Parties’ legal capacity in electronic commerce transactions

The aim of this article is to scrutinise the uncertainty of the Iranian Electronic Commerce Law (IRI ECL 2004) provisions especially on the issue of capacity of parties. Issues of parties’ legal capacity have been resolved in traditional contracts but they are still debatable in electronic commerce transactions. Under UK law, contracts formed by minors for things other than necessities are unenforceable against the minor but enforceable against the merchant (seller) while according to US uniform commercial code in online contracts capacity is not recognized as a legal excuse to nullify a contract. At the mean time, contracts made by incapacitate person is considered null under Iranian law. In spite of technical developments such as digital signatures and smart cards used in verifying the identity and capacity of parties in electronic commerce transactions, the legal certainty on capacity of parties is still questionable. The article also examines the application of traditional contract general rules on parties’ legal capacity in Iran to electronic commerce with reference to EU law. The EU law which is already at an advance stage serves a guide for future development of e-commerce law in Iran.     

From old to new: From internet to smart contracts and from people to smart contracts

Discussing legal issues related to smart contracts on the blockchain is very topical. This article will discuss primarily smart contracts on the blockchain the conclusion and execution of which does not interact with the physical world, as well as briefly touch upon smart contracts on the blockchain which do interact with the physical world. For these smart contracts, it will be determined to what extent existing EU internet laws can help support their development and if not, what is needed to support this. In order to answer this question, the following will be discussed: the rise of e-commerce and in particular the EU internet laws supporting and regulating e-commerce, how smart contracts work and how smart contracts compare with existing technological developments and comparable legal constructs (internet, bank accounts and bank guarantees). Subsequently, it will be explained how the use of smart contracts leads to a shift of confidence, from trust in people to trust in code. On the basis of The DAO hack and the problems that arose, it will be illustrated that this shift to trust in code is not as absolute as is often thought. The article concludes that applying specific EU laws on supporting and regulating e-commerce to smart contracts is difficult for two reasons. First of all, the starting points differ: trust in people versus trust in code. Secondly, technical and practical obstacles often inhibit applying internet laws in a meaningful manner. When using smart contracts, it makes more sense to prevent problems from arising than to correct them afterwards. For this reason, it is advocated that programmers work together with lawyers to create better smart contracts and that the legislator focuses on laws dealing with auditing smart contracts code by trusted third parties and automatically equating smart contracts with written contracts with wet ink signatures. This will hopefully facilitate the rise of smart contracts on the blockchain.     

Creating markets in no-trust environments: The law and economics of smart contracts

Smart contracts, self-executing agreements based on blockchain technology, have the capacity to create trust in what we term no-trust contracting environments. We argue that using them in such environments is the path to unleash the full potential of smart contracts. Compared to the contract enforcement mechanisms characterized by traditional contract law or relational contracts, smart contracts can offer a superior solution for facilitating trade.Several lawyers and economists have debated whether smart contracts might offer the prospect of cheaper, faster and better transactions. As we discuss below, contract law scholars caution that they neither replicate the relational context essential for the day-to-day practice of contracting nor offer a superior solution to problems addressed by traditional contract law, such as contract validity and legality. We clarify and systematize the current thinking on the legal nature and reliability of smart contracts, and address the concerns of contract law scholars. While doing that, we suggest a step forward in characterizing contracting environments, contract enforcement mechanisms and the trust relationship underlying contracts.     

自然人书面契约取信方式研究

印章文化在我国源远流长,其中公章自古至今为实用而治,私章则经历了一个从实用到艺术的转变过程。我国古代书面契约的取信方式历经变化,但私章讫未成为公认的取信手段。西方国家在法律史上曾有盖印取信的制度,但当今通行的法定取信手段则是签名。我国现行法上的书面契约取信方式兼采签名和盖章。私章自身的内在局限及签名取信的多维优势,决定了签名取代私章的必然。自然人主体书面契约的取信方式统一于签名,是法律体系内部相协调的需要,并可以获得法律解释理论上的有力支撑。     

论智能合约的私法构造

智能合约是一种通过区块链才能实现的新技术,在技术上是一种可编程的代码程序,在法律上是一种特殊的身份合同。其藉由特定当事人之间形成的共识机制,实现了对当事人身份的识别,促成了智能合约难以逆转的自动执行,并在事实上排除了当事人的合同撤销权,成为跨越合同订立、合同履行两个领域的新型交易机制。智能合约对传统合同法理论带来了巨大冲击和挑战,却不足以支撑"技术自治"或"代码即法律"等学术主张,也不足以否定实定法对智能合约的正当干预。在现行合同法框架下,仍然存在对智能合约及交易作出妥当解释的空间。除此以外,在智能合约的私法构造中,应当引入团体法思想,认可社团主义的自治机能,构建以"信赖保护"为核心的救济机制,实现法律与技术的同步发展。     

