The Meaning of the Good Faith Principle

Abstract

The definition of good faith, which is difficult to define since it is vague, is covered in this paper before giving a thorough summary of the idea. The next section of the essay summarizes Good Faith throughout history, noting how its meaning has changed through time. The problematic facets of the idea of “Good Faith” are discussed in the third section of the essay. This section examines how the difference between objective and subjective notions of trust, which poses a challenge in any society, is problematic for various legal systems.

Similarly, the fourth part of the study examines the applicability of Good Faith in contract law and as a concept of contractual interpretation. In countries with civil law, it is maintained that there is a general need to bargain in good faith; however, the specifics of this requirement vary depending on the specific legal system. The centrality of the idea of good faith in numerous legal, philosophical, and moral situations is highlighted in this paper’s conclusion. Acting in good faith is crucial for upholding trust and fairness in our interactions with others, despite much controversy surrounding its definition and understanding.

Methodology Used

Legal experts have studied and discussed the idea of “Good Faith” in great detail because it is a cornerstone of many legal systems. To provide a thorough grasp of the concept, studying good faith necessitates applying several approaches. One technique for examining good faith is the logical method. To determine good faith, generic rules must be applied to specific circumstances. Using this method, a precise definition of “good faith” that may be used in various legal circumstances can be derived.

The historical method is another approach used to research good faith. This approach entails providing a comprehensive historical overview of how things have been and how they have changed since the dawn of faith throughout numerous historical eras. The historical approach aids in giving a thorough grasp of the idea of good faith, its development, and its use in various legal systems.

A crucial methodology for researching good faith is the comparative approach. This approach compares the rules of jurisprudence and good faith in various legal systems, such as the American legal system. Comparative law distinguishes between justice, objectivity, and good faith. To distinguish between these two ideas and decide if fairness and impartiality are instances of good faith, it is helpful to draw a line between them.

Moreover, comparative law examines Acquis international community law and Acquis common law community. To help people comprehend the idea of good faith, these two legal systems are contrasted. Studying good faith is essential to ascertain the legal ramifications of actions made by parties in diverse legal circumstances.

In conclusion, to provide a thorough grasp of the idea, studying good faith necessitates applying numerous approaches. Investigating legal communities, the historical method, the comparative technique, and the deductive approach are crucial to studying good faith. These techniques aid in developing a precise definition of good faith and a better comprehension of the legal ramifications of parties’ acts under various legal systems.

The meaning of the good faith principle

Good faith is a multidimensional idea that has been explained in many ways. Cicero provided one of the most thorough descriptions of trust. Cicero argues that “good faith” refers to all feelings of honesty and morality without the need for excessive detail.[1] Additionally, it outlaws legal-rescinding strategies like dishonest agreements, false computations, repulsive disappointments, models, and wickedness that preys on credibility, simplicity, and ignorance.

Although “good faith” is occasionally employed as a behavior norm, it is not always clearly defined, which can cause confusion. It is frequently viewed as a particular duty, giving rise to words like “duty of trust” or “obligation of trust.” In international contracts, the good faith concept may impose direct requirements of behavior on the parties and is occasionally viewed as a foundational principle of Lex mercatoria. The good faith concept might impose direct conduct requirements on the parties during the negotiation and execution of the contract.[2]

Good faith is valued differently under positive law, depending on the domain of law. But because of its objective nature, it has a specific significance in scholarly publications. It can be found in various legal disciplines, including family, property, inheritance, and gift. The use of good faith is not permitted in all of these situations under French or Belgian law. As a result, good faith is typically regarded as an ambiguous standard, the definition of which depends on the specifics of each scenario in which it should be used and which should be concretized.[3]

In the Netherlands, good faith is required in several legal fields, including private international law, business law, bankruptcy law, and inheritance law. It has been determined that good faith should be used in all legal contexts involving ownership right. Good faith transcends the distinction between private and public law in some legal systems, such as the German one. It is specifically stated in the civil codes of Quebec and Switzerland that each individual’s rights will be upheld following the standard of good faith.[4]

Good faith has become an important concept in recent developments in European law, Community law, international law, and the national laws of countries worldwide. It is necessary to incorporate it in either the Community Acquis, the International Acquis, or comparative law to appreciate its origins and the issues it faces. So, to comprehend the significance of the concept of good faith and how it is employed in various legal systems, it is necessary to understand where the concept originated.[5]

Historical overview of the Good Faith in different historical periods.

In this subsequent section of this paper, we will examine Roman law, law throughout the Middle Ages, and law during the XIX century, the age of the first codifications. Each of these distinct historical eras will be discussed in further detail below.

Presentation of good faith in Roman law of contracts

The good faith, however, could have been executed if the inspirational force of Greek mythology had not been present. The concepts of justice and equality were originally articulated in written form by several Stoic authors, including Pythagoras and Zeno. [6]One component of Roman law and practice was known as the formula system. The praetor was a clerk who met with citizens, heard their complaints, permitted or prohibited the actions of a particular lawsuit, verified allegations, and presented the case before the court. The praetor would only accept demands that could be articulated through precise, specified formulae.

Because there were only a certain number of formulas, the scope of the rights that might be asserted was severely limited. After the 150-year extension, the extension would be granted if the lender initially made certain that the formula was closely monitored. C., he possessed the necessary skills to create an original recipe. Rome’s expansion into the Mediterranean region occurred about this time. The number of praetors increased, creating new roles known as peregrine-foreign praetors. These praetors were tasked with settling conflicts between “foreigners” and those who were not citizens of Rome.

Throughout this period, there was a considerable shift in the technique. It is speculated that because the pilgrims were outside the city, they needed help using traditional mathematical equations. As a consequence, their legal rights were violated. [7]As a result, the praetor of foreigners resolved conflicts by using his own laws rather than the rules already in effect for citizens. This was done in place of the laws that were already in effect for people.[8]

The concept of being able to bring a lawsuit in good faith, also known as bona fide judiciary, originated from this principle. The historical era in which the works were written and the authors themselves affected the selection of these works. As a result, according to Cicero’s list, bona fide judicial applied to custody disputes and duties in addition to agency and sale and lease contracts. Two hundred years later, Gaius contributed to the lexicon by introducing the terms negotiorum gestorum, depositor, societas, and l’actio rei uxoriae. The list of rights to make claims was expanded by Justinian with the addition of actio praecriptis uerbis for trade and value contracts, claims for the division of wealth, and claims for assets owned by third parties.

