|
Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences. 2019. Issue 4 (46) |
||||||||||
| Title: | PROTECTION OF THE WEAKER PARTY IN CONTRACT LAW: FORMATION OF THE DOCTRINE |
|||||||||
| Authors: |
A. V. Kuzmina, Mari State University |
 |
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. | |||||||
| ORCID: | 0000-0003-4796-2621 | ResearcherID: | F-5981-2014 | |||||||
| Articles of «Scopus» & «Web of Science»: |
10.5539/res.v7n8p15 |
|||||||||
| Requisites: | Kuzmina A. V. Formirovanie doktriny zashchity slaboy storony v dogovornom prave [Protection of the Weaker Party in Contract Law: Formation of the Doctrine]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Juridicheskie nauki – Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences. 2019. Issue 46. Pp. 698–727. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17072/1995-4190-2019-46-698-727 | |||||||||
| DOI: | 10.17072/1995-4190-2019-46-698-727 | |||||||||
| Annotation: |
Introduction: the doctrine of protection of the weaker party to contractual obligations is currently a focus of attention in modern civil law. Developing the doctrine, it is necessary to ensure the balance of interests of contracting parties as well as fairness and reasonableness of contractual terms in the light of the discretionary nature of contract law and the principles of freedom of contract and good faith of participants in civil law transactions. It is noted in the article that, regardless of the legal system (Russian or foreign), juridical science, as a conceptual teaching developed by civil law scholars and courts in course of the administration of law, influences the development of approaches to protection of the weaker party in contracts. The scholarly doctrine creates special legal schemes designed to protect weaker parties from the imposition of clearly onerous contractual terms: 'procedurally unconscionable contracts' (the United States, Great Britain and other similar national legal systems), 'contracts of adhesion' (France, Quebec, California), and 'general contractual terms' (Germany). The author of this article has studied rules of conclusion of adhesion contracts established in the reformed legislation of the Russian Federation. The judicial doctrine of 'inequality of bargaining power' and the analysis of its elements and facts to be proven, as developed in judicial practice of the US and Russian courts, are specifically addressed in the article. The author observes that neither in Russian nor in foreign contract law the doctrine of protection of the weaker party from the imposition of clearly onerous contractual terms in the context of inequality of bargaining power has been sufficiently clearly established so far due to the well-known difficulties of the description of good faith, reasonableness and fairness in positive law, difficulties in establishing their interpenetration and correlation with the autonomy of the will of participants in civil law transactions and with the freedom of contract. Purpose: to reveal modern trends in the formation of the doctrine of protection of the weaker party as a teaching about the correlation of moral, legal and economic categories in determining the balance of interests of contracting parties; to find, on the basis of a complex comparative study, the limits of judicial interference into the freedom of contract applied to ensure the autonomy of the will of the weaker party to a contractual obligation. Methods: the methodological framework of this article includes the methods of dialectics, deductive and inductive reasoning (as general scientific methods), and specific scientific methods, such as the historical method, the technical legal method, the method of formal logic, the comparative law method, and the method of systemic analysis. The techniques of logic and lexico-grammatical analysis have been used for comprehending specific legal schemes, definitions and categories. Results: it is noted that significant changes concerning protection of the weaker party have been made in Russian civil law, German and French