论违反强制性规定合同效力.pdf

论违反强制性规定合同效力
论违反强制性规定合同效力
内容摘要
合同自由是合同法乃至民商法重要的一项基本原则,它意味着民事主体按照
理性判断,自主参与民事生活,签订合同以管理私人事务,不受国家权力和其他
民事主体的非法干预。但是绝对的自由是不存在的,所以,法律中往往会有诸多
的强制性规定以使合同行为在合法的空间内进行。
由于历史的原因,对于违反强制性规定的合同效力,我国司法实践中曾经采
取了非常严格的合同效力否定的做法,然而这不仅仅损害了合同自由的原则,也
在某种程度上助长了恶性违约行为。在这种背景下,新《合同法》第 52 条第 5
项做出规定:违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定的合同才无效,并且在《合同法
解释(二)》中将“强制性规定”限缩为“效力性强制性规定”。即便如此,司法
实践中仍然存在疑窦。
本文从以下三个方面致力探讨这个问题:第一部分通过对违反强制性规范合
同效力的比较法考察,主要分析古罗马、德国、日本、我国台湾地区和英美等国
对待此问题的态度。第二部分则是通过对我国现行立法和司法实践当中存在的困
境予以分析。主要探讨了一下几点问题:
系;;
管制性强制性规范的必要性。第三部分则借鉴世界主要国家和地区的通行做法并
且综合我国国情提出对违反强制性规定合同效力的判断路径:从字面解释、规范
目的解释明确强制性规范之所在,主要采取利益衡量的方式来判断;第四部分通
过对强制性规范的类型化来具体讨论:;;
;。
关键词效力性强制性规范;管制型强制性规范;合同解释;利益衡量
错误!未定义书签。
西南政法大学硕士学位论文
Abstract
Freedom of contract is the important principle of contract law and the civil law .
It means that civil main body sign a contract to manage private affairs according to
the rational judgment, not affected by national power and other civil main body of
illegal intervention.
But, any freedom is not absolutely, absolutely free, no freedom. So, in the law
often can have a lot of mandatory provisions in order to make the contract in the legal
behavior in space
For historical reasons, in violation of the provisions of the contract mandatory,
the judicial practice had to take a very strict contract effectiveness negative practices,
however this not only damage the contract the principles of liberty, also in some
degree malignant encourages the breach. In this context, the new "contract law"
article 52 stipulates the item 5: violates laws, administrative rules and regulations
mandatory provisions of the contract was invalid, and in the law of contract
interpretation (2) "will" mandatory provisions "limit shrink as" effect of mandatory
provisions ". Even so, there are still doubts in judicial practice.
This article from the following three aspects to discuss this problem: