The Freedom to Circulate Documents: Regulating Contracts in Europe

Abstract:  Evidence collected by the European Commission indicates that insofar as the diversity between laws of national legal systems presents an obstacle to trade in the Internal Market, the problem consists of the inability of businesses to use their standard terms of business in cross-border trade with confidence. It is suggested that the solution to this problem lies not in legal integration through harmonisation of the private law of contract, but rather through the creation of procedures for autonomous agreements under which representatives of parties to standard types of contracts can agree upon model contracts containing fair ancillary terms.     

The Transformation of Private Law Through Competition

This paper traces the changing role of competition and its effects on private law in three different stages of the Internal Market project: (1) the promotion of competition in the original Internal Market both via contracts (competitive contract law) and through competition among legal orders (Common European Sales Law); (2) the suspension of competition in the face of financial crisis; and (3) the revitalisation of competition in the Digital Single Market. Private law—broadly understood as regulatory private law—is being deployed to achieve competing, if not conflicting, policy goals. At this stage, it is not possible, nor would it be desirable, to provide a coherent account of these phenomena. Clear‐cut overarching values cannot be identified either. Transformation through competition is just another take on European experimentalism.     

The Proposed ‘Common European Sales Law’: Legal Framework and the Agreement of the Parties

The European Commission's Proposal for a Regulation on a Common European Sales Law (‘CESL’) seeks to create a European scheme of contract law available for parties to choose to govern cross‐border contracts for the sale of goods, supply of ‘digital content,’ and for the supply of related services. This article explains the background to the Proposal, sketches out the purposes and scope of the CESL, and considers and criticises its legal framework (and in particular its relationship with private international law) and the key requirement of the parties’ agreement. In the author's view, the CESL scheme remains an unconvincing basis for the achievement of its economic purposes and, as regards consumer contracts, puts too much reliance on the agreement of the consumer as a justification for the loss of their existing protection under EU private international law rules.     

Will firms consider a European optional instrument in contract law?

The diversity of contract laws is said by the Commission to discourage cross-border trade and hinder the development by SMEs of a pan-European commercial policy. An optional instrument containing both facilitative general contract rules and mandatory consumer protection rules, one of the solutions proposed by the Commission, is gaining rapid support from key stakeholders. Drawing from firms?? own views on the problems of legal diversity, and insights from organisational science, this article sets out the circumstances in which firms will likely consider a European optional code. Results are mixed: some firms may consider it, while others may ignore it. Much depends the firm??s aspirations (i.e. SMEs cannot be assumed as-yet to have pan-European aspirations), how the firm perceives the problems of legal diversity, and how it searches for and decides upon solutions. It would appear that a European optional instrument may not be as useful or widely considered as its proponents would like to believe.     

出卖人的物的瑕疵担保责任与我国合同法

出卖人的物的瑕疵担保责任在我国合同法上已经被统合进了违约责任,我国法奉行的是违约责任“单轨制”,而不是违约责任与瑕疵担保责任并存的“双轨制”。我国法上的违约责任是一个统一的概念,应当作统一的解释,不宜人为地制造分裂。解释论上主张物的瑕疵担保责任相对独立存在,是在变相地肯定“双轨制”,本身是一种叠床架屋的构造。     

A Toolbox for European Judges

The forthcoming instrument on European contract law, be it in the shape of an optional code for cross‐border contracts or as an official toolbox for the European legislator, is likely to have a spill‐over effect on private law adjudication in Europe. Judges will have no great difficulty in finding model rules and definitions that might come in handy when dealing with gaps and ambiguities in European private law. However, the question is whether such a role as a toolbox for judges would be legitimate. I discuss three types of possible legitimation strategies: traditional methods of legal interpretation, the new European methods and merely political legitimation. It will often depend on the circumstances of the case at hand and the characteristics of the particular model rule or definition that is being borrowed what mode of legitimation will prove to be more convincing. However, generally speaking legitimation in terms of the ‘general principles of civil law’ that the CJEU has recently been developing seems a particularly promising strategy. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that European courts could come under a duty, following from the principle of sincere cooperation, to use the instrument as a toolbox.     

