A Study Of Reliance And Reliance Interest In Contract Law

Reliance and reliance interest are studied in both Anglo-American countries and Germany, while in China what scholars are doing is only focused on what reliance interest really is. Is it benefit or harm in nature? And more often than not, the research is done within the system of Culpa In Contrahendio. This thesis tries to make a break. It gives the definition of reliance and reliance interest, explains systematically the relative theories in the two different law families, investigates its nature and further raises some problems as well.The thesis is divided into four parts as follows:The first part starts from scholars'definition to confine the connotation of reliance and reliance interest. As far as reliance is concerned, it means a kind of state of fact in a narrow sense, both objectively and subjectively; while in a broad sense, it is reliance theory or reliance rule in contract law. As for reliance interest, there exists the controversy between harm theory and benefit theory, which to the author makes no sense, as they both end in damages suffered by the reliance party and thus there's nocontradiction in the final analysis.Part two expounds the theory of reliance and reliance interest in the two law families and makes a comparison of the systems from the perspective of comparative law. The common ground reveals that reliance theory has made a breakthrough to the traditional contract law. Therefore the application of contract law is enlarged and the contract responsibility is extended. Part three analyzes further the nature of reliance responsibilities and reliance interest damages. Reliance theory covers two aspects at the bottom: on one hand, it bases the contract on reliance, and thus forms the reliance responsibility; on the other hand, it considers reliance interest as its criteria for damages, rendering the reliance party in the original position if no reliance had occurred. This thesis holds that reliance responsibilities belong to enlarged contract responsibilities while reliance interest damages cannot be generalized in nature. In addition, reliance responsibilities include reliance interest damages as one form, but not the only form.Part four tries to call in question the two aspects of reliance theory narrated above. We can find that reliance theory cannot offer a theory superior to the traditional will theory.At last, a conclusion was made that reliance theory expands the contract responsibility, maintains the division of contract law and tort law and facilitates the legal practice. However, reliance responsibility can only be the supplement of contract responsibility, and reliance rule should not substitute for the principle of freedom of contract.