WEKO3
-
RootNode
アイテム
契約理論の現在－契約の再交渉論への序説－
https://oiu.repo.nii.ac.jp/records/370
https://oiu.repo.nii.ac.jp/records/3703d8eebca-8995-4336-9647-da6d00ef1f5b
| 名前 / ファイル | ライセンス | アクション |
|---|---|---|
16-2-195 (2.6 MB)
|
|
| Item type | 紀要論文(ELS) / Departmental Bulletin Paper(1) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 公開日 | 2003-03-31 | |||||
| タイトル | ||||||
| タイトル | 契約理論の現在－契約の再交渉論への序説－ | |||||
| 言語 | ||||||
| 言語 | jpn | |||||
| キーワード | ||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||
| 主題 | 意思主義 | |||||
| キーワード | ||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||
| 主題 | 再交渉義務 | |||||
| キーワード | ||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||
| 主題 | 法のプロセス化 | |||||
| キーワード | ||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||
| 主題 | 契約法の二元性 | |||||
| 資源タイプ | ||||||
| 資源タイプ識別子 | http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 | |||||
| 資源タイプ | departmental bulletin paper | |||||
| ページ属性 | ||||||
| 内容記述タイプ | Other | |||||
| 内容記述 | P(論文) | |||||
| 記事種別(日) | ||||||
| 値 | 論文 | |||||
| 記事種別(英) | ||||||
| 言語 | en | |||||
| 値 | Article | |||||
| その他の言語 | ||||||
| 言語 | Contract Theories in Japan: Towards a Theory of Contract Renegotiation | |||||
| 論文名よみ | ||||||
| その他のタイトル | ケイヤク リロン ノ ゲンザイ ケイヤク ノ サイコウショウロン ヘノ ジョセツ | |||||
| 著者名(日) |
姫野, 学郎
× 姫野, 学郎 |
|||||
| 著者名よみ |
ヒメノ, ガクロウ
× ヒメノ, ガクロウ |
|||||
| 著者名(英) |
Himeno, Gakuro
× Himeno, Gakuro |
|||||
| 抄録(英) | ||||||
| 内容記述タイプ | Other | |||||
| 内容記述 | Two theories have appeared in the last decade in Japanese contract scholarship that are labeled as postmodernist: one is Professor Takashi Uchida’s “relational contract theory” that has been profoundly influenced by Professor Ian Macneil; the other is Professor Kenji Yamamoto’s theory that has been inspired by Professor Norbert Horn’s “Duty to Re-negotiate (Neuverhandlungspflicht).” In this short article I seek to analyze the two theories because both are focused on the performance stage of contracts – contract renegotiation. The most significant difference between the two theories is that Yamamoto highlights the tension inherent to the “Duty to Re-negotiate,”an obligation to freely agree (eine Pflicht, sich freiwillig zu einigen), while Uchida deliberately alleviates it by regarding the duty as an “immanent norm.” The reference group in the Yamamoto theory is indeed all the potential discussants (following Jurgen Habermas) whilst that in Uchida’s theory is the interpretative community of the business (following especially Hans-Gearg Gadamer). The two are related, it will be discussed, to the traditional argument about the appropriate relationship between “ratio” and “voluntas,” furthermore between Vertragsgerechtigkeit and Vertragsfreiheit. | |||||
| 雑誌書誌ID | ||||||
| 収録物識別子タイプ | NCID | |||||
| 収録物識別子 | AN10110523 | |||||
| 書誌情報 |
国際研究論叢 : 大阪国際大学紀要 en : OIU journal of international studies 巻 16, 号 2, p. 195, 発行日 2003-03-31 |
|||||
