本文選題：合同 + 法定形式�。� 參考：《南京大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：通過對(duì)歐陸主要法律的契約形式的歷史梳理可以看出,在不注重個(gè)人權(quán)利的歷史時(shí)期,統(tǒng)治者通過法律的強(qiáng)制性嚴(yán)格管控社會(huì)。我國(guó)古代通過嚴(yán)格的契約形式來管控市場(chǎng)交易,對(duì)合同的格式進(jìn)行嚴(yán)格的要求,刑法與民事不分,把法的形式理性的制度化發(fā)揮到極致。很顯然,無論歐洲大陸還是中國(guó)古代的法律制定者,對(duì)形式理性有著崇高的信仰。 毫無疑問,合同形式的強(qiáng)制有其內(nèi)在的合理性,比如對(duì)書面合同形式的強(qiáng)制規(guī)定,書面形式的證據(jù)效力是毋庸置疑的,證明當(dāng)事人雙方簽訂合同合意的存在,根據(jù)合同當(dāng)事人合意后“禁反言”的原則,以維護(hù)交易穩(wěn)定。正是由于有這個(gè)證明力,這就可以敦促當(dāng)事人謹(jǐn)慎行事,為自己的權(quán)利義務(wù)負(fù)責(zé)。同時(shí),規(guī)定合同形式也有利于對(duì)市場(chǎng)進(jìn)行有效的管理。 但是,合同畢竟是當(dāng)事人自由意志的結(jié)果,對(duì)其干預(yù)過度就會(huì)造成市場(chǎng)交易的不順暢。這就要求對(duì)合同形式的法定有所克制,而不可泛濫,否則就會(huì)過度干預(yù)市場(chǎng),侵犯私權(quán)。這是適應(yīng)我國(guó)當(dāng)前繼續(xù)改革開放的大趨勢(shì),改革就是對(duì)內(nèi)放權(quán),市場(chǎng)的歸市場(chǎng),市場(chǎng)管理者把在自由的市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)環(huán)境下本屬于市場(chǎng)主體的權(quán)利讓位出來,由市場(chǎng)主體自由行使自己的私權(quán)。 為了限制法律對(duì)合同形式的強(qiáng)制范圍,可以通過誠(chéng)實(shí)信用等倫理規(guī)則和類似《合同法》第36條對(duì)合同形式強(qiáng)制的軟化治愈進(jìn)行調(diào)整。這是從實(shí)質(zhì)正義的角度來化解形式正義帶來的問題,從而對(duì)合同的形式強(qiáng)制進(jìn)行一定的調(diào)整。這種調(diào)整并不是沒有限制的,應(yīng)該符合相關(guān)的條件要求,以保證法律的安定性和嚴(yán)肅性。反過來,這些條件也是對(duì)引用誠(chéng)實(shí)信用原則的限制,也即并不是任何情形只要違背誠(chéng)實(shí)信用都可以引用之,誠(chéng)實(shí)信用原則只是一種填補(bǔ)方案,只在特殊情形才可適用。 《合同法》第36條對(duì)合同形式強(qiáng)制的軟化治愈順應(yīng)了合同當(dāng)事人的期望,在一定程度上方便了當(dāng)事人對(duì)合同形式的要求,改變了法定強(qiáng)制形式的僵化。但是,這種軟化治愈也并不是沒有邊界,為了維護(hù)法律的安定,對(duì)其治愈需要有較嚴(yán)格的限制。我國(guó)法律對(duì)合同法定形式的治愈是作為一般條款規(guī)定在合同法的第36條。這顯然把這種合同的治愈的范圍擴(kuò)大了,使得第10條的功能大大降低。因此,筆者認(rèn)為對(duì)第36條的適用應(yīng)該慎重,可以把這個(gè)法條的理念分布在能夠治愈的領(lǐng)域,作為單獨(dú)的例外,而不是作為一般的治愈條款。 合同形式的法定與當(dāng)事人合法的合意之間并沒有根本的矛盾,只是法律在復(fù)雜的社會(huì)情境面前顯得力不從心,畢竟法律只是對(duì)普遍現(xiàn)象的抽象統(tǒng)一規(guī)定。這就需要在法律適用時(shí)綜合考量法律內(nèi)在法理和法律與社會(huì)外在的如政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)、道德倫理等因素的關(guān)系,對(duì)法律進(jìn)行適當(dāng)?shù)恼{(diào)整,以適應(yīng)社會(huì)的需要。
[Abstract]:By combing the history of the contract forms of the main laws in Europe, we can see that in the historical period of not paying attention to the individual rights, the rulers strictly controlled the society through the compulsory control of the law. In ancient China, market transactions were controlled by strict contract form, and the form of contract was strictly required. Criminal law was not separated from civil law, and the system of formal rationality of law was brought into full play. It is clear that both continental Europe and ancient Chinese legal makers have a lofty faith in formal rationality. There is no doubt that the compulsory form of contract has its inherent reasonableness. For example, the compulsory stipulation on the form of a written contract, the evidentiary effect of the written form is beyond doubt, proving the existence of the parties' agreement to sign the contract. According to the agreement of the parties to the contract after the "estoppel" principle, in order to maintain the stability of the transaction. It is because of this power of proof that the parties are urged to exercise caution and be held accountable for their rights and obligations. At the same time, the regulation of contract form is also conducive to the effective management of the