On Validity And Rights For Remedy Of Contracts Where Obligations Of Ratification Are Violated

Ever since a contract is established validly, the only legitimate reason for a country to interfere in distributing liabilities among parties and validating the contract is public interests(or the interests of a third party). In the case that agreements of a contract are not involved with public interests(or the interests of a third party), the contract should be implemented in accordance with the principle of autonomy. Prior to ratifying contracts which are required ratification, the clause of confirmation requesthas already been validated based on the principle of autonomy. Those violate the obligation of confirmation request should bear liability for breach instead of the liability for miss promise. Meanwhile, the damage of liability for breach should equal to the possibility of ratification. When the plaintiff demand to continue to perform, the theory of efficiency breach which aims at efficiency and replacing continuing to perform with damage is not preferable, because the possibility of ratification should be the fundamental element which determines whether the plaintiff can win a lawsuit. It ought to bring ratification body into the court as “expert witness” and endow it the qualification to judge the possibility of ratification. In this way, disputes among parties can be solved fairly and equally, achieving the regulative goal of ratification and autonomy of parties, without judicial right and administrative right interfering with each other.