论文部分内容阅读
本文以一个争议判例(“Erwin”案)为出发点,一审法院、二审法院以及联邦最高法院对该案中争议的意思表示性质持有不同观点,即该意思表示究竟是要式保证行为还是非要式债务介入行为。联邦最高法院认为,行为模式决定形式要求。笔者通过与罗马法进行比较分析,引入“Titius”案,厘清形式要求的意义和目的,对联邦最高法院的观点进行批判。笔者认为,形式要求独立于行为模式,以是否存在狭义上的自身利益为依据。
Starting from a controversial case (“Erwin” case), the court of first instance, the court of second instance and the Supreme Court of Justice hold different opinions on the nature of the controversial controversy in the case, that is, Non-essential debt intervention. The Supreme Court of the United States believes that the mode of conduct determines the formal requirements. Through comparative analysis with Roman Law, the author introduces “Titius ” case to clarify the meaning and purpose of formal requirements and criticize the view of the Federal Supreme Court. The author believes that the formal requirements are independent of the behavioral model, based on the existence of narrow self-interest.