评《合同法》与《联合国货物销售合同公约》合同形式的冲突与协调

本文提出新《合同法》的买卖合同形式规定已经与《联合国货物销售合同公约》（ 以下简称《公约》） 的规定相吻合,因而,应撤销基于旧合同而对《联合国货物销售合同公约》声明保留的内容。此外,文章还对国内法与国际条约的四种关系模式及我国立法的取向进行了论述。     

An optional European contract law code: Advantages and disadvantages

Should the EU introduce an Optional European Contract Law Code and what should it look like? By applying economic theories of federalism and regulatory competition (legal federalism), it is shown why an Optional Code would be a very suitable legal instrument within a two-level European System of Contract Laws. By allowing private parties’ choice of law to a certain extent, it can combine the most important advantages of centralisation and decentralisation of competences for legal rules. Through differentiated analyses of three kinds of contract law rules (mandatory substantive rules, mandatory information rules and facilitative law), important conclusions can be reached: which kinds of contract law rules are most suitable to be applied on an optional basis (e.g. facilitative law) and which might be less so (e.g. a core of information regulations). Furthermore a number of additional general conclusions about the design and scope of an Optional EU Code and some conclusions in regard to sales law are derived.     

Telecommunications terminal equipment: EEC commission opens the market

The 12 Member States of the European Economic Community (EEC) are legally obliged by the Treaty of Rome, as amended by the Single European Act, to abolish all of the remaining physical, technical and fiscal barriers between them by 31 December 1992. The Single European Act, which sets the 1992 deadline, defines the envisaged internal market as “an area without internal frontiers”.The creation of a common European market for telecommunications services and equipment is both an essential prerequisite and an important part of the “internal market”.In its Green Paper on the Development of the Common Market for Telecommunications Services and Equipment — “the Green Paper”¹⁾) — and a follow-up Communication²⁾, the Commission of the European Communities (“the Commission”) has set forth its main policy proposals in the telecommunications field. Implementation of these policy proposals by means of Community law directives is progressing rapidly, in particular with respect to terminal equipment. On 16 May 1988, the Commission issued a“Commission Directive on Competition in the Markets in Telecommunications Terminal Equipment” — “Terminal Equipment Directive” —³⁾ based on its regulatory powers under Art. 90(3) of the Treaty of Rome (“EEC Treaty”).This article explores the regulatory scope of the Terminal Equipment Directive which has recently been challenged by the French government before the European Court of Justice.     

“Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose” – what about code and law?

Law and information technology are interlinked. Since Lessig's “code is law” the discussions address the viability of law in technology markets. But recently, the direction of view has changed by way of conversion; in the context of smart contracts, the notion “law is code” became prevalent. The contribution looks into the interdependencies between law and code and pleads for a new functional understanding of law.     

Covid-19 and contracts in China and Europe

China-EU Law Journal - The purpose of this succinct contribution is to present to the readers the Chinese law of contract on “force majeure” and “hardship,” in a comparative...     

Personal Data and the GDPR: Providing a Competitive Advantage for U.S. Companies

The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) became applicable in May 2018. Due to the GDPR's extraterritorial scope, which could result in massive fines for U.S. companies, comparative data privacy law is of great current interest. In June 2018, California passed its own Consumer Privacy Act, echoing some of the provisions of the GDPR. Despite the many articles comparing the two schemes of law, little attention has been given to the foundation of these laws, that is, what exactly encompasses the data referred to by these laws? By understanding how the term “personal data” or “personal information” is defined in both jurisdictions, and why these definitions and the treatment of protected data are so different, companies can strategize to take advantage of these developments in the European Union. After explaining the differences in how data is treated in the United States and the European Union by exploring the definitions, regulations, and court cases, we will explore the five legal strategy pathways that companies might pursue with respect to the legal aspects of data transfer and privacy law compliance. While these strategies range from ignoring the law to adopting the European model worldwide, this analysis of legal strategy reveals a means for companies to gain a competitive advantage through their adoption of a worldwide compliance scheme.     

Industry-Led Standards,Relational Contracts and Good Faith: Are the UK and Australia Setting the Pace in (Construction) Contract Law?

Liverpool Law Review - The law of contract is changing. “Good faith” and “relational contracts” are used by parties more than ever before in commercial disputes. Yet, their...     

