Permissible Promise-Making Under Uncertainty

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 468-486
Author(s):  
ALIDA LIBERMAN

AbstractI outline four conditions on permissible promise-making: the promise must be for a morally permissible end, must not be deceptive, must be in good faith, and must involve a realistic assessment of oneself. I then address whether promises that you are uncertain you can keep can meet these four criteria, with a focus on campaign promises as an illustrative example. I argue that uncertain promises can meet the first two criteria, but that whether they can meet the second two depends on the source of the promisor's uncertainty. External uncertainty stemming from outside factors is unproblematic, but internal uncertainty stemming from the promisor's doubts about her own strength leads to promises that are in bad faith or unrealistic. I conclude that campaign promises are often subject to internal uncertainty and are therefore morally impermissible to make, all else being equal.

Obiter ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fiona Leppan ◽  
Avinash Govindjee ◽  
Ben Cripps

While good-faith bargaining is recognized in many overseas jurisdictions and by the International Labour Organisation, such a duty has not been incorporated in South African labour legislation. Given the many recent examples of labour unrest in South Africa, it is time to consider whether there should be a duty to bargain in good faith when taking part in collective bargaining. Recognizing such a duty would arguably benefit both employers and employees and South Africa as a whole.


1964 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 280-297 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elie Kedourie

The Arab question in British diplomacy, it is remarkable to observe, has conjured up, both among those directly involved and among subsequent commentators, an amount of passionate discussion, of anguished retrospection, of accusation and self-denunciation, quite out of proportion to its intrinsic importance. For after all, compared to the great issues of Europe, America, the Commonwealth, and India, the Husain-McMahon Correspondence, the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the Balfour Declaration, are small and paltry transactions which, as luck would have it, have turned out, it is true, to be inopportune and profitless and the cause of much loss and tribulation. For the historian of the Middle East, of course, the British connexion must loom very large by reason of its immediate impact and of its ultimate consequences, but in British history can the short-lived middle-eastern episode be more than a passing incident in the Indian summer of the Empire? For they are perhaps right, those who assert that had Britain been able to retain India, her middle-eastern position could probably have been maintained, regardless of mistakes and confusions in middle-eastern policy itself, and that, once India gone, neither virtue nor virtuosity would have availed to preserve Suez, Haifa and Habbaniyya. But this cool, sceptical view is rarely met in the writings either of the participants or of the subsequent commentators, whose mode is one of burning regret, and vehement lamentations, and who are for ever weighing good faith against bad faith, promises kept and promises broken, scrutinizing motives and examining scruples, like the diligent followers of some strict pietism, oppressed by sin and dolefully thirsting for justification.


2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 113
Author(s):  
Osama Ismail Mohammad Amayreh ◽  
Izura Masdina Mohamed Zakri ◽  
Pardis Moslemzadeh Tehrani ◽  
Yousef Mohammad Shandi

The jurisprudential and judicial legal trend tends to apply the principle of good faith at the pre-contracting phase as one of the most substantial principles governing this phase, since it is inconceivable that the parties are to negotiate in bad faith, and then must implement the contract in good faith, in accordance with the traditional legal rule that “fraud spoils everything it touches”. However, the Palestinian legislature has ignored enacting legal provisions obliging the parties to abide by the principle of good faith in the pre-contracting phase causing a legislative deficiency in the legislative remedies of the subject of good faith in the pre-contracting phase. This paper seeks to prove that replacing a provision that requires good faith in negotiations with the provisions of tort liability causes many legal problems. To prove this, the legal provisions should be analysed which would also include determining the definition of the principle of good faith, and the function of that principle in achieving contractual equilibrium and the legal basis for this principle at the stage of negotiation which should also be analysed. Moreover, a comparative analytical approach with the French civil code is used to illustrate the Palestinian legislative deficiencies and the need to legislate a legal article which obligates the negotiating parties to behave in good faith, as this has become an unavoidable reality that should be dealt with to contribute to the stability of civil and commercial transactions. As such, the legal article should also specify the compensation to be claimed.


Author(s):  
Федор Федорович Жуков

В статье показываются изменения Федерального закона от 05.04.2013 № 44-ФЗ «О контрактной системе в сфере закупок товаров, работ, услуг для обеспечения государственных и муниципальных нужд», вступающие в силу 01.07.2021. Доказывается, что наименование реестра недобросовестных поставщиков и его фактическое содержание не совпадают. Оспаривается критерий включения исполнителей в публичный реестр на основании их недобросовестности. Приводятся предложения по совершенствованию действующего законодательства. The article shows the changes in the Federal Law of 05.04.2013 No. 44-FZ «On the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs», which enter into force on 01.07.2021. It is proved that the name of the register of bad-faith suppliers and its actual content do not coincide. The criterion for including contractors in the public register on the basis of their bad faith is contested. The suggestions for improving the current legislation are provided.


Author(s):  
James Penner

This chapter explores the connection between fiduciary relationships and moral norms or standards. It first considers the distinctions between employee “loyalty,” obligations of good faith, and the duty to act in the principal’s best interests. It then examines the two moral norms covered by the fiduciary’s duty of loyalty: the “bad faith breach” norm and the “necessary fiduciary norm.” The “bad faith breach” norm prohibits the fiduciary from taking advantage of his or her position by breaching, in bad faith, a duty owed to his or her principal. This norm applies to others who are not fiduciaries, such as employees and parents. The chapter explains how the “bad faith breach” norm relates to “breach of trust” or breach of faith and how the necessary fiduciary norm is associated with the norm of natural justice, which prohibits bias in decision-making. Finally, it reviews a test case that illustrates what sort of “duty of loyalty” arises in familial relationships.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document