At the tail end of the second century BC, the praetor to civil jus was the first person to introduce the right to file a lawsuit to resolve legal matters for which the law had not established the right to file a lawsuit (for example, those involving pilgrims to whom Roman law could not be applied) (civil law that applied only to Roman citizens). Thus, throughout this entire time, the good faith that permeated the right to sue allowed the judge to actively engage in the legal relationship that was protected by the good faith that permeated the right to sue (especially in determining the extent of the damage and in creating new obligations based on morality). Similarly, it would appear that contracts based on good faith also existed due to these legal rights to sue about such issues. [9]

These contracts included informal agreements that were interpreted by the broad judicial power. They were differentiated from formal contracts by their terms of legality and the fact that they were all negotiated in good faith. In addition, formal contracts were governed by legal precedents. According to the Bona Fides doctrine, the judge must decide what each party owes to the other. Based on this foundation, the principle of consensuality as the essential component of contract law was developed by Ius gentium. [10]

At that time, one of the most important aspects of civil law was the distinction between the consensual contract and other contracts. This distinction lay in the fact that the consensual contract was authorized by the “right to sue in matters of good faith,” which gave the judge discretion, particularly concerning the number of damages to be granted. Other contracts were authorized by the “right to sue in matters of bad faith.” Because of this right of action, the court was also given the authority to decide whether or not the behavior of a party was consistent with those of an “honest man.”

In this kind of contract, the judge’s interpretation was heavily influenced by the concept of good faith. Three different kinds of obligations significantly constrained the parties’ intentions: the essentiality, without which a lawsuit cannot exist (for example, the subject matter of the sale and the price paid in the contract of sale), naturalia, which are included in the contract unless expressly excluded by the parties (for example, the guarantee against infringing on intellectual property); and the essentiality, which (for example, the guarantee of obligations).[11]

The traditional example of a contract of sale frequently demonstrates Roman law’s practical application of the concept of trust.[12] This is due to the significance of the seller’s duty to disclose and guarantee any hidden flaws and to provide protection against the infringement of property rights. Additionally, a contract of sale is frequently used to demonstrate how Roman law’s application of the concept of trust can be implemented. The concept of legal abuse and the acceptance of the rebus sic stantibus principle are two additional examples among many others. It is essential to remember that these particular applications of the function of trust in Roman law can be easily transferred to today’s law.[13]

During the fourth and fifth centuries AD, various interpretations of the bonae fidei contractus concept emerged. Good faith agreements were negotiated without the awareness of any prospective disadvantages, with respect for the free exercise of one’s will, and without coercion or fraud. They were therefore excluded from any potential infractions. On the one hand, this criterion extended to the entire jus commune (the common law of all Christian-European countries) and, on the other hand, was more similar to aequitas. This was because Roman law limited the application of “bona fides” to contract law and process.

The good faith in Medieval rights.

The concept of “good faith,” also known as “bona fides,” was essential to the development of law throughout the Middle Ages. It came up due to the requirement to ensure that contracts were signed voluntarily and without any pressure or threats of coercion being applied to the parties involved.[14] The concept of acting trustworthy was not new; it could be found in Roman legal precedent. During the medieval period, however, it expanded to cover a wider area and was incorporated into a greater variety of internal and international trade aspects.

Around the 12th century, the method of contracting that involved the mutual exchange of permission developed into the usual way[15]. Consequently, the idea of ex nudo pacto actio non nasciture (which states that an uncomplicated agreement does not give rise to an absolute right) was later superseded by the concept of consensus obligatio (consent only suffices). Although this modification was difficult to implement, it helped establish the notion of good faith.[16]

The good faith in Nineteenth Century

Over the entirety of the 16th century, the concept of good faith grew to cover trade on both the domestic and international levels. At this time period, the concept of exception was also conceptualized for the first time. [17]Eventually, this idea would become the foundation of the theory of legal abuse. There is a practical overlap between the principles of good faith and equality due to the development of the good faith concept and its widespread usage in trade. This overlap is because the concept of good faith has become increasingly popular in recent years (aequitas). [18]

France and Germany held contradictory views regarding the relationship that should exist between equality and good faith.[19] Germany was the first country to distinguish between these concepts, while France only did so after the Byzantine era. Several French writers even believed that honesty was nothing more than a symbol of equality. The functions of equality and good faith were largely overlapping during the Byzantine period because of the growth of the concept of good faith during the Byzantine era.

The historical conflation of equality and good faith has affected not only the wording of Articles 1134-3 and 1135 of the French Civil Code but also the likeness of these articles to the articles in other civil codes. As a result of the misunderstanding, Dutch law, which has been significantly influenced by German law, has been subjected to terminological adjustments. The phrase “good faith” has been replaced in the most recent edition of the Civil Code in the Netherlands with “reason and equality.”

The period of Napoleon’s codifications establishes the meaning and function of good faith in modern law. While Roman and medieval law recognizes the significance ascribed to good faith, this age defines good faith’s definition and function in contemporary law. Napoleon’s codifications highlighted the significance of good faith as an essential component in forming contract law by highlighting its role as a foundational factor.

In this day and age, the concept of good faith continues to be an essential component of the legal system. It is widely applied in national legal systems and is recognized as a fundamental principle in the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. Although the concept of good faith has evolved throughout history, the relevance of good faith in ensuring that contracts are entered into honestly and honorably has remained the same.[20]

The good faith in Nineteenth Century.

