Declaration of Intent: A Legal Conundrum?

In: Review of Central and East European Law
View More View Less
Download Citation Get Permissions

Access options

Get access to the full article by using one of the access options below.

Institutional Login

Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials

Login via Institution


Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):



In the traditional notion of contract formation, the general rule is that formation of contract requires an offer and acceptance to be communicated between the parties. However the Estonian Law of Obligation deviates from this rule and adopts a broader approach to contract formation through the mutual exchange of declarations of intent. The present article examines the ambiguities and legal muddle caused by this approach. A far more difficult issue is the time of receipt of communication since Estonian contract law does not adhere to either the dispatch theory or the receipt principle. Although the Estonian Law of Obligation draws a distinction between oral and other (written) communications, the latter reaches the addressee (or are deemed to be received) only after the recipient has had suffi cient time to review the communication. This may be appropriate for consumer transactions, but difficulties may well arise at the international level in proving effective receipt of a notice.

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 89 34 2
Full Text Views 56 5 1
PDF Views & Downloads 12 7 3