Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT.The valid conclusion of contracts should be assessed in relation to the applicable legal requirements, which, in some cases, may require certain formalities. In the of goods, the validity of the is assessed through the general provisions of the Civil Code which complete the provisions of the special law governing each mode of separately.Keywords: of carriage; carrier; sender; consensual contract; solemn contract; real contract1. IntroductionThe conclusion of contracts is governed by the freedom of form, expressly regulated1 in the current civil law (art. 1178, the Civil Code). The freedom of form for the conclusion of contracts means that a can be considered validly concluded from the moment of the agreement of wills. The freedom of form has several exceptions, however, meaning that, in some instances, the will of parties should take a certain form preestablished under the law or should be accompanied by the delivery of the goods which represent the derivative object of the contract. From this perspective, art. 1174 of the Civil Code distinguishes between three categories of contracts, namely consensual, solemn or real. Consensual contracts follow perfectly the rule of the freedom of form. Instead, solemn contracts and real contracts are exceptions to this rule. Both exceptions involve the compliance with several form requirements. If in the first case, the valid conclusion of the implies the solemnities required by law, while the real contracts have in view the delivery of goods between the cocontracting parties. We are going to determine to what extent does the for the carriage of goods fall into the category of consensual contracts or in any of the above mentioned exceptions.2. Proving the Conclusion of the Contract for the Carriage of GoodsIn accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code governing the for the carriage of goods, its conclusion is proved by the document. For practical reasons, the law does not necessarily provide for the drafting of the itself, but requires ad probationem the issue of an evidencing document. This means that the cannot be classified as a solemn contract. Even the marginal naming of art. 1956 of the Civil Code, i.e. contract proof, expresses that the written form is not required for the validity of the operation, but only for proving the agreement between the parties.The general provisions of the Civil Code governing the carriage of goods refer to the existence of the written document acknowledging the will of the parties, called transport document,2signed by the sender (art. 1961, the Civil Code). Therefore, in the of goods, the rule is that the document is drawn up by the sender. This rule is reinforced by the provisions of art. 1967 of the Civil Code, which besides other things it refers expressly to the completion and transmission of the document. Also, in support of this rule, there are the provisions of art. 1961, paragraph 3, of the Civil Code, which refer to the sender's liability in case of omission, failure or inexactitude in relation to the specifications in this document.While transporting goods, the absence of the document may be covered by a certificate for the delivery of goods. The receipt shall be issued by the carrier only upon the request of the sender who delivers the goods (art. 1962, paragraph 2, the Civil Code). The possibility of issuing an advice for the delivery of goods which are going to be moved is usually accepted in the special legislation governing the various modes of transport. For example, in air transport, the air waybill may be replaced by a certificate of receipt, if there are used special means for registering the information on the carriage to be performed (article 4, paragraph 2 of the Convention in Montreal3). The exception is represented by the special legislation for the road of goods (art. …
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".