codified law of obligations, as well as in English consumer law. The legal phenomenon of imposition of clearly onerous terms is regulated in Russia under the influence of the doctrine of protection of the weaker party to a contract, which is well-established both in the Romano-Germanic and the Anglo-American legal systems. The author concludes that the doctrine is based on the elements of inequality of bargaining powers, when contractual terms have been determined by one of the parties while the other party is in the position which significantly impedes the negotiation of a different substance of certain contractual terms. A significant bargaining inequality may result from the economic and actual inequality of the parties to the contract at the moment of its conclusion. At the same time, courts differ in their evaluation of the elements of unequal bargaining powers of the parties. The author's proposals are related to the need to change the definition of the contract of adhesion by only preserving the criterion of inequality of bargaining power in the absence of individual negotiation of contractual terms, and to establish different standards of proof with due regard to the degree of the pre-existing inequality of bargaining power. Based on this doctrine, the weaker party must prove that the terms of the contract do not correspond to its reasonable expectations or that they are unfair or onerous to such party. The main elements of the doctrine of protection of the weaker party in contract law – its notion and influence on legal force of a contract – need to be further developed in theory and in practice. |
|||||||||
| Keywords: | freedom of contract; adhesion contract; inequality of bargaining power; doctrine of protection of the weaker party; clearly onerous terms; contract interpretation | |||||||||
 |
download the full-version article | |||||||||
| References: | 1. Bogdanov D. E. Problema formiro¬va-niya dogovornoy spravedlivosti i spravedlivoy otvetstvennosti za neispolnenie dogovora [The Problem of Formation of Contractual Fairness and Fair Liability for Default of a Treaty]. Zakonodatel'stvo i ekonomika – Legislation and Economics. 2012. Issue 3. Pp. 12–20. (In Russ.). 2. Braginskiy M. I., Vitryanskiy V. V. Dogovornoe pravo. Kniga pervaya: Obshchie polozheniya [Contract Law. Book One: General Provisions]. Moscow, 2000. 848 p. (In Russ.). 3. Vitryanskiy V. V. Reforma rossiyskogo grazhdanskogo zakonodatel'stva: promezhutochnye itogi [Russian Civil Law Reform: Interim Results]. Moscow, 2016. 431 p. (In Russ.). 4. Vitryanskiy V. V. Spetsial'nye dogo-vor¬nye konstruktsii v usloviyakh refor¬mi¬ro-vaniya grazhdanskogo zakonodatel'stva [Spe-cial Contractual Structures in the Context of Reforming Civil Law]. Khozyaystvo i pravo – Business and Law. 2011. Issue 10. Pp. 3–17. (In Russ.). 5. Volgina V. A. Usloviya osu¬shchest-vleniya sudebnogo kontrolya za soderzhaniem dogovora [Conditions of Judicial Control over the Content of a Contract]. Opyty tsivilisti-cheskogo issledovaniya: sbornik statey / A. E. Age¬enko, I. I Akimova, V. A. Volgina i dr.; ruk. avt. kol. i otv. red. A. M. Shirvindt, N. B. Shcherbakov [Civil Law Research Expe-rience: Collection of Articles; A. E. Age¬enko, I. I. Akimova, V. A. Volgina et al.; ed. by A. M. Shirvindt, N. B. Shcherbakov]. Moscow, 2018. Issue 2. Pp. 73–101. (In Russ.). 6. Golubtsov V. G. Sub"ektivnaya dobrosovestnost' v strukture obshchego ponyatiya dobrosovestnosti [Subjective Good Faith in the Structure of the General Concept of Good Faith]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Juridicheskie nauki – Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences. 2019. Issue 45. Pp. 490–518. DOI: 10.17072/1995-4190-2019-45-490-518. (In Russ.). 7. Dogovornoe i obyazatel'stvennoe pravo (obshchaya chast'): postateynyy kommentariy k stat'yam 307–453 Grazhdanskogo kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federatsii / otv. red. A. G. Karapetov [Contract Law and Law of Obligations (General Part): an Article-by-Article Commentary on Articles 307–453 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation; ed. by A. G. Karapetov]. Moscow, 2017. 