Very little information was available about the concept of trust at the time of the Napoleonic codification. [21]The notion that trust is based on “natural rights,” on the other hand, can be differentiated in a number of important ways from other propositions. In addition to that, it is utilized regularly in commercial transactions. Nonetheless, “using God to legitimize the existence of good faith automatically leads to the effect of this feature on the content of the norm,” as one author puts it. In some cases, this explains why good faith is mentioned in the preparatory work, even though there is neither a definition of good faith nor a comprehensive examination of it. If honesty was written into the French Civil Code of 1804 as a result of natural law, then the historical school and the positivist philosophy were the ones who initially established this authority during the nineteenth century.[22]

Similarly, the work of Emmanuel Kant, specifically Friedrich von Savigny, laid the groundwork for the historical school of thought. [23]This institution looked into the historical precedents for all the laws today. It was one of Savinji’s contemporaries named Auguste Comte who laid the groundwork for positivism, which can be defined as “a doctrine according to which the social sciences ought to be an empirical science, and law, accordingly handled as a social relations science in which the key role had experienced.” Positivism has its origins in the writings of Auguste Comte. [24]It is surprising to see the formation of trust in the BGB of 1900 after having already established in one’s mind the significance of these two schools of thought in the early nineteenth century. [25]

In addition, the idea had entirely lost its applicability, and new concepts for defining what constitutes good faith had come to the surface. The school of Begriffs jurisprudence developed as an intellectual response to the Freirechtsbewegung school of thought (Conceptual Jurisprudence). The first thing that needed to be done to circumvent the arbitrariness of the judge’s judgment was to acknowledge the statutory provision that had been formulated using both concrete and abstract ideas.[26]

The second goal, which was kicked off by Jhering’s efforts, was to relax the legislation and its application. This school of thought is especially relevant because it assisted in reviving the concept of good faith by encouraging the formation of an interpretive and supplementary judiciary. Additionally, the Freirechtsbewegung went so far as to say that it should secede from the law in order to give the latter any secondary importance. This was done in a manner that was very similar to what the Begriffs jurisprudence school had done.

The suggested directions from the judges could have been more specific and would have resulted in substantial uncertainty for both sides of the dispute. Trust, as a result, grew into a written rule that has permeated high growth in various diverse national systems. This is why there is no definition of trust. In addition, there is a disparity of opinion over the legal definition of what constitutes good faith. This grammatical and semantic blunder undoubtedly has repercussions for the function that good faith serves in the legal system of the modern day.[27]

The problems with the concept of Good Faith

The idea of good faith has been investigated and examined by many disciplines, including law. Being a fundamental idea in contractual interactions, trust has historically played a significant role in the development of legal systems. [28]The law’s duties, such as moralizing contractual relationships and minimizing disparities that may result from the principle of autonomy, highlight the significance of faith in the law. Nonetheless, legal professionals continue to need help with the concept of trust. However, applying trust in law does not have to be strict; it must only be adjusted within a particular framework. The concept’s suitability should be determined by its intended usage, restricting its use. As a result, it is important to think about the complexities surrounding trust and the options and strategies that can be used to rationalize it.[29]

Making a distinction between trust’s subjective and objective applications is one method to justify it. In the objective sense, trust is described as a strategy for moralizing contractual agreements and reducing potential disparities by the principle of autonomy. Contrarily, in the subjective definition, good faith is meant to give effect to the appearance and to defend the harmed party in a contractual relationship. Several legal systems divide a concept into objective and subjective definitions. Still, more than this distinction is needed to resolve the uncertainties surrounding the notion and the role of good faith.

The general lack of definition continues to be the main contributor to ambiguity in the concept of trust. Although the function of the idea of trust attracts curiosity, it is typically thought of as an open norm whose permission cannot be determined abstractly. Instead, it is based on the specifics of the subject to which it is to be applied and needs to be concretized. As a result, it isn’t easy to come up with a precise definition of trust that works in every circumstance.[30]

The ambiguity surrounding the application of trust in legal systems has been complicated. For instance, in contract law, the application of trust may result in the interpretation of the terms of the agreement and the settlement of any issues arising thereunder. [31]However, the absence of a precise concept of trust may lead to conflicting judgments that give legal professionals no clear direction. More difficulties may arise due to the subjective nature of trust, particularly regarding good faith. In many legal systems, the definition of good faith is left up to the courts to decide based on the particulars of each case, which is known as an “open norm.” This strategy, however, may result in erratic judgments and a lack of predictability for legal professionals. [32]

Legal systems have tried to offer more direction on how the trust should be applied to address the difficulties brought on by its ambiguity.[33] As an illustration, some legal systems have created particular legal doctrines and principles to direct the use of trust in contractual partnerships. The bounds for using a trust can be made clearer with these principles and doctrines, which can also increase the consistency of legal judgments.[34]

In conclusion, good faith and trust are key ideas in law, especially in contractual partnerships. Nonetheless, legal professionals continue to need help with the concept of trust. Although the distinction between trust’s objective and subjective meanings has been useful in justifying its application, a precise definition must be provided. To meet these problems, legal systems must keep developing precise legal doctrines and rules that will direct the use of trust and increase consistency in judicial rulings.[35]

Practical application of good faith

Over the entirety of the 20th century, the notion of good faith was quite successful in many legal systems in Europe. The “good faith” provision has become more applicable in a wider variety of contexts across most countries over the past few decades. The application sector has grown dramatically in many systems over the past few decades. It is utilized not only within the realm of contract law but also frequently outside of it, in the context of a variety of other legal systems. In the following parts, specific cases are discussed by first analyzing how the concept of good faith is applied.[36]

Good faith application in contract law.

