Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Declaration of Intent: A Legal Conundrum?

Declaration of Intent: A Legal Conundrum? <jats:sec><jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>In the traditional notion of contract formation, the general rule is that formation of contract requires an offer and acceptance to be communicated between the parties. However the Estonian Law of Obligation deviates from this rule and adopts a broader approach to contract formation through the mutual exchange of declarations of intent. The present article examines the ambiguities and legal muddle caused by this approach. A far more difficult issue is the time of receipt of communication since Estonian contract law does not adhere to either the dispatch theory or the receipt principle. Although the Estonian Law of Obligation draws a distinction between oral and other (written) communications, the latter reaches the addressee (or are deemed to be received) only after the recipient has had suffi cient time to review the communication. This may be appropriate for consumer transactions, but difficulties may well arise at the international level in proving effective receipt of a notice.</jats:p> </jats:sec> http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Review of Central and East European Law Brill

Declaration of Intent: A Legal Conundrum?

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/declaration-of-intent-a-legal-conundrum-wUlqQkSZUw
Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 2004 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0925-9880
eISSN
1573-0352
DOI
10.1163/1573035042523686
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

<jats:sec><jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>In the traditional notion of contract formation, the general rule is that formation of contract requires an offer and acceptance to be communicated between the parties. However the Estonian Law of Obligation deviates from this rule and adopts a broader approach to contract formation through the mutual exchange of declarations of intent. The present article examines the ambiguities and legal muddle caused by this approach. A far more difficult issue is the time of receipt of communication since Estonian contract law does not adhere to either the dispatch theory or the receipt principle. Although the Estonian Law of Obligation draws a distinction between oral and other (written) communications, the latter reaches the addressee (or are deemed to be received) only after the recipient has had suffi cient time to review the communication. This may be appropriate for consumer transactions, but difficulties may well arise at the international level in proving effective receipt of a notice.</jats:p> </jats:sec>

Journal

Review of Central and East European LawBrill

Published: Jan 1, 2004

There are no references for this article.