Linguistic Means of Misrepresentation or Fictitious Permissions in Structures of Civil Law Contracts

Abstract

The article raises the problem of the use of language tools in the conclusion of contracts, allowing to mislead contractors. The author analyzes the normative and linguistic prerequisites that contribute to the emergence of the possibility of dual interpretation of treaties. A detailed analysis of the legal doctrine and legal acts is carried out. The attention is focused on the rules of law in which incorrect use of the Russian language can not only lead to double current, but also mislead the subject of interpretation. Indicates the issue of double meaning of legal terms, and different interpretation of concepts from the point of view of the Russian language and the Russian legal language. The author studies various means of the Russian language used in the drafting of the text of contracts. There is a critical attitude to the use of evaluative concepts by the legislator, which do not have a clear semantic content and can vary significantly among different subjects of law. The problem of inclusion in the content of the contract of “as if” dispositive and “as if” permissive rules that mislead the party to the agreement is raised. Analyses of the situation to include the erroneous statements due to incorrect syntactic construction of the text of the article. Proposals are made to eliminate the problems associated with the use of language tools in the conclusion of contracts.