论外商投资合同法律效力争议解决

本文所称外商投资合同法律效力争议,是一个较为宽泛的概念,它不仅包括外商在中国境内直接投资签署的中外合资/合作经营企业合同及其变更的法律效力所产生之争议,也包括外资并购合同法律效力产生之争议,还包括外商投资中企境外企业所签署的合同法律效力所产生之争议。本文意图通过对上述三种不同形式的外商投资合同法律效力所产生之争议的不同方面进行比较研究,从而找出正确的解决这些争议的方法,以供业内人士、仲裁员、律师参考。     

Keeping mum about dad: "contracts" to protect gamete donor anonymity

This article considers the legal status of so-called contracts for anonymity between fertility clinics and donors of gametes that were made in the period before legislation authorising disclosure. It notes that while clinics frequently cite the existence of these "contracts" to argue against retrospective legislation authorising disclosure of the donor's identity, they may be nothing more than one-sided statements of informed consent. However, the article notes that even if an agreement between a donor and a clinic is not contractual, it does not follow that a person conceived through assisted reproductive technology has any right of access to the identity of the donor. The writer has not been able to locate examples of written promises by the clinics promising anonymity. There are written promises by the donors not to seek the identity of the recipients. These promises do not bind the resulting offspring nor do they appear to be supported by consideration. The article suggests that the basis for any individual donor to restrain a clinic from revealing their identity may be found in promissory estoppel. Nevertheless, there is no real issue in Australia concerning clinics revealing these details absent legislative authority. The issue is whether parliaments will legislate to authorise the disclosure. The article notes that it would be rare for parliaments to legislate to overturn existing legal contracts but suggests that the contract argument may not be as strong as has been thought.     

《民法典》第157条(法律行为无效之法律后果)评注

本条中“民事法律行为”既包括财产行为也包括身份行为,既包括负担行为也包括处分行为;“确定不发生效力”既包括效力待定法律行为终未获追认、已成立终未获审批的情形,也包括法律行为未成立的情形。本条中“财产”包括一切可转让的利益,就权利移转型合同而言,财产返还请求权系物权性的回复原状请求权,它主要指有形财产的占有回复和权利簿册记载的回复。折价补偿请求权为特殊的不当得利请求权,在合同无效清算场合,应一般性禁用《民法典》第986条得利丧失抗辩规则。损害赔偿请求权是一种特殊的缔约过失赔偿请求权,可适用于双方明知或应知合同违法、背俗而无效的场合。本条并非宣示性条款,它规定了三项独立的请求权基础。在法律对建设工程合同等特殊合同以及其他法律行为无效另有特别规定时,应各依该特别规定处理。     

论和解合同

和解合同是当事人约定相互让步,以终止争执或排除法律关系不明确之状态的合同。构成和解合同,第一须有争执或法律关系不明确的状态的存在;第二须有终止争执或排除法律关系不明确状态的意思;第三须有相互让步。和解合同不必定为债权合同,而是有可能为物权合同或准物权合同;和解合同不必定为双务合同;和解合同为不要式合同。和解合同的典型内容为确定效力。     

论违法与合法间的工程承包方式：承包联营

承包联营是目前建设工程领域普遍存在但性质尚难界定的一种工程承包方式，因其常与挂靠、转包、违法分包等非法承包形式联系在一起，其合法性总是受到质疑.本文试图封承包联营方式进行合法性重构和规范，构建新的承包联营制度，以期优化建设工程领域的资源配置，实现工程理论法学研究的现实价值。     

从传统合同到智能合同:由事后法院裁判到事前自动履行的转变

传统合同需要当事人履行具体义务以促使合同目的的实现,且允许各方在现实环境发生变化时加入新的合意或对原合同条款进行修改,产生纠纷后也可以依据法院的裁判机制使权利义务关系趋于平衡。但是,区块链技术的兴起使智能合同能够自动履行当事人约定的各项内容,对纠纷的解决也可以按照合同订立时确定的救济方式自动进行,甚至无需法院的裁判支持。从传统合同到智能合同,最显著的变革在于由事后法院裁判到事前自动履行的转变。技术的进步使法院裁判机制作为权利保障后盾的重要地位受到冲击,智能合同的事前自动履行具有高效率、低成本的优势,为商业世界的交易活动提供新的可能,具有极大的发展潜力。     

论医学院校科研合同的法律风险防范

加强医学院校科研合同的法律风险防范对于促进科研工作的良性发展和推动依法治校具有积极作用。这类合同有其独特的特点,本文对这类合同常见的几个法律风险予以分析并提出了相应的建议。     

