A NEW ROLE OF CAUSATION THEORY TOWARDS ACHIEVING ECONOMIC CONTRACTUAL EQUILIBRIUM: MONITORING THE ECONOMIC EQUILIBRIUM OF THE CONTRACT

IF 0.1 Q4 LAW
Osama Ismail Mohammad Amayreh, I. M. Zakri, Pardis Moslemzadeh Tehrani, Y. Shandi
{"title":"A NEW ROLE OF CAUSATION THEORY TOWARDS ACHIEVING ECONOMIC CONTRACTUAL EQUILIBRIUM: MONITORING THE ECONOMIC EQUILIBRIUM OF THE CONTRACT","authors":"Osama Ismail Mohammad Amayreh, I. M. Zakri, Pardis Moslemzadeh Tehrani, Y. Shandi","doi":"10.15742/ILREV.V9N2.543","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The phrase “who says contractual, says justice” “qui dit contractuel dit juste” does not fully express the truth of our present reality, where the phrase itself falls into doubt, since the contract does not always result in fair obligations, as the contract is an expression of often unequal wills. In this regard, the French judiciary realized that the absence of justice in the contract might arise as a result of the contractual freedom afforded to the contracting parties and, thus, they developed the idea of Commutative Justice in the contract, such as the Piller’s decision, which is considered one of its most important applications. However, the causation theory in the Palestinian Civil Code Draft and the Indonesian Civil Code was limited to monitoring the matter of the existence of the corresponding obligation whatever it was. In this context, this paper seeks to prove that the provisions of the causation theory in the Palestinian Civil Code Draft and the Indonesian Civil Code can be used as a means of monitoring the economic contractual equilibrium of the contract. To do so, the legal provisions of the causation theory should be analysed in a comparative analytical approach with the French judicial decisions to illustrate the Palestinian and Indonesian legislative deficiencies and the need for adopting the French judicial approach.","PeriodicalId":13484,"journal":{"name":"Indonesia Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indonesia Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15742/ILREV.V9N2.543","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The phrase “who says contractual, says justice” “qui dit contractuel dit juste” does not fully express the truth of our present reality, where the phrase itself falls into doubt, since the contract does not always result in fair obligations, as the contract is an expression of often unequal wills. In this regard, the French judiciary realized that the absence of justice in the contract might arise as a result of the contractual freedom afforded to the contracting parties and, thus, they developed the idea of Commutative Justice in the contract, such as the Piller’s decision, which is considered one of its most important applications. However, the causation theory in the Palestinian Civil Code Draft and the Indonesian Civil Code was limited to monitoring the matter of the existence of the corresponding obligation whatever it was. In this context, this paper seeks to prove that the provisions of the causation theory in the Palestinian Civil Code Draft and the Indonesian Civil Code can be used as a means of monitoring the economic contractual equilibrium of the contract. To do so, the legal provisions of the causation theory should be analysed in a comparative analytical approach with the French judicial decisions to illustrate the Palestinian and Indonesian legislative deficiencies and the need for adopting the French judicial approach.
因果关系理论在实现经济契约均衡中的新作用&监督契约的经济均衡
“谁说契约,谁就说正义”“qui dit contractuel dit justice”这句话并没有完全表达我们当前现实的真相,这句话本身就令人怀疑,因为合同并不总是导致公平的义务,因为合同通常是不平等意志的表达。在这方面,法国司法机关认识到,由于给予缔约各方合同自由,可能会出现合同中缺乏正义的情况,因此,他们发展了合同中的交换正义概念,例如皮勒案的决定,这被认为是其最重要的应用之一。但是,《巴勒斯坦民法典草案》和《印度尼西亚民法典》中的因果关系理论仅限于监测相应义务是否存在的问题,无论这种义务是什么。在此背景下,本文试图证明巴勒斯坦民法典草案和印度尼西亚民法典中因果关系理论的规定可以作为监督合同经济契约均衡的手段。为此,应以比较分析的方法来分析因果关系理论的法律规定,以说明巴勒斯坦和印度尼西亚的立法缺陷以及采用法国司法方法的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信