Economic impossibility in Turkish contract law from the perspective of law and economics

We argue that the proposed introduction of the doctrine of economic impossibility in Article 137 of the reform draft of the Turkish Code of Obligations is in line with economic considerations and facilitates business transactions. This new rule gives courts the explicit power to terminate a contract and relieve the party, which owes specific performance of its obligation, without imposing any duty to pay expectation damages to the other party. We argue that a court??s decision to terminate a contract under economic impossibility should be based on three tests. First, a low-probability-event occurs between contract formation and performance. Second, this event causes an excessive increase in the costs of specific performance. Third, the concept of an excessive increase should take into due consideration the other party??s interest in specific performance. The reform draft includes explicitly the first two tests, but not the third test. We also show under which conditions an excessive performance difficulty should not lead to termination of the contract but rather to an adjustment of the agreed price. We argue that the rule of economic impossibility, if diligently adjudicated, saves the parties transactions costs in comparison to a rule under which the law insists on specific performance or damage payments. We also argue that a specific rule of economic impossibility leads to better and more business-oriented solutions to the underlying problems than the alternative, which is to solve such problems under the broad and unspecific cover of the ??good faith?? or the ??Clausula Rebus Sic Stantibus?? doctrine.     

论处分查封之物的法律效力

在财产被查封的情形,被执行人或所有权人擅自处分查封之物的,不得对抗执行申请人。查封的对抗效力是法律直接规定的结果,同处分权能和合同效力无关。查封不影响被执行人或所有权人的处分权,也不影响处分查封之物基础合同的法律效力。查封具有禁止处分的法律效果,即被执行人或所有权人不得擅自处分查封之物,否则可能引发公法上的责任。在擅自处分查封之物时,善意取得与公示对抗是两种保护善意第三人的模式。从立法论的角度来看,善意取得规则不应也无须适用于查封之物,否则会影响体系融贯,并导致制度重叠问题。查封制度具有独立的善意第三人保护规则,即查封的公示对抗规则。在公示对抗规则之下,执行申请人和善意第三人的利益得到了妥当平衡。     

民法诚信原则与劳动法适用之博弈论纲——以“奋斗者协议”和“自愿弃保”为例

"奋斗者协议"与"自愿弃保"案件背后隐含的法理可简概为民法诚信原则与劳动法适用问题。实践中的误读和误判、《民法典》缺失劳动权(益)之基本民事权利设置、共享经济下新型劳动用工和疫情与后疫情时代之多重叠加效应,导致了劳动法之"衰"与"殇"。民法诚信原则同样适用劳动法含社会保障法,所谓劳动法不能适用该原则或者民法思维模式都是不严谨之"伪"命题。劳动法适用诚信原则应当考量其特殊性,惩戒权适用时,应当遵循比例原则和有利原则,并不得涉及劳动者非职业行为即私人行为和排除社会保障权。任何排除或剥夺劳动者社会保障权的约定或规章都是无效的。后劳动合同义务适用诚信原则不能"选择性""遗漏"抗辩权,如果当事人依法行使抗辩权,则不能裁定其违反了诚信原则,否则就是"伪"民法思维模式。实习关系属于特殊的劳动关系,在实习法律规范严重缺失下,用具有弥补法律不足之价值与功能的诚信原则治理"虚假实习"完全必要而且可行。     

Good Faith and the Ubiquity of the ‘Relational’ Contract

The judgment of Leggatt J in Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corporation Ltd shows the common belief that the English law of contract does not have a doctrine of good faith to be mistaken. That law does not have a general principle of good faith, but its doctrine of good faith, articulated through numerous specific duties, is more suitable for the interpretation of contracts according to the intentions of the parties than a general principle which invites the imposition of exogenous standards. That Yam Seng involved a relational contract does not mean that paternalistic exogenous standards should be imposed. It means that the good faith obligations essential even to a commercial contract of this sort must be implied in order to give efficacy to the fundamentally co‐operative contractual relationship.     

