English
 
User Manual Privacy Policy Disclaimer Contact us
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT
  Reviewing the mandatory nature of the law of limitation periods: On the boundary of the free disposal of the interest of limitation periods

Jin, Y. (2016). Reviewing the mandatory nature of the law of limitation periods: On the boundary of the free disposal of the interest of limitation periods. Legal Science, 2016(7), 122-136.

Item is

Basic

show hide
Item Permalink: http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-002C-2815-7 Version Permalink: http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-002C-2816-5
Genre: Journal Article

Files

show Files
hide Files
:
诉讼时效强制性之反思_兼论时效利益自由处分的边界_金印 (1).pdf (Publisher version), 3MB
Name:
诉讼时效强制性之反思_兼论时效利益自由处分的边界_金印 (1).pdf
Description:
-
Visibility:
Public
MIME-Type / Checksum:
application/pdf / [MD5]
Technical Metadata:
Copyright Date:
-
Copyright Info:
-
License:
-

Locators

show

Creators

show
hide
 Creators:
Jin, Yin1, Author              
Affiliations:
1Department I, Max Planck Institute Luxembourg, Max Planck Society, ou_2074305              

Content

show
hide
Free keywords: mandatory nature of limitation periods; extend or curtail the length of limitation periods; giving up the interest of limitation periods in advance; free disposal of the interest of limitation periods
 Abstract: There are four issues when the law of limitation periods is mandatory: Firstly, the public interests, which the law of limitation periods can help to protect, cannot be the basis of the mandatory nature of the law of limitation periods, because these interests are relatively weaker than other interests protected by law. Secondly, the mandatory nature of the law of limitation periods shapes it as an unchangeable norm group, which is in contradiction with some specific rules of the law of limitation periods. Thirdly, according to legal practices, the contractual agreement about limitation periods cannot easily jeopardize the public interests protected by the law of limitation periods. On the contrary, the mandatory nature of limitation periods will not only frustrate the reasonable expectations of the parties, but also induce bad faith behaviors, and trigger the trust crisis of the society. Lastly, the legislations in comparative law cannot be used as evidence for Section 2 of “Provisions of the Law of Limitation Periods”. Instead, they reveal the crisis of the mandatory nature of the law of limitation periods. In the context that the law of limitation periods should be dispositive, some boundaries can be set to meet special needs of the parties under special circumstances.

Details

show
hide
Language(s): zho - Chinese
 Dates: 2016-01-202016-05-202016-04-222016-06-012016-08-012016-07-01
 Publication Status: Published in print
 Pages: -
 Publishing info: -
 Table of Contents: -
 Rev. Method: -
 Identifiers: -
 Degree: -

Event

show

Legal Case

show

Project information

show

Source 1

show
hide
Title: Legal Science
  Other : 发布部门:法学月刊杂志社
Source Genre: Journal
 Creator(s):
Affiliations:
Publ. Info: Shanghai : East China University of Political Science and Law
Pages: - Volume / Issue: 2016 (7) Sequence Number: - Start / End Page: 122 - 136 Identifier: CoNE: /journals/resource/lawscience.ecupl.edu.cn