仲裁协议当事人意向性的普通法研究

Q2 Social Sciences Global Journal of Comparative Law Pub Date : 2023-05-02 DOI:10.1163/2211906x-12020003
I. Bantekas
{"title":"仲裁协议当事人意向性的普通法研究","authors":"I. Bantekas","doi":"10.1163/2211906x-12020003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nOffer and acceptance must be supplemented by the parties’ common intention, failing which there is no contract. Arbitration clauses are separable from the contract in which they are contained and hence constitute distinct contracts, albeit of a procedural nature. Even so, the courts typically conflate the parties’ common intention as expressed or implied in the main contract with the common intention required in the arbitration clause. Although technically incorrect, courts in the common law tradition are generally content with this approach and do not question its rationale. The article argues that while such an approach is acceptable, there may well be cases where a party can validly argue that this conflated common intention was misplaced.","PeriodicalId":38000,"journal":{"name":"Global Journal of Comparative Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Common Law Approach to the Parties’ Intention in Arbitration Agreements\",\"authors\":\"I. Bantekas\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/2211906x-12020003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nOffer and acceptance must be supplemented by the parties’ common intention, failing which there is no contract. Arbitration clauses are separable from the contract in which they are contained and hence constitute distinct contracts, albeit of a procedural nature. Even so, the courts typically conflate the parties’ common intention as expressed or implied in the main contract with the common intention required in the arbitration clause. Although technically incorrect, courts in the common law tradition are generally content with this approach and do not question its rationale. The article argues that while such an approach is acceptable, there may well be cases where a party can validly argue that this conflated common intention was misplaced.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38000,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Journal of Comparative Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Journal of Comparative Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/2211906x-12020003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Journal of Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/2211906x-12020003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

要约和承诺必须辅以双方当事人的共同意思,没有共同意思就没有合同。仲裁条款与包含它们的合同是可分离的,因此构成不同的合同,尽管具有程序性质。即便如此,法院通常会将双方在主合同中明示或暗示的共同意图与仲裁条款中要求的共同意图混为一谈。尽管在技术上不正确,普通法传统中的法院通常对这种做法感到满意,并不质疑其理由。文章认为,虽然这种方法是可以接受的,但在某些情况下,一方可以有效地辩称,这种合并的共同意图是错误的。
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
A Common Law Approach to the Parties’ Intention in Arbitration Agreements
Offer and acceptance must be supplemented by the parties’ common intention, failing which there is no contract. Arbitration clauses are separable from the contract in which they are contained and hence constitute distinct contracts, albeit of a procedural nature. Even so, the courts typically conflate the parties’ common intention as expressed or implied in the main contract with the common intention required in the arbitration clause. Although technically incorrect, courts in the common law tradition are generally content with this approach and do not question its rationale. The article argues that while such an approach is acceptable, there may well be cases where a party can validly argue that this conflated common intention was misplaced.
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
Global Journal of Comparative Law
Global Journal of Comparative Law Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: The Global Journal of Comparative Law is a peer reviewed periodical that provides a dynamic platform for the dissemination of ideas on comparative law and reports on developments in the field of comparative law from all parts of the world. In our contemporary globalized world, it is almost impossible to isolate developments in the law in one jurisdiction or society from another. At the same time, what is traditionally called comparative law is increasingly subsumed under aspects of International Law. The Global Journal of Comparative Law therefore aims to maintain the discipline of comparative legal studies as vigorous and dynamic by deepening the space for comparative work in its transnational context.
期刊最新文献
Access to Public Documents and Its Restrictions: a Reflection from the Perspectives of Brazil and Sweden Comparative Study of Selected Nigerian and Indian Labour Practices and the Law The Irony in the Lineage of Modern Chinese Constitutions and Constitutionalism Regulating Surrogacy as a Reproductive Practice in India and Sri Lanka Use of Specialized Tribunals for the Settlement of Construction Projects in Times of a Financial Crisis
×
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