Organized futures contracting

Futures markets play an important role in shifting risk and facilitating exchange. Yet despite their growing importance economists do not yet possess a satisfactory theory of the evolution and growth of futures markets.¹ In the law-and-economics literature there is an assumption that parties will seek to specify their obligations completely or else rely on the terms implied by contract law.² The idea that institutions will develop to deal with contractual problems (including the inefficiencies of contract law) has only recently been explored.³ Futures contracts are contracts designed to separate one aspect of exchange that is particularly susceptible to enforcement problems-price volatility. It does this in a way that allows little scope for the intervention of the formal legal rules of contract law since trading in and the resolution of disputes concerning futures contracts are governed by the rules of the exchange. In fact, many futures contracts, especially the newer varieties, may well be deemed wagering contracts and hence null and void under the usual rules of contract law.⁴In this article the structure of organized futures contracting will be examined to see how it deals with the enforcement problems that arise when exchange is subject to the risk of price volatility.⁵     

试论我国内地、港、澳三地合同的法律冲突及其解决

我国内地、香港、澳门三地的合同法律制度有较大的差异,主要表现在合同的订立、合同的形式、合同当事人的能力等方面均有所不同,法律冲突在所难免。解决三地合同的法律适用问题的首要原则是意思自治原则,最密切联系原则应作为意思自治原则的补充,有些合同有其特殊性,可做例外处理,直接指出其应适用的法律。     

Towards a European Law of Contracts

Abstract: European contract law has recently been the subject of increasing attention and intense debate. In addressing this issue, the following contribution departs from traditional analyses of the necessity, feasibility, and opportunity to harmonise national legislation on contractual relations. Instead, the author seeks to demonstrate that, with the objective of promoting the internal market and developing trade within it, EC authorities have long since given birth to a genuine European contract law. Beginning with the analysis of a body of EC directives, this article argues that the genuine nature of this law can be ascertained despite its limits or rather by taking these limits into account. The important rights granted to different contracting parties (consumer‐purchaser, consumer‐tourist, and certain professionals) stand in contrast to the formal incoherence and fragmented character of the legal texts. The article concludes that, in analysing the notion of European contact law, it is necessary to adapt a functional approach rather than a formal one, because the functional approach has dominated European integration and the European law of contracts since its inception.     

浅议《合同法》框架下的智能合约适用问题

智能合约是运行在区块链上能够自动履行合同义务的新型合同,因其具备"自动履行"和"去中心化"等优势,故可降低合同履行成本、提高合同运行效率,但也导致了智能合约难以直接适用现行合同制度的订立规则、生效要件和救济方式等问题。本文从理论角度分析了智能合约的运行过程,通过对合同法理论的解释使智能合约与合同制度相契合;从技术角度分析了智能合约的原理与架构,利用技术手段对其进行修正,使智能合约符合《合同法》的规定。     

网络服务合同中不平等条款的类型及其法律规制——以虚拟财产权的保护为视角

网络服务合同是确立网络运营商与用户双方权利义务的协议,是用户行使及保护其虚拟财产权的重要依托。实务中由于网络服务合同缺乏完善的法律规范,导致其中存在大量不公平的争议条款,当法律纠纷出现时,严重不利于用户对其虚拟财产权的保护与行使。如何在法律上对网络服务合同进行规制以及在司法实践中如何认定部分争议类型条款的有效性将是保护网络虚拟财产的重中之重。正基于此,在分析网络服务合同与虚拟财产权保护的主要矛盾,探讨网络服务合同中部分争议类型条款之后,对网络服务合同的法律规范提出相关建议。     

Origin Myths,Contracts, and the Hunt for Pari Passu

We use interviews with corporate lawyers and a data set of contracts to explore an elite area of legal practice: sovereign bond lending. Sovereign debt lawyers work at prestigious global law firms, yet the contracts they produce include some terms that defy explanation. Lawyers often account for the existence of these terms through origin myths. Focusing on one contract term, the pari passu clause, we explore two puzzling aspects of these myths. First, we demonstrate that the myths are inaccurate as to both the clause's origin and the role of lawyers in contract drafting. Second, the myths often are unflattering, inaccurately portraying lawyers as engaged in little more than rote copying. We probe this disjuncture between the myths and lawyers' actual practices and explore why contracts origin myths might hold such appeal for this elite segment of the bar.     

论合同效力类型体系的重构*--认真对待合同的法律约束力

现有合同效力类型体系不够科学,有必要重构。合同的效力类型应划分为三类五种。合同有效（广义）包括依法成立的合同的有效（狭义）和可撤销合同的有效。合同效力待定实为法律约束力待定。合同无效（广义）包括合同绝对无效（狭义）和相对无效。此“三类五种体系”始终以合同的“法律约束力”为基点,与现有的以“生效”为基点的合同效力类型体系均截然有别。该体系还表明,合同有效乃生效的必要前提。应当承认合同有效乃介于合同成立与合同生效之间的独立的效力层次。