Are promises and contracts binding?

Translation: quotations from Samuel von Pufendorf are quoted in Basil Kennett's 1729 English translation (with others; 4th edition, with Barbeyrac's notes); quoted in Andrew Tooke's 1735 English translation, not his original words.

OCR: 11 cited passage(s) are machine-read (OCR) text of old printings; quotations reproduce the stored OCR text, misreadings included.

1. WHAT HE SAID (the record)

Record ledger

• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in Basil Kennett's 1729 English translation (with others; 4th edition, with Barbeyrac's notes)): Samuel von Pufendorf believed that a promise is binding if there is a full and free agreement to the business, even if it is not expressed by any outward sign. He argued that the outward sign has already passed before, and once the internal consent is clear and free, nothing is lacking to the production of a firm engagement. [1]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in Basil Kennett's 1729 English translation (with others; 4th edition, with Barbeyrac's notes)): Samuel von Pufendorf believed that promises and contracts are binding, even when they are verbal agreements without any actual performance between the parties. He argued that faith and truth in words, promises, and contracts are foundational to justice, and that a person can obligate themselves through speech alone to a future performance. "It has been the fix'd Opinion of wife and learned Men in all Ages, that Faith ought to be kept inviolably, though given only in Words , or that a Man by /peaking only, without the Intervention of any Deed, may lay on himfelf aNeceffity of fome future Performance" [2]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in Basil Kennett's 1729 English translation (with others; 4th edition, with Barbeyrac's notes)): Samuel von Pufendorf believed that promises are binding, as he states that it is a fundamental truth that one 'ought inviolably to keep his Word.' "that he ought inviolably to keep his Word" [3]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in Basil Kennett's 1729 English translation (with others; 4th edition, with Barbeyrac's notes)): Samuel von Pufendorf believed that promises and contracts are binding, as they are based on voluntary engagements and give rise to obligations. He argued that such agreements are necessary for maintaining mutual trust and benefit among people. [4]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in Basil Kennett's 1729 English translation (with others; 4th edition, with Barbeyrac's notes)): Samuel von Pufendorf believed that contracts are binding, particularly when they are expressed in writing or supported by evidence. He argued that written contracts are as binding as verbal ones, and that magistrates must presume the truth of a debt when supported by written evidence. (key quote above) [5]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in Basil Kennett's 1729 English translation (with others; 4th edition, with Barbeyrac's notes)): Samuel von Pufendorf believed that promises and contracts are binding, even when made by princes in their private capacity, as long as they voluntarily and advisedly enter into them. He argued that such contracts should be exempt from legal nullity if they would otherwise be invalid, because otherwise, all that was done would signify nothing. "if they voluntarily and advifedly enter into any ContraB that would otherwife be invalid in LaWy they are fuppofed to have exempted that parti-cular Contract Irom the Foic; of the Laws, where there are fuch, and to declare that no Nullity fhall enfue upon that Account." [6]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in Basil Kennett's 1729 English translation (with others; 4th edition, with Barbeyrac's notes)): Samuel von Pufendorf believed that contracts may be divided into types based on the obligations they impose, including those that obligate one party only and those that obligate both parties equally, as well as those of a middle nature. This indicates that he viewed contracts as binding in varying degrees depending on their nature. "V. All Contracts may be divided into three Sorts, Full, Thofe that lay an Oblig-.uion upon one Party * only, ... Secondly, Thofe that equally oblige both Parties t, as in buying and felling, letting and renting, Partnerfiiip, &c." [7]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in Basil Kennett's 1729 English translation (with others; 4th edition, with Barbeyrac's notes)): Samuel von Pufendorf believed that promises are binding and that an express promise passes into a debt. He argued that while there is still room for liberality, it is more in the interest of human affairs to ensure that promises are kept rather than allowing people to be deceived by others' inconstancy. [8]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in Basil Kennett's 1729 English translation (with others; 4th edition, with Barbeyrac's notes)): Samuel von Pufendorf believed that promises and contracts require consent to be valid, and that certain conditions, such as great drunkenness, being under age, error, fraud, or fear, can invalidate them. "Confent is fignified openly or tacitly. 3 . Confent fuppojes the Ufe of Reafon, 4. Great t)runkennefs hinders it." [9]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in Basil Kennett's 1729 English translation (with others; 4th edition, with Barbeyrac's notes)): Samuel von Pufendorf believed that consent is the foundation of every obligation imposed by promise or conventions. This is stated in the passage, which emphasizes the essential role of consent in creating binding obligations. "Confent is the Foundation of every Obligation impos'd by Promife or Conventions, ibid. f. i." [10]

What cuts against it

• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in Basil Kennett's 1729 English translation): Some scholars argue that there is debate over whether internal consent alone, without an external sign, is sufficient to create a binding obligation. "Others diflike this way of deciding the Controverfyj becaufe they conceive that the internal Conlent, and the external Sign, ought to exift together," [1]

• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in Basil Kennett's 1729 English translation): There is a question over whether verbal promises, without performance, can create binding obligations. "It is requifite, that whilll we are engaged on this Point, we endeavour to fettle a famous Que-ftion, which has been much canvafs'd by Authors, VV hethcr there can be a Force of obliging in barePro-mifes,or in bare" [2]

• ACTION (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in Basil Kennett's 1729 English translation): There is a recognition that some promises may be invalid if they are impossible to fulfill. "ImpoJJiUe Conditions are either fuch as are naturally or morally fo, that is, fome Matters by the Nature of Things cannot be done..." [11]

2. HOW IT APPLIES (reasoning; inference is marked)

1. Samuel von Pufendorf believed that promises and contracts are binding when there is full and free agreement, even without an outward sign. [1]

2. He argued that verbal promises alone can create binding obligations, as faith and truth in words are foundational to justice. [2]

3. Consent is essential for the validity of promises and contracts, and certain conditions like fraud or fear can invalidate them. [9]

4. Impossible conditions can render a promise invalid, as some matters cannot be done by the nature of things. [11]

5. These principles suggest that Samuel von Pufendorf viewed promises and contracts as binding under most circumstances, with exceptions for invalidating conditions. (inference)

3. HIS TAKE

Record coverage: DIRECT

Samuel von Pufendorf directly addressed the binding nature of promises and contracts. He believed that promises and contracts are binding when there is full and free agreement, even without an outward sign. He argued that verbal promises alone can create binding obligations, as faith and truth in words are foundational to justice. However, he also recognized that certain conditions, such as fraud or fear, can invalidate a promise or contract. Impossible conditions can also render a promise invalid.

Extrapolation: Samuel von Pufendorf would likely conclude that promises and contracts are generally binding, but exceptions exist for invalidating conditions such as fraud, fear, or impossibility.

Competing readings: Some scholars argue that internal consent alone, without an external sign, may not be sufficient to create a binding obligation. [1]

Confidence: High, as the record directly addresses the binding nature of promises and contracts, with clear exceptions stated.