烟草专卖若干法律问题探讨

烟草专卖是国家通过制定法律 ,对烟草买卖实行垄断 ,以保证财政收入。《烟草专卖法》和《价格法》是同一位阶的普通法 ,以特别法优于普通法、后法优于前法的理由 ,主张将烟草价格推向市场 ,是不能成立的。这一问题还涉及法律解释的权限、法律解释的效力问题 ,亟需认真研究和对待。     

网络型公用企业竞争的法律规制

规制法治化是网络型公用企业竞争的必要前提,以事业法和反垄断法规制为其主要内容。事业法规制包括市场准入与退出规制、价格规制、互联互通与接入费规制、禁止交叉补贴与普遍服务规制、不对称规制等,其价值取向为涵盖在位生产者、潜在竞争者、交易者和消费者的福利在内的经济效率与社会公平之间的均衡;反垄断法规制包括滥用网络优势行为规制、合并与拆分规制、联合限制竞争规制、行政垄断规制等,其价值取向为“有限竞争自由→适度竞争自由→充分竞争自由”的发展。就法律位阶体系而言,反垄断法应为“基本法律”,而事业法为“非基本法律”,反垄断法应优于事业法。     

习近平法治思想中的刑事法要义

有关刑事法治的丰富论述是习近平法治思想的重要组成部分,可以将习近平法治思想中的刑事法要义概括为“宽严相济,以发展眼光看问题”的刑事政策论、“完善对违法犯罪行为的惩治和矫正法律”的刑事立法论、“守住防范冤错案件的底线”的刑事司法论、“综合施策、标本兼治”的犯罪治理论。习近平法治思想中的刑事法要义在吸收国际社会刑事法治文明成果的同时,较为集中地体现了对中华法治文明的传承与弘扬。刑事法治建设与刑事法研究必须以习近平刑事法治思想为根本遵循,深刻领悟和把握习近平刑事法治思想的博大精深,避免做西方刑事法治经验与理论的“搬运工”。     

The impact of China's 2016 Cyber Security Law on foreign technology firms,and on China's big data and Smart City dreams

Chinese officials are increasingly turning to a policy known as Informatisation, connecting industry online, to utilise technology to improve efficiency and tackle economic developmental problems in China. However, various recent laws have made foreign technology firms uneasy about perceptions of Rule of Law in China. Will these new laws, under China's stated policy of “Network Sovereignty” (“网络主权” “wangluo zhuquan”) affect China's ability to attract foreign technology firms, talent and importantly technology transfers? Will they slow China's technology and Smart City drive? This paper focuses on the question of whether international fears of China's new Cyber Security Law are justified. In Parts I and II, the paper analyses why China needs a cyber security regime. In Parts III and IV it examines the law itself.     

企业国际化过程中的法律问题研究

本文从企业国际化过程中的“国家”面向。追问了企业在进入某国市场时该国法律对企业国际化选择可能具有的作用：从合约的角度分析了如何运用交易成本及准备成本对企业国际化的约束、上头成本对企业国际化的保护及其限度问题。     

The Optional European Code on the Basis of the Acquis Communautaire—Starting Point and Trends

Abstract:  The idea of creating a European Code for contract law, though recent, has gathered pace. Although most work towards this goal has so far assumed that the principles should be constructed through critical comparative law studies of the existing contract laws of Member States, it is argued here that the acquis communautaire provides a modern and democratically endorsed collection of principles, which can be quite well systematised, that should provide the starting-point for scholarly endeavours towards the construction of a code of contract law.     

“Legality with a Vengeance”: Reclaiming Distribution for Sociolegal Studies

The law and society community has argued for decades for an expansive understanding of what counts as “law.” But a content analysis of articles published in the Law & Society Review from its 1966 founding to the present finds that since the 1970s, the law and society community has focused its attention on laws in which the state regulates behavior, and largely ignored laws in which the state distributes resources, goods, and services. Why did socio‐legal scholars avoid studying how laws determine access to such things as health, wealth, housing, education, and food? We find that socio‐legal scholarship has always used “law on the books” as a starting point for analyses (often to identify departures in “law in action”) without ever offering a programmatic vision for how law might ameliorate economic inequality. As a result, when social welfare laws on the books began disappearing, socio‐legal scholarship drifted away from studying law's role in creating, sustaining, and reinforcing economic inequality. We argue that socio‐legal scholarship offers a wide range of analytical tools that could make important contributions to our understanding of social welfare provision.