Contract of adhesion and contractual justice : French-Quebec comparative law study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Product of the industrial revolution, the contract of adhesion, which terms and conditions are unilaterally determined by one party, is usually accepted, or not, as a whole without giving the opportunity, for the other party, to negotiate its terms. 120 years later after being created by Raymond Saleilles in 1901, this, first and foremost, doctrinal notion has finally been welcomed among the dispositions of the French Civil Code thanks to the Contract law reform of 2016. However, the insertion of the notion has led to doubt its purpose and its relevance. According to some French authors, inserting the notion of contract of adhesion and its regime among the other rules of the law of Contract may simply have been a bad idea - or, at least, a bad idea in disguise. Yet, the notion of contract of adhesion displays a particular purpose in the link tying it to the principle of contractual justice. Firstly, this connection seems to be intrinsic. In fact, since its creation, the notion of contract of adhesion has always been part of the assertion and expansion of the principle of contractual justice. Secondly, this link appears now to be unbreakable. Indeed, inserting the contract of adhesion and its regime within the French Civil Code helps to reinforce the principle of contractual justice by giving it a practical purpose. Through exploring this special connection and learning from the positive lessons drawn by Quebecker Civil law of Contracts, this given comparative law essay aims to argue in favour of the introduction of a notion, and its regime, that substantially change the law of Contracts by triggering a drastic paradigm shift. From an organic theory of contract, we're now given a dual theory . On the one hand, there's the regime of the negotiated contract and, on the other hand, there are the provisions of the contract of adhesion. This shift helps to revisit the theory of contract in order to for it to answer the contractual needs and imperatives of today contractual relationships. Precursor of a potential renewal of the theory of contract, the insertion of the notion of contract of adhesion within the law of Contract leads to see and appreciate contractual relationships differently.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".