可选性

M. Hesselink
{"title":"可选性","authors":"M. Hesselink","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780192843654.003.0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Chapter focuses on a distinctive characteristic of an important portion of contemporary rules of contract law that sets them apart not only from public law but also from other branches of private law (e.g. property and family law), i.e. that these rules can be set aside freely by the contracting parties. Contrary to national civil codes, however, positive EU contract law does not include many instances of non-mandatory rules. This raises the question of what exactly justifies the existence of such optional rules: should public institutions be providing elaborate sets of contract law rules if private parties can set them aside as they please, and, if so, what kind of considerations should determine the content of such rules? Similar questions can be asked with respect to other instances of optional contract law, such as choice of law in cross-border contracts.","PeriodicalId":105562,"journal":{"name":"Justifying Contract in Europe","volume":"79 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Optionality\",\"authors\":\"M. Hesselink\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780192843654.003.0008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This Chapter focuses on a distinctive characteristic of an important portion of contemporary rules of contract law that sets them apart not only from public law but also from other branches of private law (e.g. property and family law), i.e. that these rules can be set aside freely by the contracting parties. Contrary to national civil codes, however, positive EU contract law does not include many instances of non-mandatory rules. This raises the question of what exactly justifies the existence of such optional rules: should public institutions be providing elaborate sets of contract law rules if private parties can set them aside as they please, and, if so, what kind of considerations should determine the content of such rules? Similar questions can be asked with respect to other instances of optional contract law, such as choice of law in cross-border contracts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":105562,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Justifying Contract in Europe\",\"volume\":\"79 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Justifying Contract in Europe\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192843654.003.0008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Justifying Contract in Europe","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192843654.003.0008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

本章着重于当代合同法规则的一个重要组成部分的显著特征,即这些规则可以由缔约双方自由地搁置,这一特征不仅使它们区别于公法,也区别于私法的其他分支(如财产法和家庭法)。然而,与国家民法典相反,积极的欧盟合同法不包括许多非强制性规则的例子。这就提出了这样一个问题:究竟是什么证明了这种可选规则的存在是正当的:如果私人当事人可以随心所欲地把它们放在一边,那么公共机构是否应该提供一套详尽的合同法规则?如果是这样,应该考虑什么样的因素来决定这些规则的内容?对于其他可选合同法的情况,例如跨境合同中的法律选择,也可以提出类似的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Optionality
This Chapter focuses on a distinctive characteristic of an important portion of contemporary rules of contract law that sets them apart not only from public law but also from other branches of private law (e.g. property and family law), i.e. that these rules can be set aside freely by the contracting parties. Contrary to national civil codes, however, positive EU contract law does not include many instances of non-mandatory rules. This raises the question of what exactly justifies the existence of such optional rules: should public institutions be providing elaborate sets of contract law rules if private parties can set them aside as they please, and, if so, what kind of considerations should determine the content of such rules? Similar questions can be asked with respect to other instances of optional contract law, such as choice of law in cross-border contracts.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Democratic Basis Binding Force and Remedies Weaker Party Protection National, European, or Global Public Policy and Good Morals
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1