Breach of trust as a legal fact

Abstract

Does reliance and its violation affect law? At first glance, the correlation between the concepts of “law” and “ reliance” is in the same category of questions as the correlation with the concepts of “morality” and “morals” — that is, it is more of a theoretical fabrication and affects the metaphysical essence of law, having a modest practical significance. Meanwhile, the category of reliance has a somewhat different position. Reliance, of course, also has a high meaning, as well as moral and morality, because being a universal value has an important significance for the regulation of relations. As a possible regulator of relations between people, reliance can supplant law or on the contrary strengthen it. However, in a more applied nature, reliance can have a much greater significance and seriously affect legal relations, changing them or serving as a reason for their emergence. On the one hand, a breach of reliance can be a reason for refracting the operation of the law, changing its operation contrary to basic perceptions. On the other hand, in other situations, breach of reliance serves as a basis for compensation of losses of the victim. This article aims to demonstrate how and in what cases a breach of reliance can be the cause of legal consequences in the Russian legal order.

References

1. Karapetyan, A.G. (Ed.). (2020). Contract law (general part): article-by-article commentary to articles 420–453 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Moscow (in Russ.).
2. Dozortsev, V.A. (1982). Commentary on the Civil Code of the RSFSR. Moscow (in Russ.).
3. Egorov, A.V., Papchenkova, E.A. and Shirvindt, A.M. (2016). Representation: a study of judicial practice. Moscow (in Russ.).
4. Karapetyan, A.G. (2016). Economic analysis of law. Moscow (in Russ.).
5. Korotkova, V.A. (2018) Estoppel in civil law. In A. M., Shirvindt and N.B., Shcherbakov (Eds.). Experiences in civilistic research: Collection of articles. Is. 2 (pp. 231–312). Moscow (in Russ.).
6. Krasheninnikov, E.A. and Baigusheva, Y.V. (2013). Obligations during precontractual negotiations. Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, 6, pp. 82–93 (in Russ.).
7. Krasheninnikov, E.A. and Baigusheva, Y.V. (2012). Termination of authority. Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, 11, pp. 6–16 (in Russ.).
8. Novitsky, I.B. (2006). The principle of good conscience in the draft law of obligations. Bulletin of civil law, 1, pp. 124–181 (in Russ.).
9. Karapetov, A.G. (2018). Transactions, representation, limitation period: articleby- article commentary to Articles 153–208 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Moscow (in Russ.).
10. Tololaeva, N.V. and Tserkovnikov, M.A. (2023). Scientific and practical commentary to the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of March 24, 2016 No. 7 “On the application by the courts of certain provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on liability for breach of obligations”. Bulletin of Civil Law, 5, pp. 153–199 (in Russ.).
11. Trepitsyn, I.N. (1907). Acquisition of movable property from persons who do not have the right to alienate it. Warsaw (in Russ.).
12. Cherepakhin, B.B. (2020). Legal nature and justification for the acquisition of ownership from an unauthorized alienator. In B. B., Cherepakhin. Works on civil law (pp. 225–280). Moscow (in Russ.).
13. Shirvindt, A.M. (2015). On the Issue of the Withdrawal of a Thing from the Owner’s Possession Against His Will in the Context of Limiting Vindication. In M. A., Erokhova (Comp.). On Property: Collection of Articles for the Anniversary of K. I. Sklovsky (pp. 334–361). Moscow (in Russ.).
14. Shirvindt, A.M. (2015). Reference to the Nullity of a Transaction as an Abuse of Rights. An Invention of the Courts Enshrined in Law. Arbitration Practice, 7, pp. 24–41 (in Russ.).
15. Canaris, C.-W. (2012). The liability based on trust in German private law. In C.-W., Canaris. Collected Writings in 3 volumes. Vol. 2. (pp. 1–656). Berlin, Boston (in Germ.).
16. Canaris, C.-W. (2012). The liability based on trust in the light of the case law of the Federal Court of Justice. In C.-W., Canaris. Collected Writings in 3 volumes. Vol. 2. (pp. 795–865). Berlin, Boston (in Germ.).
17. Dannemann, G., Schulze, R. and Watson, J. (2020). German Civil Code Vol. 1, German Civil Code (BGB) Article-by-Article Commentary. Books 1–3: § § 1–1296. Munich, Baden-Baden (in Germ.).
18. Karner, E. (2006). Good faith acquisition of movable property. On the tension between protection of existing rights and interests in the public sector. Vienna.
19. Kessler, F. and Fine, E. (1964). Culpa in Contrahendo, Bargaining in Good Faith, and Freedom of Contract: A Comparative Study. Harvard Law Review, 77, 3, pp.401–449 (in Germ.).
20. McGuire, M.-R. National Report on the Transfer of Movables in Germany. In W., Faber and B., Lurge (Eds.). National Reports on the Transfer of Movables in Europe. Vol. 3 (pp. 1–192). Munich.
21. Gaier, R. (Red.). (2013). Munich Commentary on the Civil Code. B. 6. Property Law. § 854–1296. WEG. ErbauRg. Munich (in Germ.).
22. Tegethoff, M. (1998). Culpa in Contrahendo in German and Dutch Law — A Comparison of Precontractual Liability. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 5, 4, pp. 341–368.
23. Wilburg, W. (2000). The Development of a Flexible System in the Area of Private Law: Inaugural Address as Rector Magnificus of the Karl Franzens University in Graz on November 22, 1950. Mainz.