论文部分内容阅读
违反规章规定的合同,不能简单以“违反社会公共利益”或“违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定”为由,被认定无效。虽然规章层级相对较低,其实际作用却不容忽视,应慎重判断违反规章的合同效力。至于具体分析思路,既有的“二分法”操作模式为合同效力的判断提供了可行的路径,但由于所涉“效力规定”与“取缔规定”概念高度概括,不易区分,会出现裁判过程随意性较大、裁判结果可预见性较低的问题。本文尝试引入比例原则分析违反规章的合同效力,即依据适合性、必要性、均衡性原则,依次分析违反规章的合同是否有损于社会公共利益;是否可通过其他手段保护社会公共利益;以及使合同无效的后果与保护的社会公共利益是否相当。只有当合同违反的规章内容与社会公共利益具有直接相关性、判令合同无效是足以保护社会公共利益的唯一手段、且依据社会大众的一般观念可知合同无效的后果与因合同损害的社会公共利益之间具有均衡性,违反规章的合同才能被认定为无效。否则,在这三项原则中,只要有一项原则不能满足,相应的合同就不能仅仅因违反规章而被认定为无效。
Contracts that violate the rules and regulations can not be regarded as ineffective simply because they violate the social public interest or they violate the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations. Although the level of regulation is relatively low, its actual role can not be ignored, and the effectiveness of the contract in violation of the rules should be carefully judged. As for the specific analysis ideas, the existing “dichotomy ” mode of operation provides a feasible path for judging the validity of the contract, but it is not easy to distinguish because of the high level of concepts involved in “validity ” and “banning provision ” , There will be a more arbitrariness in the adjudication process and a lower predictability of the adjudication result. This article attempts to introduce the principle of proportionality to analyze the contravention of the effectiveness of the contract, that is, according to the principle of suitability, necessity and balance, in turn analyze whether the violation of the rules of the contract is detrimental to the public interest; whether other means can be used to protect public interests; Whether the consequences of the contract is equivalent to the protection of public interests. Only when the content of the contract violation is directly related to the social public interest, deciding that the contract is ineffective is the only means to protect the public interest, and according to the general concept of the general public, we can see the consequence of the contract invalid and the social public benefit of contract damage The balance between the violations of the rules of the contract can be considered invalid. Otherwise, of these three principles, as long as one principle can not be satisfied, the corresponding contract can not be invalidated simply because of a violation of the rules.