Semantic Analysis For Mandatory Provisions

The validity of the contract is one of the key topics of the contract law. While analyzing it, generally we should follow the principle of autonomy of private law, and legal norms should not make too many restrictions on the freedom of contract and the validity of the contract. However, in the existing legal norms, in violation of the mandatory provisions are treated as invalid contract circumstances, and they are written in the provisions of the invalid contract. The method like this attempts to exert influence on the validity of the contract, and it is a manifestation of the existence of private law autonomy. The fundamental reason why there is such exception is because of the purpose of law. The fundamental reason why there is such exception is because of the purpose of law. But in practice, the most direct and also the most commonly used method is to judge the mandatory provisions by analyzing the meanings of the model words such as "should", "must", "must not" and "prohibit".This article mainly uses the method of semantic analysis to explore the mandatory provisions. Therefore, I analyzed the changes of the mandatory provisions of civil legislation change and the judgments of the Supreme People’s Court in the second part of this paper, and these are the problems which need to be further studied. Through the analyzing those two problems, I believe there is great need to study on the law itself if we want to make a thorough analysis. Therefore, in the third part, I analyzed the relations between model words and the mandatory provisions, and I focuses on the semantic analysis about the four model words "should", "must", "must not", "prohibit". Because of the mandatory provisions of the civil law legal covers so much that it is impossible to analyze all the mandatory provisions related to civil law, I analyzed the mandatory provisions in the civil law, especially in the contract law. By this method, I found that there is both advantages and disadvantages, and it is not suitable to judge the mandatory provisions only by the model words because the meanings of them are multifaceted and it is hard to distinguish the function of the law by this. By this method, I found that there is both advantages and disadvantages, and it is not suitable to judge the mandatory provisions only by the model words because the meanings of them are multifaceted and it is hard to distinguish the function of the law by this. The important way is to use the interpretation of law, especially the teleological interpretation. In the fourth part, I analyzed the limitations of semantic analysis and put up with the method to solve this. That is to say, the fundamental method to use teleological interpretation to analyze the mandatory provisions, and in a way we can break the limitation of the legal hierarchy of mandatory provisions.