单方允诺的效力根据  

On the Basis of Validity for Unilateral Promises

作　　者：徐涤宇[1] 黄美玲[1] 

机构地区：[1]湖南大学罗马法系研究中心

出　　处：《中国社会科学》2013年第4期141-160,207-208,共20页Social Sciences in China

基　　金：教育部新世纪人才支持计划(2010);湖南省高校学科带头人培养计划的支持

摘　　要：现代学者将罗马法各种类型的单方允诺想象为契约,但这些单方允诺的效力事实上并非来自合意,而是宗教形式主义和类型强制的结果。中世纪,教会法依赎罪戒律普遍地承认单方允诺的效力,但其强制力仅在教会法中被执行。自然法学派要求受诺人的"接受"作为允诺产生法律约束力的前提,契约范式自此形成,单方允诺被置于契约模式予以重构。普通法传统不关注意思表示的双方性结构,只要有充分的对价,一个允诺也可被强制执行。单方允诺制度应摆脱合意主义的约束,成为一种与合同并列的债之发生模式。在中国未来的民法典编纂中,应系统构建单方允诺制度。Contemporary scholars tend to conceptualize the different types of unilateral promise in Roman law as a kind of contract. However, the validity of these unilateral promises does not derive from consensus, but is a result of religious formalism and type coercion. In the medieval times, the canon law generally recognized the validity of unilateral promises in accordance with the expiation doctrines, but their coercive power was executed only within the canon law. The natural law school requires the promisee’s 'reception' as a precondition for the legal binding force of a promise, hence the emergence of the contractual model of unilateral promises. The common law tradition pays less attention to the two-party structure in the expression of intent, believing that a promise can be enforced so long as there is adequate consideration. The unilateral promise system should shake off the restraint of consensualism and become an obligation-occurring model that runs parallel to the contract. In compiling its Civil Code in the future, China should build a complete system of unilateral promises.

关 键 词：单方允诺 契约范式 效力根据 独立债因 

分 类 号：D913[政治法律—民商法学]