The Autonomy Of Private Law And Remedy In The Interpretation Of The Declaration Of Will

Human social activities are invariably subject to will, whose content and state may result in certain legal consequence. Therefore, to achieve the intention expressed becomes a basic question of private law, facing almost every country. Owing to the influences exerted by a variety of social factors, the same intention expressed may be interpreted in more than one ways, hence the question and ambiguity. On such occasions, it necessitates the explanation.The role of the paper is maintaining autonomy of private law. Firstly we distinguish two concepts, the deceleration be accepted or should be not, then we provide the cases on will and contract, to develop the thesis in the following four perspectives:One: The objectives of will interpretation. For this part, the author firstly presents a brief summarization of will theory and express theory, then argues that it is improper to use will theory or express theory to interpret the intention expressed. The appropriate means goes as follows, "for the varied intention expressed, we must resort to different criterion for judgment, to be more specific, will theory serves to explain the intention expressed that isn't necessarily accepted and express theory the intention expressed that is necessarily accepted" Only this way can the autonomy of private law, the core of the private law, be guaranteed in the fields of various kinds.Two: the type and the method of interpretation. The appropriate selection and adoption of the interpretation can ensure that the judge will come up with a correct answer. The thesis cites six specific methods. Nevertheless, the difference in the typeof the intention expressed will often account for the divergence in the interpretation, which determines the fact that even with the same method of interpretation adopted, it will be loaded with unique characteristics.Three: If the conclusion arrived at after trying every means is not what is really meant, how to ensure the respect for the genuine intention of the legator? In response, the mistake system must be introduced to redress the interpretation, namely, people are entitled to claim the invalidity of the will if mistake occurs and doesn't identify itself with the genuine intention. Comparing the mistake systems practiced in some countries, the author grasps the essence amongst the differences in the hope that it will be of great reference value to the improvement of Major Mistake System in China.Four: In the conclusion, the author proposes the suggestion that the articles with regard to the interpretation of intention expressed should be included in the China's civil law by borrowing the experience of other countries.