The Judiciarys Law Journal

The Judiciarys Law Journal

A Comparative Study of the Criteria for Identifying Ineffective Statements in Preliminary Negotiations Based on Judicial Practice

Document Type : Research/Original/Regular Article

Authors
Artin Jahanshahi 1
Habib Taleb Ahmadi 2
1 Ph.D Candidate in Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Shiraz, Shiraz, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Private and Islamic Law, University of Shiraz, Shiraz, Iran.
10.22106/jlj.2025.2057152.6261
Abstract
Although pre-contractual statements may create expectations for both parties, not all of them have legal effects. Ineffective statements refer to those that cannot be relied upon in legal relations and whose breach does not impose liability on the speaker. Such statements are usually presented as an introduction to the main negotiations and, unlike effective statements, cannot serve as the basis for legal consequences. Distinguishing effective from ineffective statements among a large volume of preliminary negotiations, especially in significant transactions, is not always straightforward. This study, using a descriptive-analytical method and library sources, seeks to answer the question of how ineffective statements can be distinguished from other pre-contractual statements and which criteria should be considered for this purpose. In this regard, it provides clear and reliable criteria, among which the most important include the absence of an intention to be legally bound, the promotional nature of the statements, general or vague remarks, statements that do not contribute to completing the contract, and changes in circumstances or a long time gap between the statements and the contract formation.
Keywords
Contractual Liability
Effective Statements
Ineffective Statements
Judicial Practice
Pre-Contractual Period
Preliminary Negotiations
Subjects
فهرست منابع
الف. فارسی
* حاجی‌پور، مرتضی (1397)، «وضعیت حقوقی مسؤولیت پیش‌قراردادی»، فصل‌نامه دیدگاه‌های حقوق قضایی، دوره 23، شماره 84.
* حبیبیان، هدیه و یزدانیان، علیرضا و داراب‌پور، مهراب و آیتی، سید محمدرضا (1401)، «مسؤولیت مذاکره‌کنندگان در مرحله پیش‌قراردادی بر مبنای اسناد بین‌المللی، سیستم‌های حقوقی پیشرو (حقوق آلمان، فرانسه و انگلیس) و حقوق ایران»، مجله علمی پژوهشی حقوق پزشکی، دوره 16، شماره 57.
* خزائی، سید علی و غلامی، یاسر (1398)، «معیارهای سنجش الزام‌آوری توافق‌های مقدماتی با تأکید بر رویه قضایی دادگاه‌های آمریکا»، پژوهش حقوق خصوصی، دوره 8، شماره 29.
* گندمکار، رضاحسین و فهیمی، عزیزالله و سید دارابی، سید علی و گنج خانلو، عزت‌الله (1401)، «مسؤولیت ناشی از مذاکرات پیش‌قراردادی با نگاهی به کامن‌لا و فقه امامیه»، ماهنامه جامعه‌شناسی سیاسی ایران، دوره 5، شماره 11.
* شیروی، عبدالحسین (1382)، «توافق‌های مقدماتی در حقوق کامن‌لا با تأکید بر حقوق انگلستان و آمریکا»، مجله علمی حقوق خصوصی، دوره 1، شماره 3.
*  طالب احمدی، حبیب (1392)، مسؤولیت پیش‌قراردادی، تهران: میزان.
* غفاری، حجت و هاشمی، سید جعفر و صدیقیان، امیرمحمد (1399)، «مسؤولیت نقض مذاکرات پیش‌قراردادی (ارکان، اصول و آثار آن) در حقوق ایران و انگلیس»، ماهنامه جامعه‌شناسی سیاسی ایران، دوره 3، شماره 1.
* کاتوزیان، امیرناصر (1368)، حقوق مدنی: قواعد عمومی قراردادها، جلد سوم، تهران: بهنشر.
* کاتوزیان، امیرناصر (1370)، حقوق مدنی: ایقاع، تهران: یلدا.
ب. انگلیسی
* American Law Institute. (1981). Restatement (Second) of Contracts, American Law Institute Publishers.
* Andrews, N. (2015). Contract law. Cambridge university press.
* Baker, S. Akka, L. & Glass, R. (2023). “IT Contracts and Dispute Management: A Practitioner’s Guide to the Project Lifecycle.” Edward Elgar Publishing.
* Beale, H. Fauvarque-Cosson, B. Rutgers, J. & Vogenauer, S. (2019). “Cases, materials and text on contract law.” Bloomsbury Publishing.
* Bigwood, R. (2005). “Pre-contractual misrepresentation and the limits of the principle in With v, O’Flanagan.” The Cambridge Law Journal, 64(1), 94-125,‏ p96 -– 97
* Browne, M. N. Hale, K. & Cosgrove, M. (2012). “Legal tolerance toward the business lie and the puffery defense: The questionable assumptions of contract law.” S. Ill. ULJ, 37, 69.
* Burrows, A. (2016), A restatement of the English law of contract. Oxford University Press.
* Charman, M. (2013). Contract law. Willan.
* Conklin, M. (2022). “Pepsi’s Harrier Jet Commercial: A Class Activity Covering Contract Formation and More. Michael Conklin, Pepsi’s Harrier Jet Commercial: A Class Activity Covering Contract Formation and More.” WL & Bus. Rev.1-20.
* Goldberg, V. P. (2014). “Protecting reliance.” Colum. L. Rev. 114, 1033.
* Henry Campbell Black. (1968). “Black’s law dictionary.” Fourth edition، West Publishin Co.
* Jung, S. (2021). “Acceptable Lies in Contract Negotiations”. J. Disp. Resol. 255.
* Kleinhans, B. L. E. (2020). “Pre-contractual agreements” (Doctoral dissertation, Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University).
* Kucher, A. N. (2004). “Pre-contractual liability: protecting the rights of the parties engaged in negotiations.” NYU Hauser Global Law School.
* Mahdi, N.M.N. Anuar, N.I.M. Razmin, N.H, and Yusoff, N.D.M. (2013). “Enforceable contracts: intention to create legal relations.” Entrepreneurship Vision 2020: Innovation, Development Sustainability, and Economic Growth, 1195: 1194-1199.
* McKendrick, E. (2012). “Contract law: text, cases, and materials.” Oxford University Press, USA.
* O'Sullivan, J. (2020). “O'Sullivan & Hilliard's The law of contract.” Oxford University Press.
* Preston, I. L. (1974). “The Questionable Rationale for Advertising Puffery as Revealed in Early English and American Legal Precedents.”
* Prosser, W. L. & Keeton, P. (198'4). Prosser and Keeton on torts. West Publishing.
* Rosenberg, A. & Book. (2022). The Rise of Mass Advertising: Law, Enchantment, and the Cultural Boundaries of British Modernity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
* Sławicki, P. (2020). “Precontractual Agreements in Selected Legal Systems.” TalTech Journal of European Studies, 10(3).
* Stevens, R. (2013). “Circumventing veil piercing: possible delictual liability of a holding company to a creditor of its insolvent subsidiary.” Stellenbosch Law Review, 24(1), 93-106.
* Suff, M. (2013). Essential contract law. Routledge-Cavendish.
* Zuckerman, A. A. (2011). “Without prejudice interpretation–with prejudice negotiations.” Evidence and Proof, 15(3).
The Judiciarys Law Journal
Volume 89, Issue 132
Winter 2026
Pages 137-162

  • Receive Date 05 April 2025
  • Revise Date 14 June 2025
  • Accept Date 09 September 2025
  • First Publish Date 22 December 2025
  • Publish Date 22 December 2025