论不公平条款制度——兼论我国显失公平制度之于格式条款

为防止格式条款阻却正义、伤害社会,德国和欧盟法确立了不公平条款制度,通过对违背诚信原则、导致合同权利义务严重失衡的格式条款的否定来控制格式条款的内容,保护弱势合同当事人。我国应当借鉴德国和欧盟法,在格式条款制度之下建构不公平条款制度,而不应将其整合到现行颇具争议的显失公平制度之中。我国不公平条款制度除了建立公平性审查的一般规则外,亦应当建立不公平条款"黑名单"与"灰名单"以及公平性审查之"豁免"规则,为法官、当事人、行政机关和相关社会团体提供法律指引,为格式条款自律、行政监督、公益诉讼和司法审查提供制度支撑。     

射幸合同立法研究

射聿合同的射幸性决定了其订立必须遵循最大诚信原则。射幸合同创设并在当事人间分配射幸性风险时,引发了一些社会问题,需要立法予以规制。判断射幸合同合法性的一般标准是：射幸合同是否严重损害当事人一方利益、他人利益或社会公共利益;某种习俗或习惯法的存在可以推定其社会危害性较轻。根据这一标准,结合不同类型的射幸合同,分别判定其合法性并赋予其不同的法律效果,是未来民法典射幸合同立法的可行选择。     

论《合同法》的诚实信用原则

诚实信用原则是现代民法的最高指导原则,是适用整个民事合同的基本原则。尽管《合同法》的总则、分则的多处条文,对诚实信用原则均有明文规定,但对受主观因素影响较大的诚实信用原则来说,法律的规定显得十分单调、概括。正确理解《合同法》中诚实信用原则的精神,特别是正确掌握诚实信用原则在先合同义务、合同附随义务及后合同义务中的运用,无论对合同当事人还是对裁判人员都无疑具有相当的理论和实践意义。     

论行政契约中行政主体之给付不能

在具体行政契约制度中,行政主体的给付不能之类型不应完全仿民法之立法例,而应根据行政主体之特殊性,结合依法行政原则,将其给付不能区分为法律不能与事实不能两大类型。就法律后果而言,因行政主体在行政契约中的优越地位,故应使其负担更多的契约风险,以平衡行政契约双方当事人的利益。     

论合同法中的可预见规则

可预见规则作为限制违约损害赔偿范围的最重要的标准之一 ,在世界各国民法或合同法中得到了普遍的承认。本文分析了可预见规则的法理基础 ,认为可预见规则的理论依据在于诚实信用原则。可预见规则与因果关系在功能、判断标准、所确定的赔偿范围、保护的重点等方面存在不同。判断是否可预见的因素主要是合同当事人的身份和合同的主要内容。作者主张我国合同法应将故意和重大过失的违约行为排除在可预见规则之外 ,以保护非违约方的利益和平衡双方当事人的利益     

论行政主体的缔约责任——民法缔约过失理论在行政合同制度中的引入与适用

借鉴民法上的缔约责任 ,行政主体的缔约责任是行政主体在缔结行政合同过程中超越缔约规则 ,违反缔约义务 ,给另一方相对人或第三人的利益造成损害所应承担的法律责任。行政主体缔约责任的理论基础是诚信原则和信赖保护原则 ,其中信赖保护的范围更广。行政主体承担缔约责任的前提是违反了缔约义务 ,包括确保缔约程序公正的义务和确保合同合法有效的义务。损害赔偿是行政主体承担缔约责任的方式。     

民事诉讼中确立诚实信用原则理论之嬗变

民事诉讼中的诚实信用原则,是指法院、当事人以及其他诉讼参与人在审理民事案件时必须公正和诚实、善意。滥殇于实体私法领域的诚实信用原则究竟能否延伸至民事诉讼领域的问题,大陆法系的学者们展开了一场颇为激烈的争论。诚实信用原则是民事诉讼中道德原则的法律化,其既能协调诉讼主体的行为,也能协调法院的审判行为,从而保证诉讼的顺利进行,实现诉讼中的公平、公正。为此,在我国民事诉讼法中确立该原则是很有必要性的。     

