ENFORCEMENT OF THE OBLIGATION TO CONCLUDE THE MAIN CONTRACT: A DOGMATIC AND PRACTICAL ANALYSIS OF ARTICLE 327 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF GEORGIA
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31435/ijitss.3(51).2026.6109Keywords:
Preliminary Contract, Autonomy of Will, Substitution of Intent, Article 327 of the Civil Code of Georgia, Private Autonomy, Enforcement, Legal Certainty, GeorgiaAbstract
The preliminary contract is an important safeguard for the stability of private-law relations and commercial transactions in Georgian civil law. However, the ambiguity surrounding Article 327 of the Civil Code of Georgia (hereafter referred to as the CCG) gives rise to significant doctrinal and practical questions concerning the compulsory substitution of a party's declaration of intent.
This study critically analyses Article 327 of the CCG, examining the legal nature of the obligation to conclude the main contract and the mechanisms of its compulsory enforcement. The research is based on doctrinal legal analysis and an examination of judicial practice, with the theoretical foundation resting on the principles of private autonomy, freedom of contract and legal certainty.
The findings show that judicial substitution of intent is only permitted if a preliminary contract is breached and the essential terms (essentialia negotii) have been explicitly defined and accepted by those involved. Otherwise, judicial intervention risks undermining contractual autonomy and effectively making the court a substitute contracting party.
This paper's originality lies in identifying structural deficiencies in the current regulation of Article 327 of the CCG and proposing normative improvements. In particular, the study recommends clarifying the scope of preliminary contract enforceability and establishing a more consistent judicial standard. These measures aim to strengthen legal certainty and enhance predictability in civil circulation, while safeguarding the legitimate expectations of contracting parties.
References
BGH NJW 2007, 60. (2007). Bundesgerichtshof decision.
Farnsworth, E. A. (2004). Contracts. Aspen Publishers.
Flume, W. (1992). Allgemeiner Teil des Bürgerlichen Rechts (Vol. 1/2). Springer.
Larenz, K. (1987). Lehrbuch des Schuldrechts (Vol. 1). C. H. Beck.
Tumanishvili, G., & Tkeshelashvili, K. (2020). Issues of declaration of intent in modern Georgian law. Caucasus University Press.
Zoidze, B. (2005). Methodological foundations of Georgian civil law. (Publisher not specified).
Chanturia, L. (2011). General part of civil law. Samartali.
Jorbenadze, S. (2014). Validity of declaration of intent in electronic form in contract conclusion [Doctoral dissertation, Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University]. TSU Digital Repository.
Civil Code of Georgia. (1997). Parliamentary Gazette of Georgia, No. 31. https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/31702
Supreme Court of Georgia. (2012). Decision No. -1002–957–2012.
Supreme Court of Georgia. (2013). Ruling in civil case No. -1529–1443–2012, December 9. https://www.supremecourt.ge/files/upload-file/pdf/-n.57-mnishvnelovani-ganmarteba.pdf
Supreme Court of Georgia. (2015a). Decision in case No. -733–689–2015. https://www.supremecourt.ge/ka/fullcase/56295/1
Supreme Court of Georgia. (2015b). Decision in case No. -1014–969–2015. https://www.supremecourt.ge/ka/fullcase/56204/1
Supreme Court of Georgia. (2015c). Civil Chamber ruling in case No. -661–628–2014, September 30. https://www.supremecourt.ge/files/upload-file/pdf/2015w-samoqalaqo-krebuli12.pdf
Supreme Court of Georgia. (2015d). Review of civil case law (No. 12). https://www.supremecourt.ge/files/upload-file/pdf/2015w-samoqalaqo-krebuli12.pdf
Supreme Court of Georgia. (2017). Decision in civil case No. -202–191–2017, September 27. https://www.supremecourt.ge
Supreme Court of Georgia. (2019). General part of civil law: Case law review. Analytical Department. https://www.supremecourt.ge/uploads/files/1/ANALITIKURI(2019_8).pdf
Supreme Court of Georgia. (2023). Ruling in civil case No. -1038–2022, July 20. https://www.supremecourt.ge
Tbilisi Court of Appeals. (2014). Ruling in civil case No. 2b/339–14, May 20. https://tbappeal.court.ge/uploads/ckeditor/UPLOADS/1419926975__-55664063.pdf
Tbilisi Court of Appeals. (2017). Decision in case No. 2b/2256–16 (preliminary contract case). https://tbappeal.court.ge/ka/page/tsinare-khelshekruleba
Young Barristers. (2022). If the Supreme Court does not correct its mistakes, the stability of the real estate market will be undermined. https://www.barristers.ge/ge/page/news_item/1760
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 LInda Shalamberidze-Verdadze
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All articles are published in open-access and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Hence, authors retain copyright to the content of the articles.
CC BY 4.0 License allows content to be copied, adapted, displayed, distributed, re-published or otherwise re-used for any purpose including for adaptation and commercial use provided the content is attributed.
