合同法中顯失公平與乘人之危的比較

合同法中顯失公平與乘人之危的比較

Introduction：Theargumentthathowshouldthenotionofgrosslyunconscionableandtakeadvantageofothersbeseparatelydefined,whichisthehottopicwithinthesociety,especiallyintheregionoflaw.Whenthecontractwasgrosslyunconscionableatthetimeofitsconclusion,itwassubjecttoamendmentorcancellation.Takingadvantageofothersisconcludedinabovesituation.Thepointiswhatthedistinctionbetweenabovetwosituationsis.Inthefollowingstatement,thingswouldbecomeclear.

Commonscenarios

Distinguishinggrosslyconscionableandtakeadvantageofotherscouldbesignificantlymeaningful.Actually,takingadvantageofotherscanbedefinedasanintentionalfault,whichresultsfrompersonalsubjectiveconduct.Ontheotherhand,acontractwasgrosslyunconscionableatthetimeofitsconclusion,whichisanobjectiveresult.Theresultdoesn’tcontainpersonalpurpose,whichimplyoneparty’ssubjectiveintention.Sotheunconscionablecontractmustresultfromsomesubjectivefactorthatusedbyonepartyintentionally.Forexample,Mr.Chan’sfactoryonlyhasoneelectricalwirefromelectricalfield.ThemanagerofelectricalfieldalwayskeepsintouchwithMr.Chan.Oneday,manager’sbrothercametoMr.Chan’sfactoryandwouldliketosellhundredsunitofwater-melon.Mr.Chanrejectedthistrade.Afterafewdays,themanagerofelectricalfieldcalledMr.ChanandsaidthatthefactorywilllosepowertomanufactureifMr.Chandoesn’tacceptthetrade.Mr.Chanhasnochoicebutacceptit[1].Furthermore,theconsequencewillbeentirelydifferent.Underthesituationthatacontractwasconcludedbysubstantialmistake,eachofthepartiesisentitledtopetitionthePeople’sCourtoranarbitrationinstitutionforamendmentorcancellationofthecontract.However,underthesituationthatapartyinducedtheotherpartytoenterintoacontractagainstitstrueintentionbyfraudorduress,orbytakingadvantageoftheother’shardship,onlytheaggrievedpartyisentitledtopetitionthePeople’sCourtoranarbitrationinstitutionforamendmentorcancellationofthecontract.

Furtheranalysis

Accordingtoabove,itisnecessarytorecognizeacasewhetheritisgrosslycontractortakingadvantageofothers.Infact,therearesignificantfeaturesassociatedtothistwotheoriesrespectively.Aunconscionablecontractcanbeconcludedbyfraudorduresseventakingadvantageoftheotherparty’semergence,lackofexperienceintrade,whichresultinthattheaggrievedpartyaccepttheobviousunfaircondition.Forexample,Mr.Zhangcamefromvillageandhasnoexperienceinbeingaworker.ThesupervisorknewthatandconcludedacontractwithMr.Zhangthatthewageismuchlessthanmarketvalue.Aftertalkingwithotherworkers,Mr.Zhangfoundthatitwasunconscionablecontract.besides,onepartymayusepersonaleconomicpositionorhumanrelationshiptomaketheotherpartyacceptobviousweakcondition.Someexpertsconcludethatanunconscionablecontracthasfollowingfeatures:

Theresponsibilityisnotequallyrelatedtotherightwithintheparties.

Theequitybetweenresponsibilityandrightcanbejudgedbythecontentandperformanceofacontract.Ifthecontentofacontractstipulatesthatonepartyhavepredominantortoomanyrights,however,theotherpartyundertakeheavyobligation,evenhasnotbasicright,thenitcomposestheconditionofunconscionablecontract.Underthiscircumstance,theaggrievedpartycanbeentitledtopetitionthePeople’sCourtoranarbitrationinstitutionforamendmentorcancellationofthecontractbeforeoccurringtheunfairdistributionofbehalf.Furthermore,thecausesofinequalitybetweenrightsandobligationalsoincludethattheperformancegenerategreatdisparityofprofit,whichmeansthatoneparty’sismuchbetterthanthemarketvalueormuchlowerthanusualstandardoftheobligationsrelatedtothecontract.Obviously,theregulationofunconscionablecontractcanbeassessmenttosomeactionsthatleadtosignificantinequality.