1120 p. (In Russ.). 8. Ershov Yu. L. Printsip svobody dogovora i ego realizatsiya v grazhdanskom prave Rossiyskoy Federatsii. Diss. ... kand. yurid. nauk [The Principle of Freedom of Contract and Its Implementation in Russian Civil Law: Cand. jurid. sci. diss.]. Ekaterinburg, 2001. 170 p. (In Russ.). 9. Zhalinskiy A., Rerikht A. Vvedenie v nemetskoe pravo [Introduction to German Law]. Moscow, 2001. 767 p. (In Russ.). 10. Karapetov A. G. Pravo na otkaz ot vyplaty strakhovogo vozmeshcheniya s tochki zreniya printsipa svobody dogovora [The Right to Refuse to Pay Insurance Compensation in Terms of the Principle of the Freedom of Contract]. Vestnik Vysshego Arbitrazhnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii – Herald of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation. 2010. Issue 1. Pp. 118–125. (In Russ.). 11. Karapetov A. G., Bevzenko R. S. Kom-men¬tariy k normam GK ob otdel'nykh vidakh dogovorov v kontekste postanovleniya Plenuma VAS RF "O svobode dogovora i ee predelakh" [Commentary on the Civil Code Rules on Certain Types of Contracts in the Context of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation 'On the Freedom of Contract and Its Limits']. Vestnik Vysshego Arbitrazhnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii – Herald of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation. 2014. Issue 8. Pp. 4–97. (In Russ.). 12. Karapetov A. G., Savel'ev A. I. Svoboda dogovora i ee predely [Freedom of Contract and Its Limits]. Vol. 1. Teoreticheskie, istoricheskie i politiko-pravovye osnovaniya printsipa svobody dogovora i ego ogranicheniy [Theoretical, Historical, and Political-Legal Foundations of the Principle of the Freedom of Contract and Its Limits]. Moscow, 2012. 452 p. (In Russ.). 13. Karapetov A. G., Savel'ev A. I. Svoboda dogovora i ee predely [Freedom of Contract and Its Limits]. Vol. 2. Predely svobody opredeleniya usloviy dogovora v zarubezhnom i rossiyskom prave [The Limits of the Freedom of Contractual Terms Determination in Foreign and Russian Law]. Moscow, 2012. 453 p. (In Russ.). 14. Karapetov A. G., Fetisova E. M. Prak-tika primeneniya arbitrazhnymi sudami postanovleniya Plenuma Vysshego Arbitrazhnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii ot 14.03.2014 № 16 "O svobode dogovora i ee predelakh" [Case Law of Arbitrazh Courts on the Ruling of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation No. 16 'On the Freedom of Contract and Its Limits' of 14 March 2014]. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravo¬sudiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii – Herald of Economic Justice. 2015. Issue 12. Pp. 145–191. (In Russ.). 15. Klochkov A. A. Standartnye (obshchie) usloviya dogovorov v kommercheskom oborote: pravovoe regulirovanie v Rossii i zarubezhnykh stranakh. Diss. ... kand. yurid. nauk [Standard (General) Terms of Contracts in Commercial Transactions: Legal Regulation in Russia and Foreign Countries: Cand. jurid. sci. diss.]. Moscow, 2000. 210 p. (In Russ.). 16. Kommentariy k Grazhdanskomu kodeksu Rossiyskoy Federatsii, chasti pervoy (postateynyy) / pod red. S. P. Grishaeva i A. M. Erdelevskogo [Commentary on the Part One of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Article-by-Article); ed. by S.P. Grishaev and A.M. Erdelevskiy]. Access from the legal reference system 'ConsultantPlus'. (In Russ.). 17. Kontseptsiya razvitiya grazhdanskogo zakonodatel'stva Rossiyskoy Federatsii / Vstupitel'noe slovo A. L. Makovskogo [The Concept of Development of Civil Legislation of the Russian Federation; prefaced by A. L. Makovskiy]. Moscow, 2009. 160 p. (In Russ.). 18. Kratenko M. V. Zloupotreblenie svobodoy dogovora: chastnopravovye i publichno-pravovye aspekty [Abuse of Freedom of Contract: Private Law and Public Law Aspects]. Moscow, 2010. 208 p. (In Russ.). 