摘要
违反规章的合同,并非仅能以违背公序良俗为由否定其效力。强制性规定的位阶限制尚有合宪性解释空间,低位阶的规章可作为说理依据,借法律、行政法规,以强制性规定身份否定合同效力。“违法无效”和“背俗无效”实质上虽有交叉但于技术路径上相互独立。以条文内容是否构成对上位法的具体化为标准,违反规章之合同效力认定的裁判路径可分野为“违法无效”与“背俗无效”两种。违反规章之合同效力认定的裁判说理受民法渊源和合同效力渊源有关规则的双重限制,并有赖于强制性规定与公序良俗的类型化。民事裁判只能将规章作为说理依据,并应根据不同裁判路径相应说明合同无效的理由。同时,规章必须在先行“经审查认定为合法有效”后,方可否定合同效力。
A contract that violates the regulations cannot be denied its validity only on the grounds that it violates public order and good morals. There is still room for constitutional interpretation of the rank restrictions of mandatory provisions, and the lower-rank regulations can be used as a rationale to deny the validity of contracts as mandatory provisions through laws and administrative regulations. "Illegal invalidity" and "violation of customs invalidity" overlap in substance but are independent of each other in terms of technical paths. According to whether the content of its provisions constitutes a concrete standard for the superior law, the judgment path for the determination of the validity of a contract that violates the regulations can be divided into two categories: "illegal and invalid" and "unconventional invalid". Judgment and reasoning for the determination of contract validity in violation of regulations is subject to the dual restrictions of the origin of civil law and the relevant regulations of the origin of contract validity, and depends on the categorization of mandatory regulations and public order and good customs. Civil judgments can only use the regulations as the basis for reasoning, and should explain the reasons for the invalidity of the contract according to different judgment paths. At the same time, the regulations must first be "verified as legal and effective" before they can deny the validity of the contract.
出处
《荆楚法学》
2023年第1期16-27,共12页
Jingchu Law Review
基金
广东外语外贸大学2018年国家哲学社会科学基金重大项目“新时代中国特色土地管理法律制度完善研究”(项目编号:18ZDA151)的阶段性成果。
关键词
合同效力
强制性规定
公序良俗
规章
Contract Effectiveness
Mandatory Regulations
Public Order and Good Customs
Regulations
