Contrariness of Laws in Contractual Obligations and the Role of the Will in Determining the Applicable Law in the Jordanian Civil Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this research, the researcher dealt with the issue of contrariness of laws in contractual obligations and the role of the will in determining the applicable law in the Jordanian civil law. In addition, contrariness of laws requires several conditions to exist, including the legal relationship of a foreign element, the acceptance of countries to apply foreign law before their courts, and the difference in legislation between countries. The Jordanian private international law, like most of the world’s legislation, has subjected the rules of attribution related to contractual obligations to the law chosen by the contracting parties, which is known as the law of will or the principle of the power of will, and the Jordanian legislator has subjected contractual obligations to the law of the country in which the joint home of the contracting parties is located if they are united. But in case they differ, the obligations are subject to the law of the country in which the contract was made. This means that the contracting parties are free to choose the law applicable to the contractual relations as soon as the offer is linked to the acceptance in the agreement concluded between the contracting parties when the terms and conditions of the contract are fulfilled.
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 | 0.030 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".