19. Kuz'mina A. V. Dogovor prisoedineniya i kontseptual'nye izmeneniya grazhdanskogo zakonodatel'stva [Contract of Adhesion and Conceptual Changes in Civil Legislation]. Izmeneniya v Grazhdanskom kodekse v Rossiyskoy Federatsii: novelly grazhdanskogo zakonodatel'stva 2012: sbornik materialov Vserossiyskoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii (g. Kazan', 15.06.2012 g.) [Changes in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation: Novels of Civil Legislation 2012: Collection of Proceedings of the All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference (Kazan, June 15, 2012)]. Moscow, 2012. Pp. 325–332. (In Russ.). 20. Kuz'mina A. V. Treteyskie ogovorki v dogovorakh prisoedineniya: problemy reformirovaniya grazhdanskogo i protsessual'nogo zakonodatel'stva [Arbitration Clauses in Adhesion Contracts: Problems of Civil and Procedural Law Reform]. Zakon – ZAKON. 2015. Issue 4. Pp. 121–132. (In Russ.). 21. Kulagin M. I. Izbrannye trudy po aktsionernomu i torgovomu pravu. 2-e izd., ispr. [Selected Works on Company and Commercial Law. 2nd ed., revised]. Moscow, 2004. 363 p. (In Russ.). 22. Kucher A. N. Teoriya i praktika preddogovornogo etapa: Yuridicheskiy aspekt [Theory and Practice of the Pre-Contractual Stage: Legal Aspect]. Moscow, 2005. 361 p. (In Russ.). 23. Makovskaya A. A. Reforma dogovornogo prava vo Frantsii. Novye polozheniya Grazhdanskogo kodeksa Frantsii [Reform of Contract Law in France. New Provisions of the French Civil Code]. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii – Herald of Economic Justice. 2016. Issue 8. Pp. 76–101. (In Russ.). 24. Mullina Yu. N. Kontrol' za nespravedlivymi dogovornymi usloviyami: rossiyskoe pravo v sravnitel'no-pravovoy perspektive [Control over Unfair Contractual Terms: Russian Law in a Comparative Legal Perspective]. Opyty tsivilisticheskogo issledovaniya: Sbornik statey / D. V. Gudkov, I. I. Zikun, A. A. Zyablikov i dr.; ruk. avt. kol. i otv. red. A.M. Shirvindt, N. B. Shcherbakov [Civil Law Research Experience: Collection of Articles; D. V. Gudkov, I. I. Zikun, A. A. Zyablikov et al.; ed. by A. M. Shirvindt, N. B. Shcherbakov]. Moscow, 2016. Pp. 196–224. (In Russ.). 25. Novitskiy I. B. Printsip dobroy sovesti v proekte obyazatel'stvennogo prava [The Principle of Good Faith in the Draft Law of Obligations]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava – Civil Law Review. 2006. Issue 1. Pp. 124–181. (In Russ.). 26. Savel'ev A. I. Dogovor prisoedineniya v rossiyskom grazhdanskom prave [Сontract of Adhesion in Russian Civil Law]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava – Civil Law Review. 2010. Issue 5. Pp. 13–75. (In Russ.). 27. Slavetskiy D. V. Printsip zashchity slaboy storony grazhdansko-pravovogo dogovora: Diss. ... kand. yurid. nauk [The Principle of Protection of the Weaker Party to a Civil Law Contract: Cand. jurid. sci. diss.]. Samara, 2004. 204 p. (In Russ.). 28. Fogel'son Yu. B. Zashchita ot nespravedlivykh usloviy dogovorov v rossiyskoy sudebnoy praktike [Protection against Unfair Contract Terms in Russian Case Law]. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii – Herald of Economic Justice. 2018. Issue 10. Pp. 163–179. (In Russ.). 29. Fogel'son Yu.B. Nespravedlivye (nedobrosovestnye) usloviya dogovorov [Unfair (Unconscientious) Terms of Contracts]. Khozyaystvo i pravo – Business and Law. 2010. Issue 10. Pp. 29–56. (In Russ.) 30. Khuzhokova I. M. Doktrina dobrykh nravov i publichnogo poryadka v dogovornom prave: sravnitel'noe issledovanie [The Doctrine of Good Morals and Public Policy in Contract Law: a Comparative Study]. Moscow, 2011. 112 p. (In Russ.). 31. Zweigert K., Kotz H. Vvedenie v sravnitel'noe pravovedenie v sfere chastnogo prava: V 2 tomakh [An Introduction to Comparative Law in the Sphere of Private Law: In 2 vols.]. Moscow, 2000. Vol. 2. 512 p. 32. Tsyplenkova A. V. Dogovor prisoedineniya, kak osobaya kategoriya grazhdanskogo prava. Diss. ... kand. yurid. nauk [Сontract of Adhesion as a Special Category of Civil Law: Cand. jurid. sci. diss.]. Moscow, 2002. 202 p. (In Russ.). 33. Shirvindt A. M. Ogranichenie svobody dogovora v tselyakh zashchity prav potrebiteley v rossiyskom i evropeyskom chastnom prave / pod obshch. red. A. L. Makovskogo [Limiting Freedom of Contract in Order to Protect Consumer Rights in Russian and European Private Law; ed. by A. L. Makovskiy]. Moscow, 2014. 