اصول اساسی حقوق قراردادها در نظام حقوقی کامنلا (با تأکید بر حقوق انگلیس و آمریکا) | ||
| فصلنامه تحقیقات حقوقی | ||
| مقاله 9، دوره 28، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 110، 1404، صفحه 157-180 اصل مقاله (731.6 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.48308/jlr.2024.232411.2544 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| فاطمه فرهان فر* 1؛ جلیل قنواتی2 | ||
| 1دانشجوی دکتری، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه تهران: پردیس فارابی، قم، ایران (نویسنده مسئول) fa.farhan1987@gmail.com | ||
| 2دانشیار، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه تهران: پردیس فارابی، قم، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| اصول حقوقی عبارتند از هنجارهای مقبول از پیش موجود در جامعه که مورد شناسایی و پذیرش قرار گرفته و وارد نظام حقوقی شدهاند. ویژگی مشترک همه اصول حقوقی عبارت است از جامعیت، مطلق و تجریدی بودن. این اصول همچنین تمایل به همگرایی با ارزشهای اجتماعی و اخلاقی دارند. وجه تمایز اصل با قاعده حقوقی آن است که علیرغم کلی بودن هر دو، قاعده حقوقی از این جهت خاص است که برای وضعیت حقوقی خاص وضع شده و تنها بر اعمال و وقایع معینی اعمال میشود. در حالی که اصل، کلی است از آن جهت که تعداد موارد استعمال نامعینی را در بر می-گیرد. چهار اصل آزادی قراردادی، عدالت، کارایی و امنیت، اصولی هستند که در اغلب نظامهای حقوقی بعنوان اصول بنیادین موجود در نظام حقوقی به رسمیت شناخته شدهاند و منشأ قواعد و احکام قانونی متعدد هستند. در نظام حقوقی کامنلا نیز، که به طور خاص مورد بررسی قرار گرفته است، این اصول از خلال رویه قضایی و قوانین قابل دستیابی هستند. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| اصل حقوقی؛ اصل آزادی قراردادی؛ اصل عدالت؛ اصل کارایی؛ اصل امنیت قراردادی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| The foundational principles of contract law in the Common law (with emphasis on English and American law) | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| fatemeh Farhanfar1؛ jalil ghanavati2 | ||
| 1. Ph.D. Candidate, Faculty of Law, University of Tehran: College of Farabi, Qom, Iran Corresponding Author Email: fa.farhan1987@gmail.com | ||
| 2Associate Proffessor, Faculty of Law, University of Tehran: College of Farabi, Qom, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Abstract Legal principles, as a priori norms accepted within society, constitute the foundational pillars of the legal system. These abstract and absolute norms enjoy a superior normative status over specific legal rules and are formally recognized through legislative or judicial processes (e.g., recognition by legislators or courts). This study aims to examine four fundamental principles of contract law within the common law framework—namely, freedom of contract, contractual security, justice, and efficiency. Its primary objective is to analyze their roles and statuses in England and the United States of America through a comparative review of judicial precedents and statutory laws, highlighting their interplay and inherent limitations within the legal system. The principle of freedom of contract, as the cornerstone of contract law, grants parties autonomy to determine the content, terms, form, and even the governing law of their agreements, based on mutual consent. Nonetheless, this freedom is inherently constrained by competing imperatives of justice and societal welfare. Legal systems— by means of oversight of unfair terms, consumer protection, and recognition of third-party rights—are trying to balance individual liberty with public interest. Far from merely displaying human will power, this principle also shows legal system's duty to prevent abuse of contractual freedom. The principle of contractual security ensures the stability and predictability of contracts. This principal is rooted in doctrines like pacta sunt servanda (the binding nature of contracts), good faith, mutual cooperation, and access to effective remedies; in the case of contractual breach. Key elements underpinning contractual security include enforceability, good will and cooperation, the right to performance, and availability of equitable rem and pro-contract approach. In common law the obligation of contracts does not inherently demand specific performance unless it contains inadequate damages and no suitable substitute exists. Courts exercise restraint when specific performance leads to oppressive enforcement outcomes or violations of individual liberties. Pro-contract approach emphasizes on preserving contractual relationships even in difficult situations or contractual gaps. Contract interpretive principles, granting the authority of balancing contracts to the courts and inferring implied terms are all with the purpose of gap-filling and preventing contract dissolution. Central to this approach is the presumption that contracts should endure unless termination is necessary to protect legitimate interests or prevent unjust harm. While contract performance is critical for one of the parties or dissolution leades to unfair loss, the principle of preserving contract preceeds the termination. Where contract is divisible and partial defects—such as fraudulent clauses, mutual mistake, or duress—taint it, courts may sever the offending provisions while upholding the remainder, thereby preserving contractual equilibrium and avoiding total invalidation. The principle of contractual justice is grounded in equitable treatment in analogous cases, the prohibition of exploitative practices toward disadvantaged parties, and the protection of vulnerable stakeholders. This manifests in doctrines such as reciprocity of obligations, rescission of contracts obtained under fraud or duress, and mechanisms for contractual adjustment in unforeseen circumstances. Furthermore, contractual justice necessitates the observance of good faith throughout all stages of a contract’s lifecycle. Foundational tenets—including good faith, consumer protection, equitable adjustment of terms, and interpretative bias in favor of the weaker party—constitute essential prerequisites for the realization of contractual justice. Economic efficiency, defined as the optimal allocation of resources to achieve maximal satisfaction for parties at minimal cost, is operationalized in contract law through the elimination of superfluous formalities, facilitation of contract formation and termination, consumer protection measures, and the implementation of procedural rules such as statutes of limitation to curtail enforcement costs. The relationship between justice and efficiency can be conceptualized through the metaphor of a pie: justice dictates the equitable distribution of benefits (slicing the pie), while efficiency focuses on expanding the overall resource pool (growing the pie). At the macro level, efficiency in law necessitates a legal system structurally organized to foster economic growth. Consequently, legislative frameworks must undergo ex ante efficiency assessments, requiring rigorous analysis of proposed laws’ potential economic impacts during the drafting process. At the micro level, particularly in contract law, efficiency manifests in rules that minimize formalities, permit termination of voidable contracts via simple notice, etc. In conclusion, the four foundational principles within the common law system—freedom of contract, contractual security, justice, and efficiency—establish a balanced framework through dynamic interplay to address evolving legal needs. Contractual freedom, while central, is circumscribed by the imperatives of security and justice to prevent abuse. Efficiency advances economic objectives by eliminating superfluous barriers, yet remains subordinate to the demands of justice. Recent developments, such as the proliferation of digital contracts and AI-driven contract formation, have necessitated a critical reinterpretation of these principles. For instance, standardized terms on digital platforms have challenged the boundaries of contractual autonomy and justice. Ultimately, these principles operate not merely as theoretical foundations but as pragmatic instruments for developing contract law in today's complex world. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Legal principle, principle of contractual freedom, principle of justice, principle of efficiency, principle of contractual security | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
منابع
مقاله
References Books
Articles
Laws & Regulations
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 3,483 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 538 |
||