社会主义市场经济和合同自由原则

合同自由原则起源干罗马法，伴随着资本主义的兴起而获得极大的发展，以《法国民法典》为代表的近代民商法将其奉为合同制度中至高无上的基本原则。随着工商业的发展，合同自由原则受到了限制，但仍然被誉为近代合同法一切制度的核心。我国现在正处于建设有中国特色的社会主义进程中，经济上由单一计划经济转向市场经济，在合同法中明确规定合同自由原则是完全有必要的。一、合同自由原则的发展历程合同自由原则最早起源于罗马法。在优土丁尼《民法大全》有关涝成契约（ContractusConsensu）的规定中已基本包括了现代契约自由的思想。在诺…     

试论合同法中的诚实信用原则--从规范的角度进行分析

诚实信用原则起源于罗马法,确立于1907年的<瑞士民法典>.作为合同法基本原则的诚实信用原则,在不同的国家有着不同的立法表达方式,我国现行<合同法>规定的体系完整的义务群,是诚实信用原则的很好体现.诚实信用原则与合同法规范在产生依据、表现方式、适用等方面有着诸多不同的特点在我国合同法中,诚实信用原则具有重要的功能,它是合同当事人的行为准则,是立法者保证合同法内在精神统一性的重要概念和技术手段,是授予、也是限制法官自由裁量权的依据.     

合同自由原则的限制及其与诚实信用原则的关系

<正> 合同自由原则被誉为近代合同法一切制度的核心。它起源于罗马法,伴随资本主义的兴起而获得极大的发展,以《法国民法典》为代表的近代民商法将其奉为合同制度中至高无上的基本原则。然而,进入20世纪后(实际上这种趋势从19世纪末就开始了),合同自由原则受到越来越大的限制。与此同时,诚实信用原则等一般条款在现代合同法中崛起,其适用的结果使得合同制度中出现许多传统合同法理论无法推导出的责任形式,对于合同自由原则进行了全面的修正,其地位之尊,被誉为“帝王条款”。对于这一现象,有人惊呼为“合同的衷落”,甚至“合同的死亡”。笔者以为,现代合同法中合同自由原则的限制及其与诚实信用原则的关系,是合同法的一个基本理论问题。目前,我国正在制订统一的《合同法》,因此,探讨这个问题也不乏现实意义。     

论合同自由原则的限制

合同自由是合同法的基本原则之一,体现了国家对合同当事人意志的尊重,也体现了私法的意思自治。合同自由原则的出现具有一定的经济基础和思想基础,但是纯粹的、完全的合同自由已经不存在了,合同自由原则受到了来自公法上和私法上的多重限制,对合同自由原则进行限制的目的是为了实现法律上的利益平衡。合同自由原则的限制反映在很多方面,例如合同法其他原则对合同自由的限制、合同法上格式合同制度、强制缔约制度等对合同自由的限制等等。我国合同法既没有明确表示合同自由原则,也没有明确规定合同自由受到限制,因此我国合同法还有待进一步完善,建议在将来的《民法典》中明确规定合同自由原则及其限制。     

发生情事变更时可依诚实信用原则变更合同条款

【裁判要旨】合同法强调契约自由的同时亦重视契约正义,契约自由的目的正是为了追求契约正义。对于丧失契约正义的合同,法律应予以救济。当发生情事变更导致合同利益关系严重失衡时,可以依据诚实信用原则变更合同条款,以维护契约正义。     

允诺原则之历史解释

允诺原则的核心并不在于承认人们自我设定义务的自由,而是法律在何种情形下才能赋予允诺以强制执行力.罗马法中,不管是契约还是单方允诺,其效力的产生均不以允诺为出发点.在中世纪,教会法从道德和神学的角度赋予一切允诺以约束力,泛化了允诺的道德效力;教会法学家通过对“允诺原因”的锤炼、借用福音告发制度整体推进了允诺制度的构建,允诺原则得到贯彻.近代自然法学家区分被接受的允诺与未被接受的允诺,并深刻影响各国立法:前者被纳入契约框架从而形成契约原则,后者则被称为“单方允诺”,成为契约原则之例外,允诺原则由此受到限定.现代法对允诺原则的贯彻程度不尽相同,一些国家的立法承认单方允诺是与契约平行的特殊债因,契约原则对允诺原则的限定有所放松.允诺原则之历史解释可以为未来中国债法中契约与单方允诺制度的构建指明选择方向.     

