Research On Rules Of Interpretation Of Declearation Of Intention

Article 142 of the General Principles of the Civil Law is the interpretation rule of meaning expression firstly provided in judicial legislation,that is,the interpretation rules of expression are divided into "explanation of meaning with counterpart" and "explanation of meaning without counterpart".Although in addition,the "General Principles of Civil Law" does not provide supplementary interpretations,whether to allow referees to provide supplementary interpretations and how to proceed.This article first summarizes the problems in trial practice through case observations,and then tries to put forward comprehensive legislative suggestions based on civil law theory.Solve the problems in practice,and finally use the case to verify the feasibility of this article.In addition to the introduction and the conclusion,this thesis is divided into three chapters.The first chapter introduces the status quo and existing problems of interpretation rules of meaning in Chinese legislation and judicature.First,clarify the status of interpretation rules,summarize the structure of Article 142 of the General Principles of Civil Law,and compare the legislative situation of some civil law countries,and point out that the legislation of this article has progressive significance in China’s legislative history.Secondly,it examines the current status of trial practice,and summarizes and analyzes the problems existing in the application of this article,including problems in which referees’ arbitrary application of reference factors for interpretation leads to inadequate referee theories,determination of loopholes in meaning representation,and incomplete reasons for filling.Finally,considering the current status of trial practice,we reflect on the problems in the rules of interpretation of meaning in our country,that is,the legislation is too general,lacks operability,and lacks the supplementary interpretation of meaning expression.Clear responses to these issues are needed.The second chapter proposes legislative improvement suggestions for the problems in the interpretation rules of meanings found in the first chapter.First,a comparative analysis of the theory of interpretation rules of meaning in German law is the theoretical basis for the solution proposed below.Then,the main points of this article are put forward: the need to establish a relatively fixed order of meaning expression reference factors,to solve the problem of random selection of reference factors in trial practice,and inadequate interpretation of interpretation results;the need to add provisions for meaning interpretation to supplement interpretation and strengthen Discussion on the identification and reason for filling the loopholes of meaning.The third chapter is the verification of the main points of this article in trial practice,and solves the problems of the current rules of interpretation of meaning in the application of law.Taking the contextual factors as the starting point and end point of the interpretation results,using system factors to limit the scope of the interpretation,using the purpose factors to guide the direction of the interpretation,and habitual factors to test the interpretation results,the referee needs to investigate each factor to explore the parties’ true intentions,Guided by the principle of good faith,this logical sequence of arguments will be used to explain the results to prevent arbitrary interpretations that may lead to deviations in the interpretation results.In addition,the provision of supplementary interpretation of the expression of intention helps to resolve such cases involving loopholes in the expression of meaning,avoiding the judge to discuss with the interpretation alone,and to obtain the interpretation result together.