Insurers, Claims and the Boundaries of Good Faith

This article examines the refusal of the English courts to award damages for consequential losses following unreasonable delay on the part of insurers in settling a claim. This has the potential to give rise to dire consequences for insureds. These difficulties have been addressed in North American jurisdictions where the concept of good faith has been developed and applied as a means of both compensating insureds and regulating the conduct of insurers. However, a hallmark of English law is that it fails to draw a bright line between the law of contract and the law of contracts. As a result, the policy issues that should inform insurance contracts are excluded by virtue of the notion, imported from the law of contract, that the contractual relationship is a matter of private law and is not, therefore, a means for public regulation of insurers.     

'Good Faith' in the WTO Jurisprudence - Necessary Balancing Element or an Open Door to Judicial Activism?

The purpose of the article is two-fold: first, it seeks to clarifyand structure those contexts in which the principle of goodfaith has entered the WTO jurisprudence; and second, it presentsan analysis of the potential effects and risks accompanyingthis entrance, such as the allegation of judicial activism onthe part of the panels or the Appellate Body and the viabilityof a distinction between violation and non-violation cases.It attempts to define the framework within which a suitableconcept for the application of good faith must be found andexplores the conclusion that thus far the Appellate Body hasapplied good faith with the necessary caution. However, it cautionsthe necessity of avoiding an overbroad use of the concept andmandates the requirement for the judicial bodies to articulatemore clearly the content attributed to the concept in a particularcase and the legal consequences thereof than it has done thusfar. Finally this article urges the judicial bodies to avoidthe idea of an abstract obligation of good faith that adds somethingto the obligation under the WTO Agreements. This would accordwith the traditional international law understanding of whatthe application of the good faith principle implies.     

最大诚信原则在海上保险合同履行过程中的适用

最大诚信原则是海上保险合同的一项基本原则。本文结合英国法中的相关观点和判例,对我国法律下海上保险合同履行过程中的最大诚信原则应包含的具体内容进行了探讨和研究。     

Dealing with cryopreserved embryos upon divorce: a contractual approach aimed at preserving party expectations

The development of assisted reproductive technologies, including cryopreservation, or freezing, of embryos created through in vitro fertilization, has given rise to complex legal questions. Because cryopreservation permits indefinite storage of embryos, if couples fail to specify disposition directions, they may disagree regarding embryo treatment upon the occurrence of contingencies such as divorce. Few courts have resolved such disputes, and those that have appear to uphold the rights of the party seeking to prevent implantation in the absence of a written agreement specifying otherwise. In this Comment, Sara Petersen proposes that courts should draw upon contract law principles in determining whether the parties to such conflicts actually reached agreements regarding embryo disposition in the event of divorce. After analyzing existing precedent, the author assesses proposed approaches for deciding which party's interests should prevail and concludes that these methods are inherently ineffective. She then argues that, in an effort to preserve party expectations and to provide fair results, courts instead should examine whether the parties executed binding contracts or achieved mutual assent. Furthermore, she suggests that couples undergoing cryopreservation will be more likely to contemplate and to provide for various outcomes if they know that courts will look at evidence of their conversations and thought processes prior to cryopreserving their excess embryos.     