合同法中诚实信用原则对契约自由原则的限制

17世纪至18世纪的启蒙时代,随着商品经济的发展,契约自由原则被确立为私法自治的核心原则。但当时在个人本位的历史条件下,契约自由原则被绝对化,到资本主义垄断时期,契约自由原则就遭到了质疑。随着罗马法发展,诚实信用原则对交易的当事人和法官裁量案件提供了法律上的补充,其规范了合同的缔结、履行、终止及终止之后的整个过程。     

浅论现代合同法对合同自由原则的限制

合同自由原则是合同法最重要的原则,在社会经济急剧变化的今天,合同自由受到了极大的限制,于是出现了契约死亡的论断。然而,目前合同自由虽受到一定的限制,但其基本原则的地位并未动摇。     

格式条款无效问题的研究

契约自由原则是合同法的重要原则，但是随着商品经济的发展，格式奈款应运而生，它的出现在对契约自由原则产生冲击的同时对合同法的发展也产生了重要影响，所以各国法律在承认格式条款存在的基础上，又严格规定了无效的格式条款，我国合同法也对无效格式条款的构成要件进行了相应的规定，但不够完整，本文拟依据《合同法》的规定对格式条款无效问题试作探讨。     

违约责任归责原则之再检讨

无论是对于法学理论还是司法实务的视角而言,违约责任都是合同法的核心问题,而对于未履行或者未完全履行其合同义务之一方当事人而言是否需要承担相应之违约责任又取决于合同法所采纳之"归责原则"。对于我国《合同法》所采纳之归责原则向来有不同之看法,而且在合同起草的过程中争论也非常激烈,当前学说上通说认为违约责任归责原则系无过失责任或者说是严格责任。有鉴于归责原则直接决定着违约方是否承担违约责任从而也决定着交易中所产生之风险的负担问题,对于当事人双方利益至巨。本文详细考察了合同法上各种有名合同的具体归责原则,从而最终得出合同法上的违约责任归责原则。文章认为在契约自由原则或者说私法自治原则下,违约方是否承担违约责任、在何种情形下承担违约责任、承担何种形式之违约责任、交易中的风险如何分配等问题均取决于当事人的约定,而在当事人约定不明时法官则应当通过解释当事人之合同探求当事人之真实意思而加以确定,在确实无法探明当事人之意思时法律则应当依据不同之合同而模拟当事人通常所有之意思而加以规范,而不是整齐划一地加以规范,否则必将抑制交易之多样性。     

The contract theory of patents

Two distinct theories of patents, the “reward theory” and the “contract theory,” are customarily adopted by the courts to justify the patent system. The reward theory maintains that the function of the patent system is to remunerate successful innovators so as to encourage R&D effort. In contrast, the contract theory holds that the function of the patent system is to promote the diffusion of innovative knowledge. Assuming that in the absence of patent protection innovators would rely on trade secrecy, it views patents as a contract between innovators and society whereby a property right is granted in exchange for disclosure.This paper develops an economic analysis of the contract theory of patents. To disentangle the disclosure from the reward motive for granting patents, we assume that the innovation process is entirely serendipitous, so that R&D effort is not a concern. Our main finding is that the disclosure motive alone suffices to justify the grant of patents. The optimal patent duration should strike a balance between the incentive to induce disclosure and the aim of limiting the monopoly distortion induced by patents.     

The risks of contract law

The economic analysis of law may be able to provide some reason why it is efficient to enforce wholly executory contracts, but (I submit) it has not done so.     

Absolute liability in contract

Kingship, Law and Society: Criminal Justice in the Reign of Henry V. Edward Powell. Oxford. 1989. Clarendon Press, xii + 319 pp. (incl. index). £35.00 cased.

Sir Henry Maine: A Study of Victorian Jurisprudence. R.C.J. Cocks. Cambridge. 1988. Cambridge University Press, viii + 224 pp. (incl. index). £25/$49.50 cased.

