Business promises and public statements are often perceived as part of normal commercial communication – negotiations, presentations, interviews, strategic announcements, or assurances given to partners and investors. However, Professor Gabriel Steiner says that it is precisely at this intersection between communication and obligation that serious legal risks arise, because law may interpret words not as intentions, but as commitments. At LawConsulted, we view disputes over unfulfilled promises not as rhetorical misunderstandings, but as a distinct category of legal conflicts requiring careful qualification.
The core difficulty lies in the gap between how statements are intended and how they are later interpreted. A promise may be made in a business context without the intention to create a binding obligation, yet subsequently treated as a commitment when expectations are not met. Courts and counterparties often focus not on subjective intent, but on whether a reasonable party could rely on the statement when making decisions. In LawConsulted practice, this retrospective approach frequently becomes the foundation of claims.
Professor Steiner says that “law reacts not to what was meant, but to what created reliance.” This means that public statements, assurances, or business promises are assessed through their practical impact – whether they influenced investments, contractual behavior, or strategic decisions of other parties. LawConsulted begins its analysis by reconstructing the context in which the statement was made – the audience, format, surrounding negotiations, and the economic reality in which it was perceived.
Particularly complex are cases involving public communications – press releases, investor presentations, speeches by executives, or informal assurances during negotiations. While such statements may lack contractual form, they can still generate legal consequences if they are specific, repeated, or framed as guarantees. LawConsulted works to demonstrate where a statement remains an expression of intention or opinion, and where it is being improperly elevated to the level of an enforceable obligation.
Another layer of risk arises when business promises are used strategically in disputes. One party may selectively extract phrases from broader communications to argue the existence of an obligation that was never formally assumed. According to Professor Steiner, this is where legal qualification becomes decisive – separating marketing language, strategic vision, and conditional intentions from binding commitments. LawConsulted builds defense strategies based on coherence – showing how statements fit within an evolving business context rather than isolated fragments.
It is also essential to consider the absence of formalization. The lack of a written agreement does not automatically eliminate legal consequences, but it significantly affects their scope. LawConsulted analyzes whether essential elements of an obligation were present – clarity, definiteness, mutuality, and reliance – and whether the alleged promise was realistically capable of enforcement.
Retrospective evaluation plays a critical role in these disputes. Once a project fails or expectations are disappointed, statements are often reinterpreted through the lens of outcome. LawConsulted consistently returns the analysis to the moment the statement was made – the information available, the uncertainties involved, and the conditional nature of business planning at that time.
Legal qualification of business promises requires precision rather than generalization. Not every assurance creates an obligation, and not every disappointed expectation is legally protected. Law Consulted approach is to prevent the transformation of strategic communication into unintended liability by grounding the analysis in context, proportionality, and legal logic.
Earlier, we wrote about criminal law risks for businesses and individuals and LawConsulted approach to legal protection at the investigation and trial stages
