This issue of Juridica International continues a solid tradition of offering articles to a wide range of readers while concentrating on one central topic, which this time is the prospects of the right of obligation in Estonia and in Europe. With 2012 came the 10-year anniversary of entry into force of the Law of Obligations Act, the last of the five parts that make up the Estonian Civil Code Act. The highly significant event for Estonian private law of its entering into force on 1 July 2002, together with the General Part of the Civil Code Act, was celebrated on 29–30 November 2012 in Tartu by an international conference at which the issues of implementation of the act were discussed and the tendencies in development of the right of obligation in Europe were analysed. The Law of Obligations Act may be called a science-based act, since its preparation involved analysis of the law of other countries, the sources of common European contract law and international law, and foreign judicial practice at the level of norms and principles, as well as implementation. This was an act prepared on the principle of the ‘best solution’, one that contributed substantially to the foundation for comparative legal implementation of law and for theoretical studies in comparative law. The method of the best solution has since justified itself, along with adoption of the principles of common European contract law and international trade law. It can be said that efforts to develop direct legal loans, foreign judicial practice, and theoretical views into an internally coherent system that functions without major failures yet can still be called modern and European law in its essence have succeeded. However, it would be incorrect to state that all purposes of the act have been fulfilled—mainly in light of the regulations that have been added later. For instance, the actual purposes of the consumer-protection norms in the Law of Obligations Act and other acts have become questionable, since the solutions provided are ineffective and often discordant with the already developed private-law system. Accordingly, several articles in this issue are dedicated to critical analysis of the purposes of the act and the legal instruments chosen for achieving these purposes.