合同法中显失公平与乘人之危的比较Word格式文档下载.docx

合同法中显失公平与乘人之危的比较Word格式文档下载.docx

《合同法中显失公平与乘人之危的比较Word格式文档下载.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《合同法中显失公平与乘人之危的比较Word格式文档下载.docx（4页珍藏版）》请在冰点文库上搜索。

　　Commonscenarios

　　Distinguishinggrosslyconscionableandtakeadvantageofotherscouldbesignificantlymeaningful.Actually,takingadvantageofotherscanbedefinedasanintentionalfault,whichresultsfrompersonalsubjectiveconduct.Ontheotherhand,acontractwasgrosslyunconscionableatthetimeofitsconclusion,whichisanobjectiveresult.Theresultdoesn’tcontainpersonalpurpose,whichimplyoneparty’ssubjectiveintention.Sotheunconscionablecontractmustresultfromsomesubjectivefactorthatusedbyonepartyintentionally.Forexample,Mr.Chan’sfactoryonlyhasoneelectricalwirefromelectricalfield.ThemanagerofelectricalfieldalwayskeepsintouchwithMr.Chan.Oneday,manager’sbrothercametoMr.Chan’sfactoryandwouldliketosellhundredsunitofwater-melon.Mr.Chanrejectedthistrade.Afterafewdays,themanagerofelectricalfieldcalledMr.ChanandsaidthatthefactorywilllosepowertomanufactureifMr.Chandoesn’tacceptthetrade.Mr.Chanhasnochoicebutacceptit[1].Furthermore,theconsequencewillbeentirelydifferent.Underthesituationthatacontractwasconcludedbysubstantialmistake,eachofthepartiesisentitledtopetitionthePeople’sCourtoranarbitrationinstitutionforamendmentorcancellationofthecontract.However,underthesituationthatapartyinducedtheotherpartytoenterintoacontractagainstitstrueintentionbyfraudorduress,orbytakingadvantageoftheother’shardship,onlytheaggrievedpartyisentitledtopetitionthePeople’sCourtoranarbitrationinstitutionforamendmentorcancellationofthecontract.

　　Furtheranalysis

　　Accordingtoabove,itisnecessarytorecognizeacasewhetheritisgrosslycontractortakingadvantageofothers.Infact,therearesignificantfeaturesassociatedtothistwotheoriesrespectively.Aunconscionablecontractcanbeconcludedbyfraudorduresseventakingadvantageoftheotherparty’semergence,lackofexperienceintrade,whichresultinthattheaggrievedpartyaccepttheobviousunfaircondition.Forexample,Mr.Zhangcamefromvillageandhasnoexperienceinbeingaworker.ThesupervisorknewthatandconcludedacontractwithMr.Zhangthatthewageismuchlessthanmarketvalue.Aftertalkingwithotherworkers,Mr.Zhangfoundthatitwasunconscionablecontract.besides,onepartymayusepersonaleconomicpositionorhumanrelationshiptomaketheotherpartyacceptobviousweakcondition.Someexpertsconcludethatanunconscionablecontracthasfollowingfeatures:

　　Theresponsibilityisnotequallyrelatedtotherightwithintheparties.

　　Theequitybetweenresponsibilityandrightcanbejudgedbythecontentandperformanceofacontract.Ifthecontentofacontractstipulatesthatonepartyhavepredominantortoomanyrights,however,theotherpartyundertakeheavyobligation,evenhasnotbasicright,thenitcomposestheconditionofunconscionablecontract.Underthiscircumstance,theaggrievedpartycanbeentitledtopetitionthePeople’sCourtoranarbitrationinstitutionforamendmentorcancellationofthecontractbeforeoccurringtheunfairdistributionofbehalf.Furthermore,thecausesofinequalitybetweenrightsandobligationalsoincludethattheperformancegenerategreatdisparityofprofit,whichmeansthatoneparty’sismuchbetterthanthemarketvalueormuchlowerthanusualstandardoftheobligationsrelatedtothecontract.Obviously,theregulationofunconscionablecontractcanbeassessmenttosomeactionsthatleadtosignificantinequality.

　　Thepartygainfromthecontracthassubjectiveviciousness.

　　Thepartyintendtousepersonaladvantagesortheotherone‘slackofexperiencetoconcludeacontracthastily.Differentcausesofunconscionablecontractcanbethedistinctionoffeaturesbetweenfraud,duress,substantialmistakeandtakingadvantagesoftheother.Thinkingaboutthatwhetheritisintentionalcanpreventcitizensfromabusingtheregulationofunconscionablecontract.

