Am 20. März 2015 entschied in Boston das Bundesberufungsgericht des ersten Bezirks der USA den Fall Advanced Flexible Circuits v. GE Sensing & Inspection nach einer gründlichen Analyse des CIC-Anspruchs, den es dem Recht der unerlaubten Handlungen, Torts, zurechnet: Under this doctrine, negotiations toward an agreement can -- even without a letter of intent -- readily give rise to mutual expectations that the parties will bargain in good faith and refrain from misconduct. Es folgerte:
A party's withdrawal from contractual negotiations may be considered to be a violation of the duty of good faith if: (1) the withdrawal was arbitrary or without justification; and (2) the other party had a reasonable expectation that a contractual agreement would be consummated.CIC sei mit Vorsicht anzuwenden, denn sonst würden kaum noch Vertragsverhandlungen gewagt werden. Ihr Abbruch sei nicht generell haftungsauslösend, sondern nur wenn er unberechtigt sei und berechtigte Erwartungen zunichte mache. Ein Element der Bösgläubigkeit müsse erkennbar sein:fault, dolus, fraud, good faith, abuse of law, or other general principle[s] of law. Hier stellte das Revisionsgericht ebenso wie das Untergericht fest, dass die Klägerin keinen Beweis für eine rechtswidrige Verhandlungseinstellung beigebracht habe.
…
To determine liability under culpa in contrahendo, courts have evaluated the circumstances of the withdrawal from negotiations by considering certain factors, including:(1) the development of the negotiations, (2) how did [the negotiations] begin, (3) their course, (4) the conduct of the parties throughout [the negotiations], (5) the stage at which the interruption took place, [and] (6) the parties' reasonable expectations to form a contract, as well as any other relevant circumstance under the facts of the case …