158 p. (In Russ.). 34. Yakovleva S. Printsip dobrosovestnosti i zapret zloupotrebleniya pravom v dogovornom prave [The Principle of Good Faith and the Prohibition of Abuse of Rights in Contract Law]. Khozyaystvo i pravo – Business and Law. 2010. Issue 11. Pp. 54–70. (In Russ.). 35. Bankman J. The Economic Substance Doctrine. Southern California Law Review. 2000. Issue 74(5). (In Eng.). 36. Beatson J. Has the Common Law a Future? The Cambridge Law Journal. 1997. Issue 56(2). Pp. 291–314. DOI: 10.1017/ S0008197300081332. (In Eng.). 37. Morant B. D. The Salience of Power in the Regulation of Bargains. Michigan State Law Review. 2006. Pp. 925, 959. (In Eng.). 38. Bolgár V. The Contract of Adhesion: A Comparison of Theory and Practice. The American Journal of Comparative Law. Winter, 1972. Vol. 20. No. 1. Pp. 53, 78. (In Eng.). 39. Chantepie G., Latina M. La définition du contrat d'adhésion en droit français: une valse à quatre temps? Contrat d'adhésion et négociation. Le contrat d'adhésion perspectives franco-québécoises. Sous la direction de Gaël Chantepie et Mathias Latina, Dalloz, coll. thèmes et commentaires. 2018. P. 1. (In Fr.). 40. Chantepie G., Latina M. La réforme du droit des obligations. Commentaire théorique et pratique dans l'ordre du Code civil. Paris, Dalloz, 2016. 1144 p. (In Fr.). 41. Chantepie G., Latina M. Ratification de la réforme du droit des obligations: analyse de la deuxième lecture du Sénat. Dalloz, 2018. 309 p. (In Fr.). 42. Chassagnard-Pinet S. La réception du contrat d'adhésion dans la théorie du contrat avant l'entrée de la notion dans le Code civil français. Le contrat d'adhésion perspectives franco- québécoises; Sous la direction de Gaël Chantepie et Mathias Latina, Dalloz, coll. thèmes et commentaires. 2018. P. 7. (In Fr.). 43. Chénedé F. La réforme du droit des contrats et le dialogue des chambres. AJCA. 2018. P. 25. (In Fr.). 44. Barnhizer D. D. Inequality of Bargaining Power. University of Colorado Law Review. 2005. Vol. 76. Pp. 139, 194–198. (In Eng.). 45. Deshayes O. L'interprétation des contrats. JCP. 2015. P. 41. (In Fr.). 46. Dissaux N., Jamin Ch. Réforme du droit des contrats, du régime général et de la preuve des obligations (Ordonnance n° 2016-131 du 10 février 2016). Paris, Dalloz, 2016. 274 р. (In Fr.). 47. Dupichot J. Pour un retour aux textes: défense et illustration du «petit guide- âne» des articles 1156 et suivants du Code civil »; Études offertes à Jacques Flour. Paris, Defrénois, 1979. 179 p. (In Fr.). 48. Ebke W. F., Steinhauer B. M. The Doc¬trine of Good Faith in German Contract Law. In: J. Beatson and D. Friedman (eds.) Good Faith and Fault in Contract Law Oxford; New York, Clarendon. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198265 788. 001.0001. (In Eng.). 49. Eisenmann Ch. Quelques problèmes de méthodologie des définitions et des classifications en science juridique. Archives de philosophie du droit. 1966. Pp. 25–43. (In Fr.). 50. Fauvarque-Cosson B. Les nouvelles règles du Code civil relatives à l'interprétation des contrats: perspective comparatiste et interna¬tionale. RDC. 2017. P. 363. (In Fr.). 51. Darr F. Unconscionability and Price Fairness. Houston Law Review. 1994. Issue 30. (In Eng.). 52. Grimaldi C. La valeur normative des directives d'interprétation. RDC. 2015. No. 1. P. 154. (In Fr.). 53. Guerlin G. L'accessibilité et l'inter-prétation contrat d'adhésion. Comparaison du nouveau droit français au droit des États- Unis. Le contrat d'adhésion perspectives franco- québécoises; Sous la direction de Gaël Chantepie et Mathias Latina, Dalloz, coll. thèmes et commentaires. 2018. P. 99. (In Fr.). 54. Hart D. K. Contract Law Now – Reality Meets Legal Fictions. University of Baltimore Law Review. 2011. Vol. 41. Issue 1. Pp. 65–68. (In Eng.). 55. Henderson R. The Doctrine of Reasonable Expectations in Insurance Law after Two Decades. Ohio State Law Journal. 1990. Vol. 51. Issue 4. Pp. 823–853. (In Eng.). 