The Mandatory Force of the Contract in Relation with the Thirds. Positive Consecration in Comparative Law and in the New Romanian Civil Code
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The drafters of the Romanian Civil Code at 1864 supressed the last part of the correspondingarticle of French Civil Code (art. 1165) so that the appearance was created of a rigid principle that did notallow for exceptions. The relativity of contractual bond provided under art. 973 Civ. c. shall however createboth integrating mechanisms and contain mitigations of the principle by virtue of principles of commutativejustice and juridical security. In the quasi-majority of legislations there are a series of situations when acontract may produce effects versus thirds, for an example the stipulation for another in the French civilCode, Civil Code of Quebec Province and Civil Code of Louisiana State. The new Romanian Civil Codereformulates the principles into affirmative draft in art. 1.280 that only maintains limitation of mandatoryeffects versus parties and even if no reference is explicitly made to thirds the collocation „unless otherwiseprovided by law” may however result by deduction in that a contract may under certain circumstancesproduce effects versus thirds too.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".