Post by xyz3600 on Feb 25, 2024 11:18:31 GMT
If there is something that cannot be said about this government, it is that it does not act like a polite gentleman who, with determination and determination, makes the most beautiful bows and the most lyrical courtesies to economic freedom. But what the government seems to forget is that economic freedom does not walk alone, as it is the Siamese sister — as well as a close friend — of contractual freedom. Therefore, paying court to one, without remembering the other, is the path to failure, while, to enchant the first, there is nothing better than strengthening the second. That is why dealing with contractual freedom with simplicity and clarity is the best thing that can be done to guarantee the realization of economic freedom.
Pompous and uncertainly enforced rules are the opposite. They hit both. When we read the provisions of MP 881, what we see is that the government has not yet learned this lesson. In contractual matters, MP 881 modifies the Civil Code in two ways: it changes the wording of two of its articles (articles 421 and 423) and introduces two new provisions (articles 480-A and 480-B). The new wording of article 421 links the social function Middle East Mobile Number List of the contract to the declaration of economic freedom rights. What motivated the change is the vagueness of the expression “social function of the contract”, a legal concept that is not very dense and recent in our doctrine. To combat such vagueness, MP 881 linked the social function of contracts to the declaration of economic freedom rights, a text that is even more vague and composed of concepts that are less dense and more recent than the previous version.
The practical result is the need for new interpretations, to be made mainly by the Judiciary. In other words, the text brings more insecurities to business, and the concept of the social function of the contract, which ended up demonstrating little ability to generate relevant contractual consequences, will once again become a focus of uncertainty. The new wording of article 423 changes the regulation of adhesion contracts and now affects the so-called parity contracts, those not formed by adhesion. According to its new sole paragraph, “in contracts not covered by the provisions of the caput , unless there is a specific provision in law, the doubt in the interpretation benefits the party that did not write the disputed clause”. The formulation of the new rule seems to indicate, at the very least, the exercise of absurdity, as it leaves the writer of any contractual clause in permanent check.
Pompous and uncertainly enforced rules are the opposite. They hit both. When we read the provisions of MP 881, what we see is that the government has not yet learned this lesson. In contractual matters, MP 881 modifies the Civil Code in two ways: it changes the wording of two of its articles (articles 421 and 423) and introduces two new provisions (articles 480-A and 480-B). The new wording of article 421 links the social function Middle East Mobile Number List of the contract to the declaration of economic freedom rights. What motivated the change is the vagueness of the expression “social function of the contract”, a legal concept that is not very dense and recent in our doctrine. To combat such vagueness, MP 881 linked the social function of contracts to the declaration of economic freedom rights, a text that is even more vague and composed of concepts that are less dense and more recent than the previous version.
The practical result is the need for new interpretations, to be made mainly by the Judiciary. In other words, the text brings more insecurities to business, and the concept of the social function of the contract, which ended up demonstrating little ability to generate relevant contractual consequences, will once again become a focus of uncertainty. The new wording of article 423 changes the regulation of adhesion contracts and now affects the so-called parity contracts, those not formed by adhesion. According to its new sole paragraph, “in contracts not covered by the provisions of the caput , unless there is a specific provision in law, the doubt in the interpretation benefits the party that did not write the disputed clause”. The formulation of the new rule seems to indicate, at the very least, the exercise of absurdity, as it leaves the writer of any contractual clause in permanent check.