56. Keeton R. Insurance Law Rights at Variance with Policy Provisions: Part One. Harvard Law Review. 1970. Vol. 83. P. 961. (In Eng.). 57. DiMatteo L. A. Penalties as Rational Response to Bargaining Irrationality. Michigan State Law Review. 2006. Issue 883. Pp. 902–903. (In Eng.). 58. Lerebours-Pigeonnière P. La déclaration essentielle de R. Saleilles à la théorie générale de l'obligation et à sa théorie de la déclaration de volonté». L'oeuvre de Raymond Saleilles. Paris, Librairie A. Rousseau, 1914. 433 p. (In Fr.). 59. Marty G., Raynaud P. Droit civil, t. 2, 1er vol., Les obligations. Paris, Sirey, 1962. 927 p. (In Fr.). 60. Helveston M., Jacobs M. The Incoherent Role of Bargaining Power in Contract Law. Wake Forest Law Review. 2014. Vol. 49. Pp. 1017, 1058. (In Eng.). 61. Lonegrass M. T. Finding Room for Fairness in Formalism. Loyola University of Chi¬ca¬go Law Journal. 2012. Vol. 44. Pp. 1, 6. (In Eng.). 62. Eisenberg M. A. The Bargain Principle and Its Limits. Harvard Law Review. 1982. Vol. 95. Pp. 741,801. (In Eng.). 63. Minnock J. E. Protecting the Insured from an Adhesion Insurance Policy: the Doctrine of Reasonable Expectations in Utah. Utah Law Review. 1991. (In Eng.). 64. Ben-Shahar O. A Bargaining Power Theory of Default Rules. Columbia Law Review. 2009. Vol. 109. Pp. 396, 429. (In Eng.). 65. Parker J. Reconciling the Irreconcilable Conflict in Insurance Severability of Interests Clause Interpretation. Connecticut Insurance Law Journal. 2013. Vol. 20. Pp. 61–88. (In Eng.). 66. Patterson E. The Delivery of a Life-Insurance Policy. Harvard Law Review. 1919. Vol. 33. Pp. 198, 222. (In Eng.). 67. Pellet S. Contrat d'adhésion et négociation. Le contrat d'adhésion perspectives franco- québécoises; Sous la direction de Gaël Chantepie et Mathias Latina, Dalloz, coll. thèmes et commentaires. 2018. Pp. 67–76. (In Fr.). 68. Pellier J.-D. L'ordonnance portant réforme du droit des contrats, du régime général et de la preuve des obligations enfin ratifiée! Available at: https://www.dalloz-actualite.fr/. (In Fr.). 69. Revet T. Le projet de réforme et les contrats structurellement déséquilibrés. Dalloz, 2015. P. 1217. (In Fr.). 70. Revet T. L'incohérent cantonnement, par l'Assemblée nationale, du domaine du contrat d'adhésion aux contrats de masse. Recueil Dalloz, 2018. No. 3. Pp. 124–128. (In Fr.). 71. Ripert G. La règle morale dans les obligations civiles. 4th ed. Paris, LGDJ, 1949. 424 p. (In Fr.). 72. Saleilles R. De la declaration de volonté, contribution a l'étude de l'acte juridique dans le code civil allemand. Paris, Pichon, 1901. Vol. XI. 421 p. (In Fr.). 73. Lifshitz Sh. Distress Exploitation Contracts in the Shadows of No Duty to Rescue. North Carolina Law Review. 2008. Vol. 86. Issue 1. (In Eng.). 74. Sterkin S.D. Challenging Adhesion Contracts in California: A Consumer's Guide. Golden Gate University Law Review. 2004. Vol. 34. Issue 2. (In Eng.). 75. Testu F. Le juge et le contrat d'adhésion. JCP. 1993. No. 19. P. 3673. (In Fr.). 76. Unfair terms in contracts. Report on a Reference under Section 3(1) (e) of the Law Commissions Act 1965. 2005. (In Eng.). 77. Zacks E.A. The Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 211: Unfulfilled Expectations and the Future of Modern Standardized Consumer Contracts (May 5, 2016). William & Mary Business Law Review. 2016. Vol. 7. Issue 3. P. 733. (In Eng.) |
|||||||||
| Received: | 01.10.2019 | |||||||||
| Financing: | The study was carried out with the financial support of the RFBR as part of research project No. 18-011-00857 | |||||||||
614068, Perm, street Bukireva, 15 (Faculty of Law), +7 (342) 2 396 275
vesturn@yandex.ru
ISSN 1995-4190 ISSN (eng.) 2618-8104
ISSN (online) 2658-7106
DOI 10.17072/1995-4190
The certificate on registration of mass media ПИ № ФС77-33087 from September, 5th, 2008
The certificate on reregistration of mass media ПИ № ФС77-53189 from Marth, 14th, 2013
The magazine is included in List ВАК and in the Russian index of scientific citing
The founder & Publisher: the State educational institution of the higher training
“The Perm State University”.
Publishing 4 times a year