Following on from the study of reliance in the breaking-off of negotiations in each selected jurisdiction, this chapter brings together the findings of the three previous chapters and argues that reliance is the core notion of precontractual liability for breaking off negotiations. The chapter will first make a comparative analysis of the general characteristics of this liability in the selected jurisdictions (section I). Particular attention will be paid to the much-debated issue of the nature of this liability, that it is a fault-based liability, and the presence of other requirements shared by the selected jurisdictions. The chapter will then focus on the comparative analysis of the two more prominent bases of liability for breaking off negotiations in the selected jurisdictions: reliance and good faith. It will first examine, from a comparative perspective, the reliance basis, looking at its meaning, manifestations, genesis and justification, and showing that it is the core element that explains the imposition of this liability (section II). It will then address the role of good faith in the breaking-off of negotiations, focusing on determining whether it is an essential factor in the configuration of this liability or whether it could potentially be replaced or displaced by the reliance element (section III). The chapter will conclude with a comparative analysis of the remedies that the reliance-based approach gives rise to in the selected jurisdictions and also in certain harmonising instruments (section IV).

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PRECONTRACTUAL LIABILITY FOR BREAKING OFF NEGOTIATIONS IN THE SELECTED JURISDICTIONS

From the previous chapters it is clear that the German doctrine of culpa in contrahendo and the French doctrine of precontractual liability have some marked differences. It has also been shown that in receiving these doctrines, Chilean law has taken some elements from each of these jurisdictions and has developed them in light of the particularities of its legal system. Nevertheless, and despite the diff erences, the selected jurisdictions have many commonalities and provide for a similar protection in the breaking-off of negotiations. Indeed, it has been stated that the new articles 1112 and following of the Code civil, structurally and conceptually, are not dissimilar to § § 241(2) and 311(2) BGB, which codified the doctrine of culpa in contrahendo. A summary of the general characteristics of this liability in the selected jurisdictions is presented below.