The Birth of the English Common Law (2nd ed). R. C. Van Caenegem. Cambridge. 1988. Cambridge University Press, xviii + 160 pp. (incl. index). £27.50/ $39.50 cased, £9.50/$13.95 limp.

Inventing the Industrial Revolution. The English Patent System 1660–1800. Christine Macleod. Cambridge. 1988. Cambridge University Press, xii + 302 pp. £25 cased.

The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany. D.P. KOMMERS. Duke University Press. 1990. xxxvi + 590 pp. (incl. index). £29.25 paperback.

Sokrates. Johannes Irmscher. (3rd ed.) Leipzig. 1989. Verlag Phillip Reclam jr. 120 pp. (inch index).

The Welsh Laws. T.M. Charles‐Edwards. Cardiff. 1990. The University of Wales Press for the Welsh Arts Council. 106pp. £3.50 limp.     

论违约责任

随着中国市场经济的发展，世界一体化进程的加快，以及中国成功加入世贸组织，合同与各种市场主体乃至寻常百姓的接触越来越频繁，越来越密切。而违约责任约定则是一份合同的核心所在，一份完备的合同离不开具体、有效的违约责任条款。笔者拟从违约责任的要件、责任承担方式、几种违约方式的适用、损失赔偿范围等几个方面封《合同法》中的违约责任追行分析，最后就如何在合同中合法、有效地约定违约责任提出一些建议，以最大限度保护守约方的合法权益。     

The limits of contract law harmonization

Contract law harmonization in the European Union has met with some significant but limited success. This Essay explores some of the psychological and political forces that can complicate or even hinder law reform efforts. Even when there is a general institutional drive for law reform, as there is in the EU, scarce reform resources force attention to be focused on salient issues, while a status quo bias in individual member states by government officials can provide a braking inertia regarding nonsalient legal reforms. This braking influence can be seized upon and enhanced by interest groups that oppose reforms, especially where there is an alternative to proposed law reforms for private entities. In the case of contract law harmonization, contract doctrine that is not focused on providing consumer protections remain nonsalient, commercial entities can solve the confusion of diverse laws by choosing their own, and interest groups in nations whose laws and dispute resolution forums are commonly chosen will oppose harmonization. Thus, the current state of affairs may prove relatively difficult to alter.     

Governmental liability for breach of contract

Government contracts are subject to a number of legal rulesthat have no private sector analogues and that have receivedvirtually no attention from law and economics scholar. Thisarticle explores these rules from an economic perspective, withspecial attention to the leading modern case on the subject,United States v. Winstar. The analysis emphasizes a number ofdifferences between governmental and private actors that haveimportant implications for the wisdom of applying conventionalbreach of contract remedies to the government. These differencesafford plausible efficiency justifications, in our view, formany of the most important doctrines governing government contracts.Some of these doctrines help to impede the use of long-termcontracts to insulate inefficient rent-seeking arrangementsagainst subsequent attack, some seem to prevent the governmentfrom inefficiently contracting away its ability to respond tonew information, and others seem to work a sensible allocationbetween the government and private contractors of the risk thatgovernment may change its policies. Not all doctrines and decisionscan be justified in this fashion, however, and we do not meanto claim that the existing body of law is in any sense optimal.Indeed, the Winstar decision itself seems quite mistaken froman economic standpoint. The considerations that we develop haveimplications for a number of related legal issues. Not all ofthese implications are developed here, but we do consider modernlitigation under the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitutionas well as the recent academic debate about the wisdom of retroactivetaxation.     

论行政合同的基本特性

行政合同是行政主体为直接实现行政的目的或单纯为行政事务与他方订立的合同。在行政主体合同权利的限制、行政主体在合同中的特权、合同的瑕疵与救济方面,行政合同均存在有别于普通合同的特性。这些特性意味着行政合同具备自身存在的理论基础和实践价值。     

劳动合同法律适用问题研究

劳动合同的法律适用问题,一直存有争议.<劳动合同法>颁布实施后,争议并未随之消除.只有处理好劳动合同的法律适用问题,实践中才能公平、有效的解决劳动争议.笔者以劳动合同与雇佣契约的关系为切入点,试图通过阐明劳动合同的法律属性,来明确劳动合同关系的法律适用准则.