The formation and interpretation of contracts both depend on the idea of good faith. Throughout the process of the contract’s negotiation, drafting, and execution, it serves as a representation of the parties’ confidence and trusts in one another. Acting in good faith is now widely acknowledged in many different legal systems, and its presence is necessary for establishing commercial relationships. The concept of good faith entails some responsibilities and commitments that parties owe to one another, and it is inextricably linked to the concepts of reasonableness and fairness. The need to act in good faith extends to both the pre-contractual period as well as the life of the contract itself. For example, in Albania, article 674 states: “the parties during the negotiation of the contract drafting must behave in good faith to one another. The party who knew or ought to know the cause of the contract invalidity and did not disclose it to the other party is liable to reimburse the damage suffered by the latter because he believed without fault in the contract’s validity.”[37]

The duty to inform before entering into a contract is a crucial component of the good faith principle. [38]While negotiating the terms and conditions of the contract, the parties are expected to supply all information essential to ensure that the other party has a complete understanding of the terms and conditions. Failure to disclose relevant information may result in legal responsibility for compensating the other party for any losses they have sustained due to relying on the provided information. It is possible that the contract will be deemed illegal for either error or fraud if there is a breach of the obligation to notify. Good faith is another factor to consider when determining whether or not a contract is legitimate.

Another important aspect of the notion is the role of honesty and integrity in the interpretation of legal documents like contracts. Good faith is the test used to evaluate contractual provisions that are obscure or ambiguous. [39]The exercise of good faith provides a framework for determining the intents of the parties, which must be based on the interpretation. In addition, good faith can be used to fulfill the obligations of an inferred contract term that the parties may have desired to include but did not specifically include in the original agreement.

The notion of good faith also applies to the process of carrying out the terms of the contract. When carrying out their responsibilities, the parties are obligated to behave in good faith; if they fail, they risk being held accountable for the damages sustained by the other party. Yet, maintaining good faith may limit a party’s ability to seek redress if performance is not met. For instance, a party is not allowed to restrict its performance or terminate the agreement because the other party has slightly violated the terms of the agreement.[40]

In conclusion, the development and interpretation of contracts depend on the concept of good faith. It serves as a basis for determining the parties’ intentions and encapsulates the trust and confidence they have in one another. The phrase “in good faith” refers to several responsibilities and commitments that one party owes to another, including the obligation to fully explain, comprehend, and abide by the terms of their agreements. Good faith provides a malleable and adaptive framework, making it possible to build contractual relationships and ensure that contractual dealings are fair and reasonable.

Good faith is a principle of contractual interpretation.

The concept of acting in good faith is essential to all different types of legal systems, including lex mercatoria, and it applies to contracts involving businesses. Instead of just using a literal translation of the terms, it is recommended that contracts be considered in good faith, which requires considering the parties’ genuine intentions rather than relying solely on a literal reading of the provisions. [41]This concept has been enhanced due to several international tribunal judgments that established the fundamental principle of good faith as an essential component of the performance of contracts.

In addition, the need to maintain good faith in business dealings has been emphasized by various international and European projects aimed at codification, such as the UNIDROIT Principles and the Principles of European Contract Law. These initiatives recognize that good faith should be exercised not only in the interpretation of a contract but also in the performance of the contract itself. UNIDROIT Principles Article 4.8 states, for example, that if the parties have not agreed upon a crucial term, a relevant term must be included, considering the parties’ intentions, the nature, and the purpose of the contract, as well as good faith and fair dealing.[42]

According to the good faith principle, each party to a contract is obligated to treat the other honestly and fairly while also abstaining from taking full advantage of the other party’s position. In addition, it requires the parties to communicate with one another in an open and honest manner and to work together to accomplish the contract’s primary purpose. As a result, the principle of good faith can be understood as a mechanism for simultaneously preventing disagreements and misunderstandings while simultaneously fostering collaboration and confidence between the parties to a contract.[43]

The flexibility to interpret and apply contractual clauses with greater discretion is one of the key benefits of the concept of good faith. This is due to the fact that it recognizes contracts as living agreements rather than mere pieces of static paperwork. Living agreements are subject to change and evolution throughout their duration. If, for example, a contractual obligation becomes impracticable or impossible to perform due to changes in the circumstances, the concept of good faith may obligate the parties to negotiate a new term or amend the previous one to reflect the altered circumstances.[44]

The idea of good faith does, however, come with a number of associated constraints and challenges. The fact that it can be difficult to define and apply in practice is one of the primary obstacles. This is especially true in situations involving complex or transnational transactions, when many legal systems and cultural norms may be at play simultaneously. However, there is a possibility that the concept of good faith will be used to support arbitrary interpretations or to impose moral duties on the parties that aren’t addressed in the agreement. This is because good faith may be exploited in these ways.[45]

Besides these challenges, the concept of good faith plays an important role in commercial contract law and is widely recognized for its significance. It provides a framework for understanding and carrying out flexible and adaptive contracts. It does so in a way that encourages cooperation and mutual trust between the participants in the agreement.[46]

There are a few different legal systems, one of which is the French Civil Code, that recognize the concept of good faith as a means to interpret the results of a contract. The idea of treating everyone fairly is inextricably intertwined with the practice of acting in good faith. The concept of good faith, which is used in translation, is now applicable to even formalized and documented contracts, and authorities can use it to amend the terms of a contract. Even while judges are often reluctant to go further than the parties’ goal, the principle of good faith is increasingly seen as a legitimate interpretation norm and a source of responsibility, as recognized by several legal scholars, laws, and treaties.[47]

UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES

The UNIDROIT principles offer many illustrations of how the concept of good faith can be put into practice. There are several situations in which “bad faith” is favored more than “good faith.” This makes it possible for this phrasing to depict prohibited behaviors accurately.[48] In this particular scenario, having an alternative interpretation is how good faith is determined. This document includes some general prohibition applications that aim to exclude or limit the parties’ confidence in one another. The clauses in this article concerning fraud, threat, and blatant injustice are binding since they are specified in Article 3.19.[49]

According to the observations, it would be a breach of trust to omit or modify these requirements from the contract in any way. A provision that either limits or excludes a party’s guilt for failing to carry out a duty or that allows a party to perform an obligation even though it has not been carried out” According to Article 7.1.6, it cannot be allowed if it will be materially unfair given the objective of the contract and substantially contradictory to how the other party reasonably expects to fulfill the obligation. In other words, it cannot be allowed if it will be materially unfair given the objective of the contract. [50]

Under the heading “Negotiations in Confidence” in Article 2.1.15 of the UNIDROIT Principles, there is a crucial reference to the objective of determining trust by its antonym: 1) Each side has the right to negotiate. Still, they are only required to do so if an agreement cannot be reached. 2).[51]Nonetheless, the party that negotiates in bad faith or walks away from a conversation is the one who is responsible for compensating the other party for their losses. 3) A party is considered negligent if it initiates or continues negotiations with another party while having the good faith intention of settling.

