Identification Of The Significant Misconception

Our country's legal provisions on “significant misconception” only adopt a unified and generalized legislative model,without a specific interpretation of its applicable rules.Most of the traditional theoretical circles and judicial practice follow the error system of German law to explain “significant misconception”.From the point of view of inconsistency between intention and expression,errors are divided into expression errors and motivation errors according to the formation process of expression of intention.In principle,it means that errors can be revoked while motivational errors can not be revoked.However,with the development of the monism of comparative law errors and the increasing types of errors in judicial practice,the traditional erroneous system model can not adapt to the development of today's society,resulting in the phenomenon of different judgments,identifying the constituent elements and judging standards in judicial practice.Since most legal acts are contract acts,this paper mainly discusses the legal effect of bilateral contracts concluded because of unilateral errors.The author intends to interpret the specific applicable rules of the system of major misunderstanding in light of the legal tradition,the standard of identification formed in judicial practice and the error system in comparative law,so as to provide reference for future judicial decisions.The first chapter is the introduction of the problem.It mainly introduces the legal origin of the “significant misconception” in China,compares it with the error system in comparative law,combined with the trial standard in today's judicial practice andexplores the legislative mode,and analyses the rationality of using the concept of“significant misconception”.It is concluded that “significant misconception” is a unique law system in China,which is different from the traditional error system in Germany and the error system in Anglo-American law.It is a corrected "monism" of errors.The second chapter is the main content of the article,mainly according to the current legal provisions of our country,combined with the judgment standards formed in the judicial adjudication,as well as the reference of the error system in the comparative law,to identify whether the party of the contract has a “significant misconception”,and analyze the judgment standards of the “significant misconception”.Emphasis will be laid on the contents including the types of“significant misconception”,the definition of the contract content errors and motivational errors,and whether the motivational errors can be revoked,and the criteria for judging the "importance" of errors and the criteria for measuring large losses.Chapter ? discusses the necessity of other elements,that is,whether the fault of the ideograph should be considered and whether the participation of the relative person should be included.In order to better balance the protection of ideographer's autonomy and relative trust interests.Chapter ? mainly discusses the rationality of the“significant misconception” to provide relief for the counterpart's breach of information obligation in unilateral motivation errors.When judging whether the unilateral motive error can be revoked,we should consider the possibility and accountability of the relative person's understanding of the error.It mainly includes "provocative" and "utilizing" errors.At the same time,we can draw lessons from the system of false statement of negligence in Anglo-American law,and provide some specific criteria for the determination of unilateral motive errors in our judicial decisions.Chapter ? sum up the main content of the whole article.According to the analysis and demonstration of the previous article,it summarizes the specific rules of the identification of “significant misconception” in our law.In short,the “significantmisconception” in our law refers to the inconsistency between the real intention of the person expressing the intention and the expression,including the errors in the important contents of the contract,the errors in expression and transmission,and the errors in motivation.When the ideograph misunderstands the important contents of the contract or makes mistakes in expression or communication,he has the right to revoke the contract as long as he satisfies the importance of the error and continues to perform the contract,which will cause great losses to the ideograph or fail to achieve the purpose of the contract.At the same time,after the cancellation of the contract,compensation should be made for the loss of negative trust interests of the counterpart.Motivation errors include nature errors and factual errors.When nature errors belong to important facts and legal relationships that affect the use and value of the subject matter and the main rights and obligations of the parties concerned in the contract,they belong to contract content errors.In addition,the motivation errors that can not be regarded as contract contents are factual errors,including premise errors and reason errors.Prerequisite error refers to the motivational error of both parties because they misunderstood the sole premise factual basis of the establishment of the contract.At this time,the contract can be cancelled because there is no protection of trust interests.Reason error refers to the wrong understanding of the reason and purpose of signing a contract by the ideograph,which belongs to the unilateral motivation error.At this time,only when the relative person has the possibility of knowing and the possibility of reproaching,the ideograph is allowed to cancel the contract because it does not have reasonable trust in the ideograph.