Unconscionability in Contracts between Merchants in French Law : Some Reflections and Propositions in the Light of Comparative Law (Quelques Réflexions Et Propositions Au Sujet Des Clauses 'Déraisonnables' Ou 'Abusives' Dans Les Contrats Conclus Entre Professionnels, À La Lueur Du Droit Comparé Et Des Propositions Savantes)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay examines the French law of standard form contracts and its faults. It is argued that the limitation of the judicial control to solely consumer contracts is not justified. In the light of comparative law (particularly German law, Quebec law and PECL), the author militates for the extension of judicial control to contracts between merchants. Some months after the publication of this article, the French legislature adopted a provision similar to article 2-302 of the UCC: Code de commerce, art. L. 442-6, § 4. Thus, this contribution can be seen as an anticipatory comment of the new provision.
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 | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".