In addition, the following is stated in Article 3.5 regarding the cancellation of a contract due to an error: “(1) A party may only cancel a contract due to an error if the contract has already been ended, the error is significant enough that a person in a similar situation to the party to error would have entered into the contract only under materially different conditions or would not have entered into the contract at all if it recognized the true state of trade, and the party seeking to terminate the agreement has a good faith belief that the error caused the contract to be decided to enter into in the first place. Leaving the incorrect party in the wrong—whether because it committed the error or because the other side knew why he ought to be aware of it—was not against the fair treaty’s acceptable trading requirements.

Therefore, one party has the right to cancel a contract if it was caused by the other party’s fraudulent presentation, which includes any language, fraudulent practices, or circumstances that, under the reasonable trade standards of the fair agreement, the other party should have avoided. This is stated in Article 3.8 of the fraud statute, which states that one party has this right. In its stead, the following will apply, as stated in Article 3.10: “If one of the parties asserts that they have the right to cancel the agreement, the court may modify the terms of the contract so that it complies with the reasonable business norm of the fair agreement. A moral code intricately intertwined with the idea of fairness can also be referred to as “good faith” while discussing this notion. [52]

According to Article 3.10 of the principles, economic independence is breached whenever “the other party has taken an unfair advantage or has profited unjustly from the first party’s dependence, economic inequalities, or urgent needs, or its non-prediction, ignorance, lack of experience, or lack of negotiation skills.” In other words, the violation of economic independence occurs whenever “the other party has profited unjustly from the first party’s dependence, economic inequalities, or urgent needs.” To reiterate, the power of the court must be exercised in good faith in this particular case: “Upon the request of the party who is legally entitled to cancel the contract, the court can modify the terms of the contract so that it satisfies the requirements of an acceptable trade agreement.[53]

Conclusion

Good faith is difficult to define, and various meanings have been investigated. Definitions have concentrated on principles of morality; expected benefits (defining ill faith as the action that interferes with reasonable expectations), excluder analysis (identifying varieties of poor faith behavior), and discretion and missed chances. All of these definitions, to some extent, lack authority: “The assumption that good faith is the duty to take all reasonable steps to prevent depriving the other party of the advantage of the contract does not have stronger definitional significance than the assertion that a party’s good faith is the abstinence from recapturing foregone opportunities.

Nonetheless, the idea that good faith equates to the absence of bad faith is not redundant and is found in French and American law. No precise requirements of good faith may be made. As demonstrated in Sons of Thunder, only the lack of good or evil faith is actionable. That the concept of good faith implies some form of collective good that would lead to state paternalism should be dispelled by this definition using excluder analysis. Given the ambiguity in the third aspect of promissory estoppel, the idea leans more toward judicial paternalism. Contrary to promissory estoppel, whether a party to talks acted in bad faith is decided without reference to any metaphysical collective benefit aside from the individual interests of the persons involved.

There is no need for a code-based clause in a legal system where the judge’s position as a rule creator is fully acknowledged. A good faith clause would be necessary to ensure that the judge may make new regulations, particularly for a new continental code where the ECJ and other courts may need significant powers if there are still questions about the court’s authority. It would be more suitable to openly sanction that the court may interpret, augment, and corroborate the code as necessary, contrary to certain professors’ beliefs that the phrase of good faith ought to be applied for the sake of tradition. The good faith theory needs to be better established in Albania; however, there have been some controversies concerning it. This necessitates conversations between attorneys and academics and the evolution of the judicial practice.

Bibliographies

Ainslie J, ‘Good Faith and Relational Contracts: A Scots-Roman Perspective’ (2022) 26 Edinburgh Law Review 29

Barnett RE and Oman NB, Contracts: Cases and Doctrine (Aspen Publishing 2021) <https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=6NoXEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR32&dq=Good+faith+as+a+principle+of+contractual+interpretation&ots=4neAUcVqsD&sig=nCt5YDY9AYBhO7Yd524_FI0MCLI> accessed 26 March 2023

Basevich E, ‘Reckoning with Kant on Race*’ (2020) 51 The Philosophical Forum 221

Belov M, Rule of Law in Crisis: Constitutionalism in a State of Flux (Taylor & Francis 2022) <https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=eBWeEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT222&dq=+Freirechtsbewegung++efforts+on+The+good+faith&ots=4sUColdVXJ&sig=C-GwsBIq5iyHS74CnJ1Te-9Jw9o> accessed 26 March 2023

Bogbinder H, ‘Brief Lives: Cicero (106-43 BC)’ (2022) 153 Philosophy Now 44 <https://www.pdcnet.org/philnow/content/philnow_2022_0153_0044_0046> accessed 26 March 2023

Cicero MT, ‘De Officiis’ (World History Encyclopedia2019) <https://www.worldhistory.org/De_Officiis/> accessed 2023

Clauzade L, ‘Auguste Comte and the Monistic Positivism of Ernst Mach’ [2019] Ernst Mach – Life, Work, Influence 663

Deguine J-P and others, ‘Integrated Pest Management: Good Intentions, Hard Realities. A Review’ (2021) 41 Agronomy for Sustainable Development

Enman-Beech J, ‘The Good Faith Challenge’ (2019) 1 The Journal of Commonwealth Law <https://www.journalofcommonwealthlaw.org/article/8812-the-good-faith-challenge> accessed 26 March 2023

Giliker P, ‘Contract Negotiations and the Common Law: A Move to Good Faith in Commercial Contracting?’ [2022] Liverpool Law Review

Gjoni G and Peto Z, ‘An Overview of Good Faith as a Principle of Contractual Interpretation with Special References to the Albanian Law’ (2017) 13 European Scientific Journal, ESJ 288 <https://www.academia.edu/34842211/An_Overview_of_Good_Faith_as_a_Principle_of_Contractual_Interpretation_with_Special_References_to_the_Albanian_Law> accessed 26 March 2023

