.. Dalloz, Paris. [There are two distinct references here. Please separate them]
Google Scholar
Terré F, Simler P, Lequette Y (2019) Droit civil, Les obligations, 12th edn. Dalloz, Paris
Google Scholar
Toullier CBM (1824) Le droit civil français suivant l’ordre du Code civil, 4th edn. Warée, Paris
Google Scholar
Waddams SM (1993) The law of contracts, 3rd edn. Thomson Reuters, Toronto
Google Scholar

Articles

Ancel P (1998) Droit au recouvrement de sa créance ou droit de ne pas payer des dettes?. 60:89ff
Google Scholar
Barnett RE (1996) The death of reliance. 46:518–536. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1245
Eisenberg T, Miller GP (2013) Damages versus Specific Performance: Lessons from Commercial Contracts. 12:29–69. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/1688/
Fuller LL, Perdue WR (1936) The reliance interest in contract damages. 46:52–96. https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3828&context=ylj
Gobert M (2000) Evocation de Jacques Flour in Aubert, JL (2000) Le formalisme, journée. Rapport de synthèse de la journée Jacques Flour consacrée au formalisme. 15–16:870–879. https://www.labase-lextenso.fr/defrenois/AD2000DEF931N1
Jamin C (1997) Que reste-t-il de l’intangibilité du contrat. 58:29ff
Google Scholar
Lecuyer H (1998) Redéfinir la force obligatoire du contrat. 54:44ff. https://www.labase-lextenso.fr/petites-affiches/PA199805415
Lévy E (1899) Responsabilité et contrat. 28:361–398.
Google Scholar
Lévy E (1910) La confiance légitime. 9:700–722
Google Scholar
Robertson A (2000) Protecting Reliance: The Emergent Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel by Michael Spence; Reliance, Conscience and the New Equitable Estoppel. 24:1-144. A review of M Spence (1999) Protecting reliance: The emergent doctrine of equitable estoppel. http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbULawRw/2000/7.html

Other

Meyvis Y, Berneman S, Engelen L, Aerts PJ (2019) Sale and storage of goods in Belgium: overview. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-012-2852?originationContext=knowHow&transitionType=KnowHowItem&contextData=(sc.Default)&comp=pluk
Ripert G (1936) Le droit de ne pas payer ses dettes. 1936: 57ff
Google Scholar
Tallon D (1994) L’inexécution du contrat: pour une autre présentation. https://www.degruyter.com/database/IBZ/entry/ibz.ID842008127/html

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

London, UK
Kane Abry

Authors

Kane Abry
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Appendices

Statutory Provisions

French Civil Code

Article 1101 (current).
Article 1103.
Article 1104.
Article 1128, °1.
Article 1193 (current).
Article 1194.
Article 1221 (current).
Article 1240 (current).
ex-Article 1101.
ex-Article 1134, section 3.
ex-Article 1134.
ex-Article 1135.
ex-Article 1142.
ex-Article 1382.

Italian Civil Code, Article 1453.

Case Law

Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58, [1967] All ER 1197.

Bocksel v. DG3 North America, Inc., 2016 WL 873138, (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2016) at *10.

Colmar, 2 May 1855, D.P., 1856.2.9.

Commonwealth v Amann Aviation [1991] HCA 54, (1991) 174 CLR [64], High Court (Australia).

Cour de cassation, Chambre civile, 8 June 1857, S.1858.1.305.

Graham-Suit v. Clainos, 756 F.3d 724, 749-50 (9th Cir. 2013).

Hooper v Oates [2013] EWCA Civ 91, [2013] 1 P. & C.R. DG22.

Lyon, 18 April 1856, D. 1856.2.200.

McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission [1951] HCA 79, (1951) 84 CLR 377, High Court (Australia).

Montpellier, 16 July 1866, S.1867.2.115.

Omak Maritime Ltd v Mamola Challenger Shipping Co Ltd [2010] EWHC 2026 (Comm), [2010] 2 C.L.C. 194.

Paris, 3 December 1871, D.1873.2.185.

Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Ex Rep 850.

Surrey CC and Mole DC v Bredero Homes Ltd [1993] 3 All E.R. 705.

Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corp Ltd [2013] EWHC 111 (QB), [2013] 1 All ER (Comm) 1321.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Abry, K. (2023). Reconsidering Consensualism and the Role of Consent in Contract. In: The Construction, Sources, and Implications of Consensualism in Contract. Studies in the History of Law and Justice, vol 27. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37641-2_8

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37641-2_8
Published: 29 September 2023
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-37640-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-37641-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics