Festskrift til Mads Bryde Andersen (1. udg.)

Med dette festskrift hylder en række kolleger inden for den akademiske og praktiske juridiske verden professor, dr.jur. Mads Bryde Andersen i anledning af hans 60 års fødselsdag den 25. september 2018. Hyldesten tilfalder en person ud over det sædvanlige. Allerede doktordisputatsen »Edb & ansvar« fra 1989, skrevet på lidt over to år, dokumenterede de kvalifikationer, der kendetegner Mads: fremragende analytiske evner, en enorm arbejdskapacitet, stor intellektuel nysgerrighed og en evne til ny og original juridisk tænkning. Disse evner har gjort Mads til en af sin generations mest markante jurister og har resulteret i et omfattende forfatterskab og praktisk virke.

The underlying conception at work here is what Danish domestic doctrine calls the ‘promise-principle’ (løfteprincippet), ⁹³⁷937. Andersen, supra n. 5, at 82. Accord (re. the corresponding ‘offer principle’) Mads Bryde Andersen & Eric Runesson, ‘An Overview of Nordic Contract Law,’ in The Nordic Contracts Act (2015) at 34. this in contrast to the ‘agreement-principle’ (overenskomstprincippet), upon which the Common law of contract is built. ⁹³⁸938. Id.

As a significant corollary to the Danish principle, an offer (tilbud), once communicated, is irrevocable, i.e. the offeror cannot ‘call back’ that offer (at least not during the time stated therein or, alternatively, for a reasonable period). In American law, however, the ‘opposite’ applies: an offer, even if communicated, is revocable: in other words, prior to acceptance, the offeror can simply ‘call it back.’

Common lawyers sometimes distinguish between the withdrawal of an offer (before it becomes effective by communication) and revocation of an offer (after it becomes effective by communication). ⁹³⁹939. See, e.g., Farnsworth, supra n. 4, § 3.17 with n. 1. The CISG makes the same distinction in Articles 15(2) and 16. In withdrawal contexts, Danish lawyers use the term tilbagekalde (literally: to ‘call back’); no separate terminology applies to ‘revocation’ (in the Common law sense) since the Danish rule is that an offer, once it takes effect, cannot be revoked. ⁹⁴⁰940. See text supra with notes 21-22. Revocation is possible only if the offeror has expressly retained the power to revoke (see text infra).

Significantly, the Danish (irrevocability) rule is a default rule, so if a given offeror (tilbudsgiver) declares his intention to retain the power to revoke his offer (prior to its acceptance), that intention will prevail. The American (revocability) principle, by contrast, is not a mere default rule, and so American law professors like to tease their first-year students with hypotheticals like this:

‘But what if the offeror promises not to revoke his offer?’

To which the knowing student might rightly reply:

‘That makes no difference.’