market. However, the contract is the result of the free will of the parties. This requires restraint of the legal form of contract, but not flooding, otherwise excessive intervention in the market, infringement of private rights. This is to adapt to the general trend of our country's ongoing reform and opening up. Reform is the decentralization of power within the country, the return of the market to the market, and market managers give way to the rights that belong to the main body of the market in a free market economy environment. Free exercise of private rights by the market subject. In order to limit the compulsory scope of contract form by law, we can adjust the softening and cure of contract form compulsion by virtue of ethical rules such as good faith and similar article 36 of contract law. This is from the angle of substantive justice to resolve the problems brought by formal justice, and thus to make certain adjustments to the form of contract. This adjustment is not unlimited, should meet the relevant requirements to ensure the stability and seriousness of the law. In turn, these conditions are restrictions on invoking the principle of good faith, that is, it is not always possible to invoke the principle of good faith as long as it is contrary to good faith. The principle of good faith is only a filling scheme. Article 36 of the contract Law can only be applied in special circumstances. The softening and curing of the form of contract by Article 36 conforms to the expectations of the parties to the contract, and to a certain extent facilitates the parties' request for the form of the contract. Changed the rigidity of the statutory form of compulsion. However, the softening cure is not borderless. In order to maintain the legal stability, the cure needs to be strictly limited. The cure of legal form of contract in our country is stipulated as general clause in Article 36 of contract Law. This obviously extends the scope of the contract's cure, greatly reducing the function of Article 10. Therefore, the author thinks that the application of article 36 should be cautious, that the idea of this article can be distributed in the field of cure, as a separate exception, rather than as a general cure clause. There is no fundamental contradiction between the legal form of contract and the legitimate consent of the parties. It is just that the law is unable to cope with the complicated social situation. After all, the law is only an abstract and unified stipulation of the universal phenomenon. It is necessary to consider the internal legal theory and the relationship between law and social external factors such as politics, economy, moral ethics and so on, and adjust the law to meet the needs of the society.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D913

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 楊德橋;;書面契約取信制度研究——以簽字、私章的取信能力為考查重點(diǎn)[J];北京郵電大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2012年01期

2 常宏,李東琦;論法定形式對(duì)合同效力的影響[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2002年06期

3 楊代雄;;合同的形式瑕疵及其補(bǔ)正——《合同法》第36條的解釋與完善[J];上海財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2011年06期

4 章正璋;;對(duì)我國(guó)現(xiàn)行立法合同成立與生效范式的反思[J];學(xué)術(shù)界;2013年01期

，

本文編號(hào)：2111834