The jurisprudential and judicial legal trend tends to apply the principle of good faith at the pre-contracting phase as one of the most substantial principles governing this phase, since it is inconceivable that the parties are to negotiate in bad faith, and then must implement the contract in good faith, in accordance with the traditional legal rule that “fraud spoils everything it touches”. However, the Palestinian legislature has ignored enacting legal provisions obliging the parties to abide by the principle of good faith in the pre-contracting phase causing a legislative deficiency in the legislative remedies of the subject of good faith in the pre-contracting phase. This paper seeks to prove that replacing a provision that requires good faith in negotiations with the provisions of tort liability causes many legal problems. To prove this, the legal provisions should be analysed which would also include determining the definition of the principle of good faith, and the function of that principle in achieving contractual equilibrium and the legal basis for this principle at the stage of negotiation which should also be analysed. Moreover, a comparative analytical approach with the French civil code is used to illustrate the Palestinian legislative deficiencies and the need to legislate a legal article which obligates the negotiating parties to behave in good faith, as this has become an unavoidable reality that should be dealt with to contribute to the stability of civil and commercial transactions. As such, the legal article should also specify the compensation to be claimed.