Halperin J-L, The French Civil Code (Taylor & Francis 2021) <https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=XMV8EAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT13&dq=Article+1135+of+the+French+Civil+Code+&ots=y-e9oQpGoG&sig=gND4Qm7gZFoJ077Q-RqV7VG9OYk> accessed 26 March 2023

HE S and Yale L, ‘Equity as Meta-Law’ (HeinOnline.org2020) <https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/ylr130&section=23>

Hesselink MW, ‘Reconstituting the Code of Capital: Could a Progressive European Code of Private Law Help Us Reduce Inequality and Regain Democratic Control?’ (2022) 1 European Law Open 316

Hesselink MW, Justifying Contract in Europe: Political Philosophies of European Contract Law (Oxford University Press 2021) <https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=N80vEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=> accessed 26 March 2023

Institute EL, ELI DS Unidroit Model European Rules of Civil Procedure: From Transnational Principles to European Rules of Civil Procedure (Oxford University Press 2021) <https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vpg5EAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=The+principles+of+European+Contract+Law+and+UNIDROIT&ots=EiRpQ_SJ56&sig=5-ZrfsZMXuak3-wBQkq4r-1Kz6A> accessed 26 March 2023

Kim MS-H, Custom, Law, and Monarchy: A Legal History of Early Modern France (Oxford University Press 2021) <https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=lang_en&id=gy5CEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Levy> accessed 26 March 2023

Knapp CL and others, Problems in Contract Law: Cases and Materials (Aspen Publishing 2023) <https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=QT2qEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT62&dq=Good+faith+application+in+the+contract+law&ots=Ydd1jFHtnt&sig=0vMOIissA3RVwtXMmtLPvdyte6M> accessed 26 March 2023

Miler D, ‘Codifications of the Law of Obligations in Central and Southeast Europe in the Context of the Proposed Regulation of the Freedom of Contract in a New Polish Civil Code [2020] Transformacje Prawa Prywatnego <https://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/handle/item/259684> accessed 26 March 2023

Morgan J, ‘The State, Law, Religion, and Justice in Cicero’s the Republic and the Laws: An Aristotelian-Thomistic Interpretation’ (2019) 8 Studia Gilsoniana 645 <https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=789355> accessed 26 March 2023

Morin M, ‘Reinforcing the French Legacy While Borrowing from the Common Law: The Civil Code of Quebec (1991)’ [2022] The Making of the Civil Codes 223

Mustafaraj B, ‘Modern Legal Systems and the Principle of “Culpa in Contrahendo”: A Review of the Albanian Model of Pre-Contractual Liability on a Roman-Germanic Model Reference.’ (2019) X Academicus International Scientific Journal 80 <https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=729576> accessed 26 March 2023

Nedzel NE, The Rule of Law, Economic Development, and Corporate Governance (Edward Elgar Publishing 2020) <https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=HL72DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=In+fact> accessed 26 March 2023

Rustamjonovna MT, ‘The Principle of Good Faith in Civil Law’ (2021) 12 Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT) 1062

Sirena P, ‘Book Review: Uniform Rules for European Contract Law?A Critical Assessment, by Francisco de Elizalde.(Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2018)’ (2019) 56 Common Market Law Review <https://kluwerlawonline.com/journalarticle/Common+Market+Law+Review/56.5/COLA2019118> accessed 26 March 2023

Sirena P, ‘La Scelta Dei Principles of European Contract Law (PECL) Come Legge Applicabile al Contratto (the Principles of European Contract Law (PECL) as the Law Chosen by the Parties to Govern Their Contract)’ (papers.ssrn.com5 June 2019) <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3399704> accessed 26 March 2023

Thomas P, ‘Wishful Thinking; the Role and Development of Good Faith in the Roman Law of Contracts (2021) 51 Právněhistorické studie 19 <https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=1006377> accessed 26 March 2023

Uçaryılmaz T, ‘The Principle of Good Faith in Public International Law’ (2020) 68 Estudios de Deusto 43

Vermeule A, ‘Echoes of the Ius Commune’ (2021) 66 The American Journal of Jurisprudence 85

Viven J, ‘Good Faith in Australian and European Contract Law Theory, Comparison and Reform’ (2019) <https://flex.flinders.edu.au/file/1280766f-88e9-4007-940d-8eda836b3467/1/ThesisViven2019.pdf>

Zimmermann R and Whittaker S, ‘Good Faith in European Contract Law’ (2005) <https://assets.cambridge.org/97805217/71900/sample/9780521771900wsc00.pdf>

Zimmermann R, ‘The Significance of the Principles of European Contract Law’ (2020) 28 European Review of Private Law <https://kluwerlawonline.com/journalarticle/European+Review+of+Private+Law/28.3/ERPL2020026> accessed 26 March 2023

[1] Jason Morgan, ‘The State, Law, Religion, and Justice in Cicero’s the Republic and the Laws: An Aristotelian-Thomistic Interpretation’ (2019) 8 Studia Gilsoniana 645 <https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=789355> accessed 26 March 2023.

[2] Marcus Tullius Cicero, ‘De Officiis’ (World History Encyclopedia2019) <https://www.worldhistory.org/De_Officiis/> accessed 2023.

[3]

[4] Michel Morin, ‘Reinforcing the French Legacy While Borrowing from the Common Law: The Civil Code of Quebec (1991)’ [2022] The Making of the Civil Codes 223.

[5] Pietro Sirena, ‘Book Review: Uniform Rules for European Contract Law?A Critical Assessment, by Francisco de Elizalde.(Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2018)’ (2019) 56 Common Market Law Review <https://kluwerlawonline.com/journalarticle/Common+Market+Law+Review/56.5/COLA2019118> accessed 26 March 2023.

[6] Philip Thomas, ‘Wishful Thinking; the Role and Development of Good Faith in the Roman Law of Contracts’ (2021) 51 Právněhistorické studie 19 <https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=1006377> accessed 26 March 2023.

