BREAKING DOWN BUSINESS VALUATION: THE USE OF COURT‐APPOINTED BUSINESS APPRAISERS IN DIVORCE ACTIONS*

This Note advocates for greater reliance on court‐appointed business appraisers in divorce proceedings. After exploring the history of court‐appointed experts in American jurisprudence and addressing the specific problems that arise when valuing a business, this Note demonstrates how neutral business appraisers can assist courts in assessing a highly technical matter while simultaneously providing both courts and parties with an accurate, reliable source of information. The Note further provides suggestions for when the appointment of a neutral appraiser may be beneficial. The second section of this Note addresses technical matters that the court must deal with in selecting a reliable expert, including where the court derives its power to appoint a neutral expert, what standards the court should use in appointing the expert, and who should pay the cost of the expert's appointment.     

行政信赖保护之立法思考

人们对信赖保护的认识已经提到了一定的高度 ,将信赖保护规定在行政程序法之中已基本上形成共识。但信赖保护究竟是作为具体法律规则的立法还是作法律原则的立法 ,甚至能否作为行政程序法的立法目的之一 ?信赖保护仅仅是实体性保护 ,还是包括程序性保护 ?在构成要件上 ,是否需要与公共利益相权衡 ?在保护请求权上是否需要设定时效 ?等等 ,这些问题需要在立法上引起足够重视并得到妥善解决 ,以让信赖保护能够收到良好的效果。     

合同形式欠缺与履行治愈论——兼评《合同法》第36条之规定

随着合同法定形式的本质已从“效力性方式”演变为“保护性方式”,合同的法定形式已具备多重功能,相对应地必须谨慎调和形式强制与形式自由间的冲突关系。我国《合同法》一方面打破形式主义的桎梏而改采同意主义,仅在个别情形基于立法政策的考量而实行形式强制;另一方面又考虑到严格适用形式主义规则所产生的不公平结果,而在该法第36条出现一般性的履行治愈方式欠缺的规则;但是,如何解释该条规定,却是一个历来就争论不休的问题。以信赖保护说作为履行治愈的理论基础,并运用诚实信用原则对其适用予以限制无疑是理性的选择。     

美国虚假陈述民事诉讼因果关系的认定及启示

虚假陈述与一般侵权行为相比具有不同的特点,投资者往往难以证明侵权者虚假陈述行为与所受损失之间的因果关系,因此对因果关系的认定应当采用与一般侵权法不同的方法。本文简要介绍了美国对虚假陈述民事诉讼中因果关系认定作出的改革。美国法院采用目标认定法和市场欺诈理论,减轻了投资者对被告的虚假陈述行为与其所受损害之间因果关系的证明责任,从而极大地保护了投资者利益。我国虚假陈述民事诉讼司法解释虽然部分地借鉴了美国的做法,但仍存在不足,需要进一步完善。     

合同因错误而撤销的信赖赔偿责任

合同因错误而被撤销,撤销人应负担信赖赔偿责任。该制度渊源于罗马法,历经德国学者温德夏特、耶林、贝尔、梅尔的建构,最终在1896德国民法典中确立,并被现代各国民法继受。错误信赖赔偿责任是信赖保护的重要制度。它不同于缔约过失责任,不以过失为要件,而以信赖为归责原则,具有独立的构成要件和适用范围。它是一种独立的责任形态,旨在追求公平理念。我国应当确立错误信赖赔偿责任。     

信赖利益与信赖义务——兼谈民事责任的重构

依发生原因的不同,民事义务可以分为约定义务和法定义务。随着社会发展,一些新的义务类型逐渐涌现,如先契约义务、安全保障义务等,关于这些义务的性质,学界并不一致。笔者认为这些新型义务之间存在共性,都产生于诚实信用原则,其目的都在于保护当事人之间的信赖利益。本文以＂界定信赖利益＂为出发点,认为处于特别结合关系的民事主体之间负有信赖义务,并论证了其独立于约定义务和法定义务存在,进而尝试重新建构我国民事责任体系。     

论信赖原则及其在交通肇事罪认定中的适用

信赖原则具有平衡社会公共安全保护与交通建设事业发展、限制过失犯罪成立范围的功能,其适用条件有严格的限制。国外关于信赖原则的立法、判例对我国在刑法理论、立法领域引入该原则具有非常重要的借鉴意义。我国目前的交通设施环境、法治观念等已经基本具备了适用信赖原则的条件。     

预期利益损失与信赖利益损失

分析预期利益损失与信赖利益损失的内涵、区别，归纳针对预期利益损失与信赖利益损失关系的各种观点，探讨与信赖利益损失有关的举证责任、归还与预期利益损失的分别、替代商品等问题，并结合案例提出建议。     

Intimate Relationships, Relational Contract Theory, and the Reach of Contract

This article explores the role of contract law inintimate relationships, focussing on tacit or onlypartially express agreements rather than expressprenuptial or cohabitation contracts. It welcomes theembrace of relational contract theory by feminist andgay and lesbian commentators, but argues that keydifferences between commercial and intimaterelationships need further analysis if the potentialof relational theory in cases of informal agreement isto be realised. The first difference is that,while commercial contracts can draw on the context ofa contracting community as a source of norms to fillgaps in agreement, there is no equivalent source ofnorms for intimate relationships. The seconddifference is that, although relational theory entailsthe attenuation of self interest in commercialcontracts, in intimate relationships the sense inwhich self interest is attenuated is quite different,with the result that concepts such as cooperation andaltruism have different meanings. The result of thesedifferences is that, in some intimate relationships,there will be informal understandings falling short ofbargain, which will be unenforceable – under bothorthodox contract law and more relationalinterpretations of it. It is argued that many suchinformal agreements are distinguishable from mostgratuitous promises because they are characterised bya degree of reciprocity between the parties. Thepossibility of the law of contract recognising suchnon bargain agreements based on reciprocity isexplored, and it is argued that the enforcement ofsuch agreements represents a less distorting legalresponse than that available through the use ofpromissory estoppel.     

商事外观主义的法律构成

外观主义在商法中具有普遍的适用性,其在法律构成上具有区别于民法领域的特殊性.在外观认定上,应区别法定外观和自然外观,而交易习惯是自然外观认定的标准.善意无过失相对人的合理信赖是外观主义法效果的基本理由,在商法领域中,理性人以商人为形象,其注意义务的程度更高.本人的可归责性来源于本人的与因行为,但在他人造成外观的场合,如果本人有过失,亦应承担外观主义的不利益.