泰国《不正当合同条款法》缺陷比较分析及修改实践

Q2 Social Sciences Global Journal of Comparative Law Pub Date : 2023-01-12 DOI:10.1163/2211906x-12010005
P. Nanakorn
{"title":"泰国《不正当合同条款法》缺陷比较分析及修改实践","authors":"P. Nanakorn","doi":"10.1163/2211906x-12010005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThis article investigates the legislation on unfair contract terms in Thailand – the Unfair Contract Terms Act, B.E. 2540 (1997) (Thai ucta). It provides critical discussion of fundamental provisions and legal concepts of this Act in comparison with, where relevant, the American statutory unconscionability doctrine, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 of the United Kingdom (UK ucta) and the Directive on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts 1993 of the European Union. As this domestic legislation is principally a product of the imitation of the UK ucta, many of its provisions are compared and contrasted with provisions of the UK ucta. This article brings out deficiencies having long dwelled in the Thai ucta and resulting in clouds of confusion even in judicial decisions of Thailand. Practical ways in which those deficiencies can be rectified are clearly recommended in the hope of providing insightful information to legal practitioners and legal scholars alike.","PeriodicalId":38000,"journal":{"name":"Global Journal of Comparative Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Analysis of Deficiencies in the Law on Unfair Contract Terms in Thailand and Practical Ways for Amendment\",\"authors\":\"P. Nanakorn\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/2211906x-12010005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThis article investigates the legislation on unfair contract terms in Thailand – the Unfair Contract Terms Act, B.E. 2540 (1997) (Thai ucta). It provides critical discussion of fundamental provisions and legal concepts of this Act in comparison with, where relevant, the American statutory unconscionability doctrine, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 of the United Kingdom (UK ucta) and the Directive on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts 1993 of the European Union. As this domestic legislation is principally a product of the imitation of the UK ucta, many of its provisions are compared and contrasted with provisions of the UK ucta. This article brings out deficiencies having long dwelled in the Thai ucta and resulting in clouds of confusion even in judicial decisions of Thailand. Practical ways in which those deficiencies can be rectified are clearly recommended in the hope of providing insightful information to legal practitioners and legal scholars alike.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38000,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Journal of Comparative Law\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-12\",\"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-12010005\",\"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-12010005","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

本文调查了泰国关于不公平合同条款的立法——《不公平合同条款法》,B.E. 2540 (1997) (Thai ucta)。它对该法的基本条款和法律概念进行了批判性的讨论,并与相关的美国法定不合理原则、英国1977年的《不公平合同条款法》(UK ucta)和欧盟1993年的《消费者合同不公平条款指令》进行了比较。由于该国内法主要是模仿英国ucta的产物,因此其许多条款与英国ucta的条款进行了比较和对比。本文揭示了泰国法律中长期存在的缺陷,这些缺陷甚至导致了泰国司法判决的混乱。本文明确提出了可以纠正这些缺陷的实际方法,希望为法律从业人员和法律学者提供有见地的信息。
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
Comparative Analysis of Deficiencies in the Law on Unfair Contract Terms in Thailand and Practical Ways for Amendment
This article investigates the legislation on unfair contract terms in Thailand – the Unfair Contract Terms Act, B.E. 2540 (1997) (Thai ucta). It provides critical discussion of fundamental provisions and legal concepts of this Act in comparison with, where relevant, the American statutory unconscionability doctrine, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 of the United Kingdom (UK ucta) and the Directive on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts 1993 of the European Union. As this domestic legislation is principally a product of the imitation of the UK ucta, many of its provisions are compared and contrasted with provisions of the UK ucta. This article brings out deficiencies having long dwelled in the Thai ucta and resulting in clouds of confusion even in judicial decisions of Thailand. Practical ways in which those deficiencies can be rectified are clearly recommended in the hope of providing insightful information to legal practitioners and legal scholars alike.
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