Soru

Passage:
In his seminal 1861 treatise, German legal theorist Rudolf von Jhering addressed a persistent lacuna in nineteenth-century civil jurisprudence: the legal status of injuries inflicted during preliminary contract negotiations prior to formal agreement. Under prevailing classical Roman law doctrines codified across Continental Europe, civil liability was strictly bifurcated into two mutually exclusive regimes: contractual liability, which required a fully executed and valid agreement, and delictual (or tortious) liability, which typically demanded proof of intentional wrongdoing or physical harm to persons or property. Consequently, if a negotiating party incurred substantial expenditures in reliance on the imminent conclusion of a contract that was subsequently aborted due to the other party’s negligent misrepresentations or undisclosed contractual incapacity, classical doctrine offered no remedial recourse.

To resolve this inequity, Jhering formulated the doctrine of culpa in contrahendo (fault in contracting), positing that the commencement of formal contractual negotiations creates a distinct, quasi-contractual relationship characterized by reciprocal duties of care, diligence, and disclosure. Jhering argued that by entering into negotiations, parties implicitly guarantee the validity of the prospective transaction and the absence of fundamental impediments. Crucially, Jhering did not propose that a party breaching pre-contractual duties should be held liable for expectation damages—the financial position the injured party would have occupied had the contract been fully performed. Instead, he limited recovery strictly to reliance damages (the "negative interest"), which restored the injured party to the status quo ante by reimbursing actual expenses incurred and specific losses directly sustained as a result of relying on the negotiating partner's conduct.

Although nineteenth-century legal formalists initially resisted Jhering’s formulation as an unprincipled hybrid of contract and tort, subsequent Continental codifications progressively incorporated his insights. The German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) of 1900 did not initially enact culpa in contrahendo as a comprehensive general provision, though it recognized isolated statutory applications, such as liability for initiating void contracts without notifying the counterparty of known defects. However, German appellate jurisprudence throughout the twentieth century expanded these statutory footholds via judicial interpretation, ultimately recognizing culpa in contrahendo as an overarching principle of customary law before its formal legislative codification in the German law of obligations reform of 2002. Through this judicial evolution, Jhering’s conceptual innovation bridged the rigid divide between contract and tort, establishing that pre-contractual engagement entails enforceable fiduciary standards of good faith.

According to the passage, Rudolf von Jhering's original formulation of remedies under culpa in contrahendo entitled an injured party to which of the following forms of recovery?