The precontractional responsibility was in theAct No. 40/1964 Col., Civil Code taken out from the responsibility for breaching of preventional duties, respectively from responsibility for damage caused by the intentionally acting against good manners. The precontractional responsibility was solved by court decisions only ad hoc, and derived in the case of termination of the acting about contract conclusion without legitimate reason. The damage involved only in the uncommon costs caused by requirements of the party, which has terminated the acting, not in the common costs. In the Act No. 513/1991 Col., Business Code was the precontractional responsibility solved only within the responsibility for the damage for duty breaching not to tell or use the secret information.

In the Act No. 89/2012 Col., Civil code (hereinafter “NCC”) is the precontractional responsibility detailed regulated, it means as the acting without intention to conclude the contract honestly (§ 1728 NCC), denying of the contract conclusion just before its signature without justified reason (§ 1729/1 NCC), the not fulfilling information duty (§ 1729/2 NCC) or breaching or telling the secret information (§ 1730/2 NCC) and this not only in the relation among entrepreneurs. Newly is the damage compensation limited only for the uncommon cost, but includes also all vainly invested cost. Enforcement of the cost will be rather than the legal question taken the burden of proof. It is to expect, that the proof of these facts as justified reason, missing of the intention to conclude the contract honestly, or reasonable expected of contract conclusion will be seen in the future as problematic.