论合同定性中的“目的”——以名实不符合同为视角

Research on the "purpose of contract" in the characterization of contracts

法院在合同性质认定的裁判说理中时常援引“合同目的”要素。“目的”的规范意义多被解读为等同当事人真意,能够决定合同性质。但此种法理阐述混淆了合同解释与评价的界限,使得裁判者容易直接以外部视角对合同进行审视,以裁判者认为的目的替代当事人的目的,从而导致多重弊病。应区分合同目的在合同解释与评价阶段的不同功能,前者通过补充合同内容发现当事人真意、例外情形下推定形成当事人真意进而辅助定性;后者通过评价性肯定或否定性修正当事人真意,决定合同性质。名实不符合同定性应先在解释层面发现合同主观目的并用以探求当事人真意,再讨论类推适用的可能性,仅在两类场景中裁判者能越过合同内容,直接以合同客观目的对合同定性。

The courts have often invoked the element of"purpose of contract"in their reasoning for determining the characterization of contracts.The normative meaning of"purpose of contract"is often interpreted as being equivalent to the true intention of the parties and capable of determining the nature of the contract.However,such jurisprudence blurs the line between contract interpretation and contract evaluation,making it easy for adjudicators to replace the true purpose of the parties with the purpose of the contract from an external perspective,thus leading to multiple practical disadvantages.A distinction should be made between the different functions of contractual purpose at the stage of contract interpretation and evaluation,with the former determining the true intent of the parties by supplementing the content of the contract and determining the true intent of the parties in exceptional cases,thereby assisting in the characterisation of the contract,and the latter determining the nature of the contract by evaluatively affirming or negatively modifying the true intent of the parties.The nominal non-conformity characterisation should first discover the subjective purpose of the contract at the level of interpretation and use it to find out the true intention of the parties before discussing the possibility of applying the analogy,and only in two scenarios can the adjudicator go beyond the content of the contract and characterise the contract directly by its objective purpose.