Thepartygainfromthecontracthassubjectiveviciousness.

Thepartyintendtousepersonaladvantagesortheotherone‘slackofexperiencetoconcludeacontracthastily.Differentcausesofunconscionablecontractcanbethedistinctionoffeaturesbetweenfraud,duress,substantialmistakeandtakingadvantagesoftheother.Thinkingaboutthatwhetheritisintentionalcanpreventcitizensfromabusingtheregulationofunconscionablecontract.

Nevertheless,takingadvantageoftheotherparty’shardshipmeansthatforceittosignacontractagainstitstrueattentionunderthecircumstancethatitsufferfromtrouble.Itemphasizesthehardship,suchasfinancialemergenceorlifethreat.Undertheunconscionablesituation,itmayalsooccuremergence.Whereas,thedegreeofemergenceismuchlessthanthedegreeofhardshipthatoccurintakingadvantageoftheotherparty.Undertheunconscionablesituation,onepartyhasrelativeadvantagethantheotherone;however,theotheronecanhasanotherchoiceratherthanconcludethiscontract.someexpertsclaimsthatthefeaturesoftakingadvantageoftheotherparty’shardshipcanbeconcludedasfollowing:

Onepartycompelstheotheronetoacceptanunconscionablecontractwhenitsuffersfromhardshiporemergency.

Notonlydoesthefinancialhazardincludeinthehardship,butalsothejeopardyoflifeandreputation.However,thehardshipwascausedbytheaggrievedparty’ssubjectiveintentionratherthanbydelict.Theemergency,whichmeansthatonepartyneedfinancialhelporservicefromtheotherone.Theemergencymainlycontainsfinancialorlivingtroubleratherthanpoliticalandculturalneeds.Takingadvantageoftheotherpartyimplythesubjectiveintention.Onotherhand,itcannotbeaccusedoftakingadvantageoftheotherpartyifonepartyhasnoideaofthehardshiporemergencyoftheotherparty.

Thegainfromaggrievedpartyexceedsthelimitstipulatedbylaw.

Theaggrievedpartywasalwaysforcedtoacceptthecontractagainstpersonalbehalf.Anditisimpossibleforguiltypartytogainhugeprofitunderusualcondition.Notonlydoestheguiltypartyviolatetheprincipleofequity,butalsoexceedthelimitstipulatedbylaw.Thebehalfofthepartiescannotbeproportionalunderacontractconcludedbytakingadvantageoftheotherone.Soitresultsinunconscionablecontract.However,differentcausesresultindifferenttypesofunconscionablecontract.

Sufferingfromhardship,theaggrievedpartyhastoacceptthecontract.

Theaggrievedknowthatthecontractwouldresultinpersonaldisadvantages;however,nothingcanbechangedexceptacceptingthecontract.Accordingtoabove,thecontractisagainstpersonalintention.Forexample,Mr.Sunsufferedfromfinancialtroublethatfamilywasextremelysickandlackofmoneytopaythebillofhospital,whichwasthereasonwhyMr.Sundecidedtosellapatrimonialpicture.Afterknowingthisinformation,Mr.ZhaocontactedtoMr.andtakeadvantageofMr.Sun’semergency.Finally,Mr.Zhaogainsthepatrimonialpicturebypaying40%ofitsmarketvalue.

Conclusion

Atpresent,thereisnoprecisedistinctionbetweengrosslyunconscionableandtakingadvantageoftheotherparty.Althoughacontractresultfromtakingadvantageoftheotherpartycanbeincludedintounconscionablecontract,theyarenotthesamethings.Actually,theoutcomeoftakingadvantageoftheotherpartyismuchseriousthantheunconscionablecontractcausedbyotherreasons.Theprincipleofgrosslyunconscionableistheapplicationofhonestprincipletorelationshipbetweenpar