[7] Philip Thomas, ‘Wishful Thinking; the Role and Development of Good Faith in the Roman Law of Contracts’ (2021) 51 Právněhistorické studie 19 <https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=1006377> accessed 26 March 2023.

[8] Hilarius Bogbinder, ‘Brief Lives: Cicero (106-43 BC)’ (2022) 153 Philosophy Now 44 <https://www.pdcnet.org/philnow/content/philnow_2022_0153_0044_0046> accessed 26 March 2023.

[9] Hilarius Bogbinder, ‘Brief Lives: Cicero (106-43 BC)’ (2022) 153 Philosophy Now 44 <https://www.pdcnet.org/philnow/content/philnow_2022_0153_0044_0046> accessed 26 March 2023.

[10] Jessica Viven, ‘Good Faith in Australian and European Contract Law Theory, Comparison and Reform’ (2019) <https://flex.flinders.edu.au/file/1280766f-88e9-4007-940d-8eda836b3467/1/ThesisViven2019.pdf>.

[11] Jessica Viven, ‘Good Faith in Australian and European Contract Law Theory, Comparison and Reform’ (2019) <https://flex.flinders.edu.au/file/1280766f-88e9-4007-940d-8eda836b3467/1/ThesisViven2019.pdf>.

[12] Philip Thomas, ‘Wishful Thinking; the Role and Development of Good Faith in the Roman Law of Contracts’ (2021) 51 Právněhistorické studie 19 <https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=1006377> accessed 26 March 2023.

[13] Marie Seong-Hak Kim, Custom, Law, and Monarchy: A Legal History of Early Modern France (Oxford University Press 2021) <https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=lang_en&id=gy5CEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Levy> accessed 26 March 2023.

[14] Talya Uçaryılmaz, ‘The Principle of Good Faith in Public International Law’ (2020) 68 Estudios de Deusto 43.

[15] Reinhard Zimmermann and Simon Whittaker, ‘Good Faith in European Contract Law’ (2005) <https://assets.cambridge.org/97805217/71900/sample/9780521771900wsc00.pdf>.

[16] Adrian Vermeule, ‘Echoes of the Ius Commune’ (2021) 66 The American Journal of Jurisprudence 85.

[17] Reinhard Zimmermann and Simon Whittaker, ‘Good Faith in European Contract Law’ (2005) <https://assets.cambridge.org/97805217/71900/sample/9780521771900wsc00.pdf>.

[18] Martijn Willem Hesselink, Justifying Contract in Europe: Political Philosophies of European Contract Law (Oxford University Press 2021) <https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=N80vEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=> accessed 26 March 2023.

[19] Talya Uçaryılmaz, ‘The Principle of Good Faith in Public International Law’ (2020) 68 Estudios de Deusto 43.

[20] Martijn W Hesselink, ‘Reconstituting the Code of Capital: Could a Progressive European Code of Private Law Help Us Reduce Inequality and Regain Democratic Control?’ (2022) 1 European Law Open 316.

[21] Martijn W Hesselink, ‘Reconstituting the Code of Capital: Could a Progressive European Code of Private Law Help Us Reduce Inequality and Regain Democratic Control?’ (2022) 1 European Law Open 316.

[22] Nadia E Nedzel, The Rule of Law, Economic Development, and Corporate Governance (Edward Elgar Publishing 2020) <https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=HL72DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=In+fact> accessed 26 March 2023.

[23] Elvira Basevich, ‘Reckoning with Kant on Race*’ (2020) 51 The Philosophical Forum 221.

[24] Laurent Clauzade, ‘Auguste Comte and the Monistic Positivism of Ernst Mach’ [2019] Ernst Mach – Life, Work, Influence 663.

[25] Paula Giliker, ‘Contract Negotiations and the Common Law: A Move to Good Faith in Commercial Contracting?’ [2022] Liverpool Law Review.

[26] Laurent Clauzade, ‘Auguste Comte and the Monistic Positivism of Ernst Mach’ [2019] Ernst Mach – Life, Work, Influence 663.

[27] Nadia E Nedzel, The Rule of Law, Economic Development, and Corporate Governance (Edward Elgar Publishing 2020) <https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=HL72DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=In+fact> accessed 26 March 2023.

[28] Mahsuda Tadjibayeva Rustamjonovna, ‘The Principle of Good Faith in Civil Law’ (2021) 12 Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT) 1062.

[29] Jean-Philippe Deguine and others, ‘Integrated Pest Management: Good Intentions, Hard Realities. A Review’ (2021) 41 Agronomy for Sustainable Development.

[30] Smith HE and LJ Yale, ‘Equity as Meta-Law’ (heinonline.org2020) <https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/ylr130&section=23>.

[31] Smith HE and LJ Yale, ‘Equity as Meta-Law’ (heinonline.org2020) <https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/ylr130&section=23>.

[32] Jean-Philippe Deguine and others, ‘Integrated Pest Management: Good Intentions, Hard Realities. A Review’ (2021) 41 Agronomy for Sustainable Development.

[33] John Enman-Beech, ‘The Good Faith Challenge’ (2019) 1 The Journal of Commonwealth Law <https://www.journalofcommonwealthlaw.org/article/8812-the-good-faith-challenge> accessed 26 March 2023.

[34] John Enman-Beech, ‘The Good Faith Challenge’ (2019) 1 The Journal of Commonwealth Law <https://www.journalofcommonwealthlaw.org/article/8812-the-good-faith-challenge> accessed 26 March 2023.

[35] John Enman-Beech, ‘The Good Faith Challenge’ (2019) 1 The Journal of Commonwealth Law <https://www.journalofcommonwealthlaw.org/article/8812-the-good-faith-challenge> accessed 26 March 2023.

[36] Charles L Knapp and others, Problems in Contract Law: Cases and Materials (Aspen Publishing 2023) <https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=QT2qEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT62&dq=Good+faith+application+in+the+contract+law&ots=Ydd1jFHtnt&sig=0vMOIissA3RVwtXMmtLPvdyte6M> accessed 26 March 2023.

