The Enforceability of Promises to Negotiate in Good Faith: Rethinking Traditional Common Law Attitudes

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterResearchpeer-review

Abstract

A clause in a commercial contract which expressly requires the parties to negotiate an issue in good faith may be a preliminary to dispute resolution through arbitration or litigation. It may also be part of a long term contractual relationship necessary to settle variations in quantity, price, or other terms where flexibility is needed. Because, in common law, one cannot have “an agreement to agree”, these provisions are scaffolded by the consequences of the parties failing to agree, commonly a method of dispute resolution. This might be autonomous such as a reference to a formula or an index, but usually it will be a form of engagement through arbitration. If there is no such provision and the parties do not in fact agree, then the contract will be void for uncertainty. It is in this context that a contract will expressly provide that these negotiations must be conducted “in good faith”. The negotiations are usually in the context of a contractual gap, but they may precede the formal contract, and be included in a “memorandum of understanding”, a preliminary record of heads of agreement. There may be also a need because of changed circumstances for the parties to make adjustments to restore a balance between the parties. Less commonly, haste or incompetence may create gaps or obscurities that need filling or clarification.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationTransnational Commercial and Consumer Law: Current Trends in International Business Law
EditorsToshiyuki Kono, Mary Hiscock, Arie Reich
Place of PublicationSingapore
PublisherSpringer
Chapter7
Pages175-186
Number of pages12
ISBN (Electronic)978-981-13-1080-5
ISBN (Print)978-981-13-1079-9
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 28 Aug 2018

Publication series

Name Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation
PublisherSpringer
ISSN (Electronic)2520-1875

Fingerprint

common law
faith
arbitration
memorandum
flexibility
uncertainty

Cite this

Hiscock, M. (2018). The Enforceability of Promises to Negotiate in Good Faith: Rethinking Traditional Common Law Attitudes. In T. Kono, M. Hiscock, & A. Reich (Eds.), Transnational Commercial and Consumer Law: Current Trends in International Business Law (pp. 175-186). ( Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1080-5_7
Hiscock, Mary. / The Enforceability of Promises to Negotiate in Good Faith: Rethinking Traditional Common Law Attitudes. Transnational Commercial and Consumer Law: Current Trends in International Business Law. editor / Toshiyuki Kono ; Mary Hiscock ; Arie Reich. Singapore : Springer, 2018. pp. 175-186 ( Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation).
@inbook{090323ae24e14b7fa9d51379b673e01d,
title = "The Enforceability of Promises to Negotiate in Good Faith: Rethinking Traditional Common Law Attitudes",
abstract = "A clause in a commercial contract which expressly requires the parties to negotiate an issue in good faith may be a preliminary to dispute resolution through arbitration or litigation. It may also be part of a long term contractual relationship necessary to settle variations in quantity, price, or other terms where flexibility is needed. Because, in common law, one cannot have “an agreement to agree”, these provisions are scaffolded by the consequences of the parties failing to agree, commonly a method of dispute resolution. This might be autonomous such as a reference to a formula or an index, but usually it will be a form of engagement through arbitration. If there is no such provision and the parties do not in fact agree, then the contract will be void for uncertainty. It is in this context that a contract will expressly provide that these negotiations must be conducted “in good faith”. The negotiations are usually in the context of a contractual gap, but they may precede the formal contract, and be included in a “memorandum of understanding”, a preliminary record of heads of agreement. There may be also a need because of changed circumstances for the parties to make adjustments to restore a balance between the parties. Less commonly, haste or incompetence may create gaps or obscurities that need filling or clarification.",
author = "Mary Hiscock",
year = "2018",
month = "8",
day = "28",
doi = "10.1007/978-981-13-1080-5_7",
language = "English",
isbn = "978-981-13-1079-9",
series = "Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation",
publisher = "Springer",
pages = "175--186",
editor = "Toshiyuki Kono and Mary Hiscock and Arie Reich",
booktitle = "Transnational Commercial and Consumer Law: Current Trends in International Business Law",
address = "Germany",

}

Hiscock, M 2018, The Enforceability of Promises to Negotiate in Good Faith: Rethinking Traditional Common Law Attitudes. in T Kono, M Hiscock & A Reich (eds), Transnational Commercial and Consumer Law: Current Trends in International Business Law. Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation, Springer, Singapore, pp. 175-186. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1080-5_7

The Enforceability of Promises to Negotiate in Good Faith: Rethinking Traditional Common Law Attitudes. / Hiscock, Mary.

Transnational Commercial and Consumer Law: Current Trends in International Business Law. ed. / Toshiyuki Kono; Mary Hiscock; Arie Reich. Singapore : Springer, 2018. p. 175-186 ( Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation).

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterResearchpeer-review

TY - CHAP

T1 - The Enforceability of Promises to Negotiate in Good Faith: Rethinking Traditional Common Law Attitudes

AU - Hiscock, Mary

PY - 2018/8/28

Y1 - 2018/8/28

N2 - A clause in a commercial contract which expressly requires the parties to negotiate an issue in good faith may be a preliminary to dispute resolution through arbitration or litigation. It may also be part of a long term contractual relationship necessary to settle variations in quantity, price, or other terms where flexibility is needed. Because, in common law, one cannot have “an agreement to agree”, these provisions are scaffolded by the consequences of the parties failing to agree, commonly a method of dispute resolution. This might be autonomous such as a reference to a formula or an index, but usually it will be a form of engagement through arbitration. If there is no such provision and the parties do not in fact agree, then the contract will be void for uncertainty. It is in this context that a contract will expressly provide that these negotiations must be conducted “in good faith”. The negotiations are usually in the context of a contractual gap, but they may precede the formal contract, and be included in a “memorandum of understanding”, a preliminary record of heads of agreement. There may be also a need because of changed circumstances for the parties to make adjustments to restore a balance between the parties. Less commonly, haste or incompetence may create gaps or obscurities that need filling or clarification.

AB - A clause in a commercial contract which expressly requires the parties to negotiate an issue in good faith may be a preliminary to dispute resolution through arbitration or litigation. It may also be part of a long term contractual relationship necessary to settle variations in quantity, price, or other terms where flexibility is needed. Because, in common law, one cannot have “an agreement to agree”, these provisions are scaffolded by the consequences of the parties failing to agree, commonly a method of dispute resolution. This might be autonomous such as a reference to a formula or an index, but usually it will be a form of engagement through arbitration. If there is no such provision and the parties do not in fact agree, then the contract will be void for uncertainty. It is in this context that a contract will expressly provide that these negotiations must be conducted “in good faith”. The negotiations are usually in the context of a contractual gap, but they may precede the formal contract, and be included in a “memorandum of understanding”, a preliminary record of heads of agreement. There may be also a need because of changed circumstances for the parties to make adjustments to restore a balance between the parties. Less commonly, haste or incompetence may create gaps or obscurities that need filling or clarification.

U2 - 10.1007/978-981-13-1080-5_7

DO - 10.1007/978-981-13-1080-5_7

M3 - Chapter

SN - 978-981-13-1079-9

T3 - Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation

SP - 175

EP - 186

BT - Transnational Commercial and Consumer Law: Current Trends in International Business Law

A2 - Kono, Toshiyuki

A2 - Hiscock, Mary

A2 - Reich, Arie

PB - Springer

CY - Singapore

ER -

Hiscock M. The Enforceability of Promises to Negotiate in Good Faith: Rethinking Traditional Common Law Attitudes. In Kono T, Hiscock M, Reich A, editors, Transnational Commercial and Consumer Law: Current Trends in International Business Law. Singapore: Springer. 2018. p. 175-186. ( Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1080-5_7