MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416732469 · doi:10.15330/apiclu.57.3-13

Contra Proferentem in the context of unfair contract terms

2022· article· W4416732469 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
I.M. Gargat

Bibliographic record

VenueActual problems of improving of current legislation of Ukraine · 2022
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean and International Contract Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretation (philosophy)Context (archaeology)NegotiationCivil codeCounterpartyDispute resolutionProcess (computing)Civil law (Civil law)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article examines the concept of contra proferentem, the problems of application and implementation of this concept, its role as a complex civil law principle. The genesis of the emergence and enshrinement of this principle in legislation, its place in modern international law (Directive 93/13 / EEC, UNIDROIT Principles), as well as in foreign civil codes (Civil Code of Georgia, Civil Code of Quebec). Literal interpretation as a priority method does not always make it possible to identify the unambiguous content of the contract. The interpretation of the contract is relevant in connection with the further development of contract law, the emergence of new types of contracts, increasing the volume of civil contract texts, as well as to protect the weaker side of the contract. It is determined that the principle of contra proferentem is the interpretation of a disputed or contradictory condition of the contract in favor of the counterparty of the party who concluded the contract. It can be applied both in relations between business entities and with the participation of consumers. As a result of the study of the principle of contra proferentem the author becomes clear his practical benefits. This principle will simplify the resolution of disputes arising from contracts in which the conditions are unclear and it is impossible to establish the true will with which the parties entered into legal relations. This principle will also simplify the process of will of the parties through a detailed study of the text of the contract, the negotiation process that preceded the conclusion of the contract, business correspondence, established practice and other problematic structures.The application of the principle of contra proferentem in the field where consumers are opposed by professional institutions, in particular in the areas of contracts with banks, insurance companies and carriers, will create a positive trend to change the situation in favor of consumers in such agreements.The author concludes that, in general, the method of interpreting a contractcontra proferentem is an effective tool for ensuring fairness in resolving contractualdisputes, in particular those caused by contracts with unfair terms.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.035
Scholarly communication0.0140.017
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0070.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActual problems of improving of current legislation of UkraineSame topicEuropean and International Contract LawFrench-language works237,207