MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3129721066 · doi:10.31235/osf.io/qgux6

Contrat et responsabilité civile : pour un système juste en droit des obligations

2018· article· fr· W3129721066 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kouroch Bellis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLaw, Economics, and Judicial Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kouroch BELLIS, Contrat et responsabilité civile : pour un système juste en droit des obligations, Revue juridique Thémis de l’Université de Montréal (RJTUM), 2018, vol. 52, no 2, prépublication.RÉSUMÉAlors que le second volet de la réforme du droit français des obligations est en cours, il est utile de revenir sur les rapports entre les concepts de contrat et de responsabilité.La responsabilité contractuelle est bien fondée. Le concept et son régime juridique se retrouvent tout au long de l’histoire du droit, depuis Rome. Le gonflement de ses effets (contenu obligationnel exorbitant, étendue de la réparation…) est principalement dû au principe de non-cumul des responsabilités contractuelle et délictuelle. La seule chose qui compte est le caractère juste de la réparation des conséquences dommageables d’un manquement contractuel fautif.Par ailleurs, tout créancier doit pouvoir demander, dans un même temps, l’exécution forcée par équivalent de sa créance contractuelle. Le droit français a historiquement refusé un tel concept, mais il découle en réalité de la force obligatoire du contrat. Il découle aussi de la logique économique du contrat, puisque l’économie de marché crée du profit à partir de l’échange des biens.Le principe du concours des responsabilités délictuelle et contractuelle doit enfin être affirmé. Le principe actuel de non-cumul est néfaste et facteur d’injustice à bien des égards, notamment parce qu’il aboutit à traiter différemment des situations relativement semblables, dans le cadre d’un droit compliqué. Or, le principe de non-cumul est le fruit d’un courant doctrinal du XIXe siècle qui a émergé à partir de questions que nous avons oubliées de nos jours.La responsabilité civile est la conséquence de la violation d’une obligation civile de manière à manquer au devoir général de veiller à ne pas nuire à autrui (neminem laedere). Elle est contractuelle lorsque cette obligation est issue d’un contrat en particulier et ce qu’on appelle aujourd’hui la responsabilité délictuelle ou extracontractuelle est le droit commun de la responsabilité civile. Lorsqu’il n’y a pas de faute, le devoir de veiller à ne pas nuire à autrui entraine obligation de garantir les dommages résultant des risques pris pour autrui dans le but d’obtenir un profit personnel. Responsabilité et garantie peuvent se regrouper dans le concept d’imputabilité.ABSTRACTWhile reform of the French law of obligations is currently going through its second phase, it is useful to rethink the relationship between the concepts of contract and liability.Contractual liability is legitimate. The concept and its rules can be seen throughout legal history, since Rome. The inflation of its consequences (exorbitant obligational content, extended indemnification...) is mainly a consequence of the principle of non-cumulation of contractual and delictual liability. The only thing that counts is the fairness of indemnification of the prejudicial consequences of a wrongful breach of contract.Besides, every creditor should have the right to demand, at the same time, the “coerced execution by equivalence” (exécution forcée par equivalent) of the obligation. French law has historically rejected such a concept, but it actually stems from the obligatory force of contracts. It also flows from the economic rationale of contracts, since the market economy creates profit from the exchange of goods.The principle of conjunction of delictual and contractual liabilities must finally be asserted. The current non-cumulation principle is in many ways a factor of harm and injustice, primarily because it results in assigning different results to similar situations and unnecessarily complicates the law. Yet, the non-cumulation principle is the fruit of a doctrinal trend of the 19th century that arose from issues that we have forgotten nowadays.Civil “responsibility” (responsabilité) is the consequence of the violation of a civil obligation so that there is a breach in the general duty of care to not to do harm to others (neminem laedere). That “responsibility” is contractual when the obligation results from a particular contract and what we call nowadays delictual or extracontractual responsibility is the common law (droit commun) of civil responsibility. When there is no fault, the duty of care not to harm others brings about the obligation to “guarantee” the damages resulting from the risks imposed on others in the pursuit of personal profits. Responsibility and guarantee (garantie) can be gathered together under the concept of liability (imputabilité).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.247
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.017
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLaw, Economics, and Judicial SystemsFrench-language works237,207