合同成立探微

本文赞同当事人、意思表示一致和标的共同构成合同成立要件。无视标的作为合同的元素会带来不小的负面后果。意思表示一致即合意,对其判断和把握,在绝大多数的情况下,客观说/表示内容的一致论对双方当事人的利益平衡得更好,在合同欺诈、胁迫等场合采主观说/内心意思的一致论较为妥当。中国法及其理论也应当如此区分类型,确定有所差异的法律后果。在通常情况下,沉默不构成承诺,因为要约人没有理由因为受要约人的沉默而相信受要约人做出了承诺。而且,要约人无法通过约定沉默构成承诺以免受要约人不经意间做出承诺。但在特殊的情况下,可以将沉默视为承诺,如双方当事人之间已经形成如下交易惯例,或当地业已存在着如下交易习惯:一方当事人向相对人发出要约,相对人未在要约指定的期间内答复也视为接受。在这种背景下,受要约人在收到要约后沉默,视为已经承诺。关于确认书的地位及效力,本文认为,在有确认书的场合,合同何时成立,首先由当事人的意思表示来决定,由于于此场合不涉及公序良俗的问题,应当贯彻意思自治原则。如果通过解释当事人的意思这条路径仍难得出妥当的结论,则有必要借鉴德国和美国的立法、判例和学说所形成的规则或意见,丰富中国民法的理论,服务于中国民法的实践。     

论违约方解除权的教义学构造

违约方解除权本为我国司法实践和学说理论发展出的规则,而《民法典》第580条第2款则是该规则的立法表达。违约方解除权是履行障碍抗辩制度的加重规则,其赋予债务人相较于抗辩权更为强力的救济即解除权。一方面,违约方解除权可以化解合同僵局,促进资源流通整合,体现了效率原则的要求;另一方面,它防止债权人利用合同僵局不正当地损害债务人利益,并鼓励双方善意合作,因此亦建立在诚实信用原则之上。《民法典》第580条第2款是关于违约方解除权的规定,其并非继续性合同重大事由终止规则。违约方解除权也应当与法定解除权截然区分。违约方解除权的适用一方面以履行障碍抗辩事由的存在为前提,另一方面则以合同目的不能实现、债务人非恶意违约和债权人不解除合同违反诚实信用原则为要件。违约方解除合同的法律效果是合同进入返还清算关系。     

保证保险合同若干法律问题研究

保证保险一般作为分期付款消费的一种履约担保,由于当前没有调整此类合同关系的相关法律规定,审判实践中做法各异,相同类型的案件常常在不同法院中出现不同的判决结果。对此,有必要对保证保险合同的性质、法律适用、合同的独立性和各合同主体的诉讼地位等实践中争议较大的法律问题进行比较分析,以期为当前法院审理车贷案件提供理论上的参考。     

一审判决效力与二审中的诉讼外和解协议最高人民法院公布的2号指导案例评析

对指导案例2号归纳的程序规则,理论上可用"执行力替代说"来加以说明。引入诚实信用原则并明确其在法律解释中的作用亦为本案的靓点之一。指导性案例应当随时间的推移而呈现出系列性,使规则的流变和连续这两种司法实务的需要有机地结合起来。在此意义上,本案能够成为程序规则发展的一个起点或中间项。通过对案情基本事实多种演化形态的示例性延伸,本案程序规则的内容及其参照运用能够体现出微妙地调整变化却又保持前后一贯稳定性的独特机制和作用。本案所提炼出来的裁判规则既可能循着诚实信用原则的实质化、要件化这一路径发展,也可能根据司法实务中对"撤回上诉还是撤回原审起诉"的现实问题作出的回答而演变。对指导案例2号的分析表明,可以把"类似"或"参照"等对指导性案例制度具有重要意义的关键概念逐渐地加以具体化和类型化。     

保险法最大诚信原则之审思

最大诚信原则为保险法基本原则之一,此观点几近为国内保险法学界通说,其存在理由包括保险合同的高度信息不对称性、射幸性、格式性等诸多理论,但相关理论均不足以作为解释其存在的依据。从最大诚信原则的核心规则来看,无论是告知义务、说明义务、还是弃权与禁止反言,亦不足以支撑其存在。最大诚信原则之称谓在理论与实践层面均具有巨大潜在危害性,应以诚信原则取代之。