[37] Charles L Knapp and others, Problems in Contract Law: Cases and Materials (Aspen Publishing 2023) <https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=QT2qEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT62&dq=Good+faith+application+in+the+contract+law&ots=Ydd1jFHtnt&sig=0vMOIissA3RVwtXMmtLPvdyte6M> accessed 26 March 2023.

[38] Gjin Gjoni and Zhaklina Peto, ‘An Overview of Good Faith as a Principle of Contractual Interpretation with Special References to the Albanian Law’ (2017) 13 European Scientific Journal, ESJ 288 <https://www.academia.edu/34842211/An_Overview_of_Good_Faith_as_a_Principle_of_Contractual_Interpretation_with_Special_References_to_the_Albanian_Law> accessed 26 March 2023.

[39] Borana Mustafaraj, ‘Modern Legal Systems and the Principle of “Culpa in Contrahendo”: A Review of the Albanian Model of Pre-Contractual Liability on a Roman-Germanic Model Reference.’ (2019) X Academicus International Scientific Journal 80 <https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=729576> accessed 26 March 2023.

[40] Borana Mustafaraj, ‘Modern Legal Systems and the Principle of “Culpa in Contrahendo”: A Review of the Albanian Model of Pre-Contractual Liability on a Roman-Germanic Model Reference.’ (2019) X Academicus International Scientific Journal 80 <https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=729576> accessed 26 March 2023.

[41] Randy E Barnett and Nathan B Oman, Contracts: Cases and Doctrine (Aspen Publishing 2021) <https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=6NoXEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR32&dq=Good+faith+as+a+principle+of+contractual+interpretation&ots=4neAUcVqsD&sig=nCt5YDY9AYBhO7Yd524_FI0MCLI> accessed 26 March 2023.

[42] European Law Institute, ELI DS Unidroit Model European Rules of Civil Procedure: From Transnational Principles to European Rules of Civil Procedure (Oxford University Press 2021) <https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vpg5EAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=The+principles+of+European+Contract+Law+and+UNIDROIT&ots=EiRpQ_SJ56&sig=5-ZrfsZMXuak3-wBQkq4r-1Kz6A> accessed 26 March 2023.

[43] European Law Institute, ELI DS Unidroit Model European Rules of Civil Procedure: From Transnational Principles to European Rules of Civil Procedure (Oxford University Press 2021) <https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vpg5EAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=The+principles+of+European+Contract+Law+and+UNIDROIT&ots=EiRpQ_SJ56&sig=5-ZrfsZMXuak3-wBQkq4r-1Kz6A> accessed 26 March 2023.

[44] European Law Institute, ELI DS Unidroit Model European Rules of Civil Procedure: From Transnational Principles to European Rules of Civil Procedure (Oxford University Press 2021) <https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vpg5EAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=The+principles+of+European+Contract+Law+and+UNIDROIT&ots=EiRpQ_SJ56&sig=5-ZrfsZMXuak3-wBQkq4r-1Kz6A> accessed 26 March 2023.

[45] Pietro Sirena, ‘La Scelta Dei Principles of European Contract Law (PECL) Come Legge Applicabile al Contratto (the Principles of European Contract Law (PECL) as the Law Chosen by the Parties to Govern Their Contract)’ (papers.ssrn.com5 June 2019) <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3399704> accessed 26 March 2023.

[46] Jean-Louis Halperin, The French Civil Code (Taylor & Francis 2021) <https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=XMV8EAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT13&dq=Article+1135+of+the+French+Civil+Code+&ots=y-e9oQpGoG&sig=gND4Qm7gZFoJ077Q-RqV7VG9OYk> accessed 26 March 2023.

[47] Jean-Louis Halperin, The French Civil Code (Taylor & Francis 2021) <https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=XMV8EAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT13&dq=Article+1135+of+the+French+Civil+Code+&ots=y-e9oQpGoG&sig=gND4Qm7gZFoJ077Q-RqV7VG9OYk> accessed 26 March 2023.

[48] European Law Institute, ELI DS Unidroit Model European Rules of Civil Procedure: From Transnational Principles to European Rules of Civil Procedure (Oxford University Press 2021) <https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vpg5EAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=The+principles+of+European+Contract+Law+and+UNIDROIT&ots=EiRpQ_SJ56&sig=5-ZrfsZMXuak3-wBQkq4r-1Kz6A> accessed 26 March 2023.

[49] Reinhard Zimmermann, ‘The Significance of the Principles of European Contract Law’ (2020) 28 European Review of Private Law <https://kluwerlawonline.com/journalarticle/European+Review+of+Private+Law/28.3/ERPL2020026> accessed 26 March 2023.

[50] Pietro Sirena, ‘La Scelta Dei Principles of European Contract Law (PECL) Come Legge Applicabile al Contratto (the Principles of European Contract Law (PECL) as the Law Chosen by the Parties to Govern Their Contract)’ (papers.ssrn.com5 June 2019) <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3399704> accessed 26 March 2023.

[51] Pietro Sirena, ‘La Scelta Dei Principles of European Contract Law (PECL) Come Legge Applicabile al Contratto (the Principles of European Contract Law (PECL) as the Law Chosen by the Parties to Govern Their Contract)’ (papers.ssrn.com5 June 2019) <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3399704> accessed 26 March 2023.

[52] Reinhard Zimmermann, ‘The Significance of the Principles of European Contract Law’ (2020) 28 European Review of Private Law <https://kluwerlawonline.com/journalarticle/European+Review+of+Private+Law/28.3/ERPL2020026> accessed 26 March 2023.

[53] European Law Institute, ELI DS Unidroit Model European Rules of Civil Procedure: From Transnational Principles to European Rules of Civil Procedure (Oxford University Press 2021) <https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vpg5EAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=The+principles+of+European+Contract+Law+and+UNIDROIT&ots=EiRpQ_SJ56&sig=5-ZrfsZMXuak3-wBQkq4r-1Kz6A> accessed 26 March 2023.