Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT.The valid conclusion of contracts should be assessed in relation to the applicable legal requirements, which, in some cases, may require certain formalities. In the of goods, the validity of the is assessed through the general provisions of the Civil Code which complete the provisions of the special law governing each mode of separately.Keywords: of carriage; carrier; sender; consensual contract; solemn contract; real contract1. IntroductionThe conclusion of contracts is governed by the freedom of form, expressly regulated1 in the current civil law (art. 1178, the Civil Code). The freedom of form for the conclusion of contracts means that a can be considered validly concluded from the moment of the agreement of wills. The freedom of form has several exceptions, however, meaning that, in some instances, the will of parties should take a certain form preestablished under the law or should be accompanied by the delivery of the goods which represent the derivative object of the contract. From this perspective, art. 1174 of the Civil Code distinguishes between three categories of contracts, namely consensual, solemn or real. Consensual contracts follow perfectly the rule of the freedom of form. Instead, solemn contracts and real contracts are exceptions to this rule. Both exceptions involve the compliance with several form requirements. If in the first case, the valid conclusion of the implies the solemnities required by law, while the real contracts have in view the delivery of goods between the cocontracting parties. We are going to determine to what extent does the for the carriage of goods fall into the category of consensual contracts or in any of the above mentioned exceptions.2. Proving the Conclusion of the Contract for the Carriage of GoodsIn accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code governing the for the carriage of goods, its conclusion is proved by the document. For practical reasons, the law does not necessarily provide for the drafting of the itself, but requires ad probationem the issue of an evidencing document. This means that the cannot be classified as a solemn contract. Even the marginal naming of art. 1956 of the Civil Code, i.e. contract proof, expresses that the written form is not required for the validity of the operation, but only for proving the agreement between the parties.The general provisions of the Civil Code governing the carriage of goods refer to the existence of the written document acknowledging the will of the parties, called transport document,2signed by the sender (art. 1961, the Civil Code). Therefore, in the of goods, the rule is that the document is drawn up by the sender. This rule is reinforced by the provisions of art. 1967 of the Civil Code, which besides other things it refers expressly to the completion and transmission of the document. Also, in support of this rule, there are the provisions of art. 1961, paragraph 3, of the Civil Code, which refer to the sender's liability in case of omission, failure or inexactitude in relation to the specifications in this document.While transporting goods, the absence of the document may be covered by a certificate for the delivery of goods. The receipt shall be issued by the carrier only upon the request of the sender who delivers the goods (art. 1962, paragraph 2, the Civil Code). The possibility of issuing an advice for the delivery of goods which are going to be moved is usually accepted in the special legislation governing the various modes of transport. For example, in air transport, the air waybill may be replaced by a certificate of receipt, if there are used special means for registering the information on the carriage to be performed (article 4, paragraph 2 of the Convention in Montreal3). The exception is represented by the special legislation for the road of goods (art. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».