It is inconceivable that a person can be legally obliged to provide influential information to another party in order to contract freely and in an enlightened manner without requiring the latter to maintain the confidentiality of the exchanged information between the parties. In this context, Article 2.1.16 of the UNIDROIT principles of International Commercial Contracts and Article 1112-2 of the French Decree N 131-2016, etc. tend to apply the obligation to confidentiality of information at the pre-contracting phase as one of the most substantial principles governing this phase. However, the Palestinian legislature, having ignored enacting legal provisions obliging the parties to maintain the confidentiality of information in the pre-contracting phase, caused legislative deficiencies in the legislative remedies of the subject of confidentiality of information in the pre-contracting phase. A such, as a prime objective, this paper seeks to suggest orientations for the formulation of provisions for the obligation to maintain confidentiality of information in the Palestinian Civil Code Draft. Thus, an analytical comparative approach -with the French civil code- is used, while alluding briefly to German and English law, as to illustrate the Palestinian legislative deficiencies and the urgent need to legislate a legal article obligating the negotiating parties to maintain confidentiality of information, in order to contribute to the stability of civil and commercial transactions. In this regard, contractual equilibrium entails that the obligation to maintain confidentiality of information has its own independent essence from all the theories that the jurisprudence adopted as a legal basis for this obligation.

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.

Many recent legislations and international principles tend to apply the pre-contractual duty of disclosure as one of the most substantial principles governing the pre-contracting phase, such as Article 1112-1 of the Amended French Civil Code of 2016, Article 1337 of the Amended Italian Civil Code and Article 13 of chapter 2 of the Common European Sales Law, etc. However, the Palestinian legislature has ignored enacting legal provisions imposing the pre-contractual duty of disclosure which causes legislative deficiencies in the legislative remedies of the subject of pre-contractual duty of disclosure. In this regard, this paper suggests orientations for the formulation of the provisions of the pre-contractual duty of disclosure in the Palestinian Civil Code Draft (PDCC). To do so, a comparative analytical approach with the French civil code is used to illustrate the Palestinian legislative deficiencies and the urgent need to legislate a legal article which obligates the negotiating party to disclose any substantial information for the satisfaction of the other party. As such, the contractual equilibrium entails that the pre-contractual duty of disclosure has its own independent essence from all the theories that the jurisprudence adopted as a legal basis for this duty.

The phrase “who says contractual, says justice” (qui dit contractuel dit juste) does not fully express the truth of present reality, where the phrase itself falls into doubt, since a contract does not always result in fair obligations. In this regard, the French judiciary realized that the absence of justice in a contract might arise as a result of the contractual freedom afforded to the contracting parties. Thus, the idea of Commutative Justice in the contract was developed, such as, the Chronopost’s decision which is considered one of its most important applications. However, the equivalence of rights and obligations in the Palestinian Draft Civil Code only exists in a virtual form, without any content that actually contributes to the achievement of the equivalence between rights and obligations in contracts. This article seeks to prove that the provisions of the causation theory in the Palestinian Draft Civil Code can be used as an effective means for achieving contractual justice between the contracting parties, in order to maintain economic contractual equilibrium of the contract. To do so, the function of the causation theory should be analysed in a comparative analytical approach with the Chronopost’s decision to illustrate the Palestinian legislative deficiencies. It will also show the need for adopting the French judicial approach, which will establish a general rule that any arbitrary clause that contravenes the essential obligation of the contract is considered to be unwritten, regardless of the nature or the subject matter of the contract.