论文部分内容阅读
有关价格缺失对合同成立的影响,《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》(CISG)第14条和第55条与中国《合同法》第14条和第61、62条均有所涉及。就CISG而言,尽管第14条和第55条在内容上存在着一定矛盾:一方面,价格缺失对于合同成立的具体影响取决于不同的情形;另一方面,无论在何种情形下,第14条和第55条之间都不会发生适用上的冲突;而现实冲突的本质在于不同国家法官的解释产生冲突。就中国《合同法》第14条和第61、62条的类似规定来看,在与CISG相异的规范内容方面,其彼此间的逻辑悖论十分明显;而在与CISG相同的规范内容方面,由其不同于CISG的规范属性所决定,其规范价值无从体现。由此,中国《合同法》相关条款之间的协调性与兼容性均较CISG为不足,并由此在现实中形成二者之间的适用差异。
Concerning the impact of the lack of price on the establishment of the contract, Article 14 and Article 55 of the CISG and the Articles 14 and 61 and 62 of the Contract Law of China both involve. In the case of the CISG, although there is a certain contradiction in terms of the content of Articles 14 and 55: On the one hand, the specific effect of the price absence on the formation of the contract depends on the circumstances; on the other hand, in any case, No conflict applies between the 14th and the 55th. The essence of the actual conflict lies in the conflict between the judgments of different countries. In terms of Article 14 of the Contract Law of China and similar provisions of Articles 61 and 62, the logical paradoxes of each other in respect of normative content that is different from the CISG are obvious. In the same normative content as the CISG , By its different from the normative attributes of the CISG, its normative value can not be reflected. As a result, the coordination and compatibility between the relevant provisions of China’s “Contract Law” are both less than those of the CISG, thus resulting in the practical differences between the two.