论文部分内容阅读
承诺对于合同成立的意义不言而喻。在大多数情况下,受要约人是否对要约作出承诺是判断一个合同是否成立的决定性因素。对合同成立的地点与时间的判断也与承诺之间存在着密切的关系。然而,作为现实社会生活中最普遍的社会关系之一,法律对于合同关系的调整显然尚未达到面面俱到的地步。围绕合同关系而产生的待解决问题数不胜数。沉默承诺问题就是其中之一。沉默承诺有别于通过可推断之行为所为的表示,仅仅是指表意人没有发出任何表示符号的情形。在通常情况下,这种沉默是没有任何法律意义的。①但实际上,一律否定沉默承诺法律效力的做法显然是不妥当的,至少与现代合同法的重要原则之一—鼓励交易原则背道而驰。为此,很多国家都明确规定了例外承认沉默承诺效力的情况。本文将围绕此问题,从中国的立法现状入手,通过介绍德法两国的相关制度,并就此进行比较研究,尝试对中国在此问题上的立法提出一些有益的建议。
The promise of the meaning of the contract is self-evident. In most cases, whether the promisee makes a promise or not is a decisive factor in determining whether a contract is established. There is a close relationship between the judgment of the place and time of the establishment of the contract and its promises. However, as one of the most prevalent social relations in real life, it is clear that the legal adjustment of the contractual relationship has not yet reached the limit of everything. There are numerous problems to be solved around the contractual relationship. Silence commitment is one of them. The promise of silence differs from the expression of what can be inferred from what can be inferred, merely in the sense that the ideograph has not given any sign. Under normal circumstances, this silence is without any legal significance. In practice, however, it is obviously inappropriate to negate the legal effect of the silent promise, at least in contradiction with the principle of encouraging transactions, one of the important principles of modern contract law. For this reason, many countries clearly stipulate the circumstances in which an exception admits the effectiveness of silence. This article will focus on this issue, starting from the current situation of China’s legislation, by introducing the relevant systems in Germany and France, and a comparative study of this, trying to make some suggestions on China’s legislation on this issue.