　　Nevertheless,takingadvantageoftheotherparty’shardshipmeansthatforceittosignacontractagainstitstrueattentionunderthecircumstancethatitsufferfromtrouble.Itemphasizesthehardship,suchasfinancialemergenceorlifethreat.Undertheunconscionablesituation,itmayalsooccuremergence.Whereas,thedegreeofemergenceismuchlessthanthedegreeofhardshipthatoccurintakingadvantageoftheotherparty.Undertheunconscionablesituation,onepartyhasrelativeadvantagethantheotherone;

however,theotheronecanhasanotherchoiceratherthanconcludethiscontract.someexpertsclaimsthatthefeaturesoftakingadvantageoftheotherparty’shardshipcanbeconcludedasfollowing:

　　Onepartycompelstheotheronetoacceptanunconscionablecontractwhenitsuffersfromhardshiporemergency.

　　Notonlydoesthefinancialhazardincludeinthehardship,butalsothejeopardyoflifeandreputation.However,thehardshipwascausedbytheaggrievedparty’ssubjectiveintentionratherthanbydelict.Theemergency,whichmeansthatonepartyneedfinancialhelporservicefromtheotherone.Theemergencymainlycontainsfinancialorlivingtroubleratherthanpoliticalandculturalneeds.Takingadvantageoftheotherpartyimplythesubjectiveintention.Onotherhand,itcannotbeaccusedoftakingadvantageoftheotherpartyifonepartyhasnoideaofthehardshiporemergencyoftheotherparty.

　　Thegainfromaggrievedpartyexceedsthelimitstipulatedbylaw.

　　Theaggrievedpartywasalwaysforcedtoacceptthecontractagainstpersonalbehalf.Anditisimpossibleforguiltypartytogainhugeprofitunderusualcondition.Notonlydoestheguiltypartyviolatetheprincipleofequity,butalsoexceedthelimitstipulatedbylaw.Thebehalfofthepartiescannotbeproportionalunderacontractconcludedbytakingadvantageoftheotherone.Soitresultsinunconscionablecontract.However,differentcausesresultindifferenttypesofunconscionablecontract.

　　Sufferingfromhardship,theaggrievedpartyhastoacceptthecontract.

　　Theaggrievedknowthatthecontractwouldresultinpersonaldisadvantages;

however,nothingcanbechangedexceptacceptingthecontract.Accordingtoabove,thecontractisagainstpersonalintention.Forexample,Mr.Sunsufferedfromfinancialtroublethatfamilywasextremelysickandlackofmoneytopaythebillofhospital,whichwasthereasonwhyMr.Sundecidedtosellapatrimonialpicture.Afterknowingthisinformation,Mr.ZhaocontactedtoMr.andtakeadvantageofMr.Sun’semergency.Finally,Mr.Zhaogainsthepatrimonialpicturebypaying40%ofitsmarketvalue.

　　Conclusion

　　Atpresent,thereisnoprecisedistinctionbetweengrosslyunconscionableandtakingadvantageoftheotherparty.Althoughacontractresultfromtakingadvantageoftheotherpartycanbeincludedintounconscionablecontract,theyarenotthesamethings.Actually,theoutcomeoftakingadvantageoftheotherpartyismuchseriousthantheunconscionablecontractcausedbyotherreasons.Theprincipleofgrosslyunconscionableistheapplicationofhonestprincipletorelationshipbetweenparties.Asaclauseoflaw,itsessencecanberelativepreciseratherthanabsolutelyclear,whichprovidemorefreedomtojudge.Underthiscircumstance,thejudgemustthinkaboutthatwhetheritisgrosslyunconscionableortakingadvantageoftheotherpartythroughouttherespectivefeatures.Finally,itisnecessarytoestablishequitysystem,whichensurethatcontractwasconcludedunderthecircumstancethateachpartyiswillingandequallytodothis.Notonlydoesiturgepartiestoperformobligation,butalsoproviderighttoaggrievedpartytopetitionforamendmentandcancellationofcontract.Contract,asameanoflaw,shouldreflecttheessenceoftradingequality.

[1]http:

///bbs/?

tid=113456

http:

///cyfg/#3

http:

///info/hetong/kcxht/20090205/34204_

///faxuejieti/ms/200608/

///info/minshang/minfa/54951_

///?

NewsID=26366