The right of unilateral withdrawal from a contract

But the principle of pacta sum servanda was never carried through without exception.^[3004] Even in Roman law not every contract was binding absolutely and under all circumstances.

A contract of locatio conductio rei, for instance, could unilaterally be terminated by the lessee if the lessor failed to comply with his duties.^[3005] Likewise, the lessor could expel the lessee in certain situations, for instance, if the latter did not pay his rent.^[3006] A contract of mandatum came to an end if the mandator revoked the contract, and probably also if the mandatarius renounced it.^[3007] A societas could be terminated at any time by any of the socii by simple renuntiatio.^[3008] And even a contract of sale could be unilaterally cancelled by the purchaser, albeit only when the requirements of the actio redhibitoria were met.^[3009] Later on the emperors gave the vendor a right to rescind a contract of sale if he had sold a tract of land for less than half its true value (laesio enormis).^[3010] As far as the innominate real contracts were concerned, we have seen that their binding character was undermined by virtue of the fact that the condictio causa data causa non secuta remained available.^[3011] In effect, therefore, once he had rendered performance himself, a party to an innominate real contract had the right at any time to cancel the arrangement. This jus poenitendi (as it came to be called)^{[3012] [3013]} featured prominently whenever in the centuries after the reception of Roman law in Europe the exact confines of the principle of pacta sunt servanda were discussed.²²⁴ Down to the 19th century, there was support for its retention.^[3014] Other authors had realized, however, that the application of special rules for innominate real contracts did not make sense once the enforceability of all pacta (nuda) had become generally recognized;^{[3015] [3016]} and as far as both the nominate contracts of Roman law and the pacta in general were concerned, most civilian writers, true to the Roman tradition, continued to deny the parties a general right of unilateral withdrawal.²³² Ultimately, however, an important exception was made in cases of what one could summarily term breach of contract. It is not based on Roman sources but was established, first of all, in canon law ("fidern fran^enti fides frangitur"),^[3017] was taken up again by the natural lawyers/^[3018] and finally found its way into the BGB.^[3019] Today, further statutory rights of withdrawal from a contract have been granted in the interest of consumer protection.^[3020]

3.

More on the topic The right of unilateral withdrawal from a contract:

1. Judicial Review of the Legality of FDA’s Decision to Withhold the Withdrawal Process
2. The withdrawal of faith
3. ‘Quasi-contract’ is an unsatisfactory term applied to certain specific obligations which did not arise from contract or delict but were legally enforceable.
4. From contract verbis to contract litteris
5. The subject called �obligations' is mostly about contract and delict. There are some other heads to be considered, but the right impression is given if we say that contract and delict between them occupy about ninety per cent of the ground.
6. There are different ways or organising a law of contract. That is as much as to say that there are different ways of responding to the central tasks which contract has to perform.
7. 5. PRIVITY OF CONTRACT
8. Contract and pollicitatio
9. Delict and contract
10. Quasi-contract
11. Literal contract
12. Breach of contract in German law
13. The relationship between contract of sale and transfer of ownership
14. III. QUASI-CONTRACT