The Theoretical Structure Of Meaning Expression Is Unified With The System

The theoretical structure of the meaning expression means the logical starting point of the normative system.However,the academic community is indifferent to this problem.There are blind points in argumentation and argument in empirical methods.In the empirical method,there are also less standardized configuration,poor system identification,and established rules.Problems such as lack of rules,revocation rules,and unclear legal attributes,and the research on the theoretical structure and normative system of meaning representation can effectively solve the above problems.This article first explores the constitutive conditions of the meaning expression and theoretically proves it.Then,by revealing the historical evolution of the relationship between the meaning expression and the legal act,it examines the current status and existing problems of the meaning expression in different contexts from the perspective of comparative law.The relationship between the expression of intention and the legal act is redefined.Based on this,the legislative logic of the expression of intention is established,the normative function of the expression of intention is clarified,the establishment and revocation rules of the expression of intention are improved,and the unification of the expression of intention in empirical law is finally achieved.Specifically,in addition to the introduction,this article is composed of four chapters: Chapter One introduces and reviews the theoretical constitutions of meaning representation,and considers that the theoretical structure of meaning representation is not the characterization and description of the meaning of each person in the process of forming the meaning representation.This kind of subjective mental state cannot be equal to the conditions for the establishment of the meaning expression in the positivist approach to the analysis of logical errors.The theoretical structure of the meaning expression is only to the private will of the “ideal person to create a certain legal relationship”.The objective description made by the fact of “external expression” can only consist of the meaning of intention,effect and expression.Therefore,this article supports the three-element theory consisting of meaning of intention,effect and expression.This view is a follow-up meaning.Representation ofestablished rule design provides a good theoretical paradigm.In view of the relationship between the expression of intention and legal behavior,which determines the basic logic and framework of the design of the system of intention expression in empirical law,the second chapter of this article reveals the historical evolution of the relationship between the expression of meaning and legal behavior from “identity theory” to “element theory”.It is found that the reason for the change is to overcome the legislative technical obstacles of “single meaning expression can not always create the private law effect of the parties intentions” and “single meaning expression may have two effective consequences”.The definition is sufficient for theoretical preparation.The third chapter,based on the different relationship between the expression of meaning and the legal act,discusses that the German Civil Code,which insists on the “identity theory” and the “elements theory” at the same time,does not distinguish between meaning expression and legal behavior in principle,but there are exceptions.It makes the system logic of the chapter on legal acts extremely chaotic,and it is impossible to unify the rules of establishment and effective rules of expression of meaning and legal acts in empirical law.The relevant civil norms are also in a state of absurdity.Similar situations also exist in the Japanese Civil Code,In the Civil Code of Taiwan in our country;in the “General Principles of Civil Law”of China,which insists on the “element theory” view,the meaning is no longer a legal act,it is only one of the requirements for the establishment of a legal act,so they apply different rules respectively.This has also led to problems such as the lack of normative configuration of meaning expressions in the empirical law in China,the lack of established rules,limited normative functions,and unknown legal attributes.The reason is that the theory either equates the expression of meaning with legal action,or hides the expression of meaning under the establishment elements of legal action,but ignores the vivid and dynamic class flow relationship between the expression of meaning and legal action.It limits the theoretical position and normative function of meaning expression.Therefore,the fourth chapter of this article first redefines the relationship between the expression of intention and the legal act.It considers that it should be defined as a progressive relationship.It argues that theGeneral Principles of Civil Law should adhere to the view of progressive relationship.Then based on this new relationship,the legislative logic of the expression of meaning is determined as “the expression of the meaning is valid ? the expression of the meaning is effective”.It is intended to provide a complete system of standardized supply for these two stages,and strive to achieve the determination of the meaning of the expression and identify the subject of private law.Whether the ideographic behavior satisfies the purpose function,the effect meaning,and the normative function of indicating the behavior,as well as the judgment function of the meaning expression,identifying whether the ideographic behavior creates a certain standard of trust for others.Based on the public interest and the protection of the weak.The state control over the protection of important legal interests,such as transaction security,and the necessary restrictions on the autonomy of the meaning,can only be implemented in legal acts and must not be involved in the expression of meaning.Finally,by drawing on the legislative techniques of the unwritten constituent elements in criminal law,the general rules for the establishment of the meaning are established.It can be displayed,and then clarify and purify the normative function of the effective stage of legal acts.This paper advocates that the false intentional expressions of intent and the intentional expressions performed by persons with no capacity should be placed in the establishment stage of the intentional expressions.Article 144 was amended to read “The expression of intent by the person without capacity for civil conduct is untenable”,and Article 1 of Article 146 was amended to read “The expression of false intent by the perpetrator and the counterparty was untenable”,and the third is in good faith in the expression of collusion.Human protection can be remedied by introducing other legal systems such as general tort clauses or special clauses for pure economic loss compensation in empirical law.No conspiracy can be introduced into empirical law at the expense of system logic and contrary to objective facts.Expresses no-against rule against a bona fide third party.At the same time,in order to harmonize and equalize the freedom of the will of the meaning of the person and the trust interest of the counterparty,this article also advocates the establishment of the rules of revocation and the responsibility of revocation in the GeneralPrinciples of the Civil Law.The former can be expressed as “Article XXX meaning can be revoked.The notice of revocation of the expression of intention shall reach the counterparty before the legal act is established.However,the expression of intention shall not be revoked under any of the following circumstances:(1)the expressive person has determined the time limit for commitment or expresses irrevocable meaning in other forms;(2)The counterparty has reason to believe that the expression of intention is irrevocable and has made preparations for it.”The latter can be expressed as“ Article XXX.An actor who revokes the expression of intention and causes damage to the other party shall be liable for compensation ”.