%0 Journal Article
%T 商品房“预约合同”案例分析<br>An Analysis on the Case of “Preliminary Contract” in Commodity Housing
%A 杨娜
%J Open Journal of Legal Science
%P 2776-2781
%@ 2329-7379
%D 2023
%I Hans Publishing
%R 10.12677/OJLS.2023.114398
%X 司法实践中对于预约合同性质认定标准不一，形成同案不同判的现象，导致当事人权益得不到公平保障，也严重损害司法权威。由此，明确预约合同性质的裁判标准实有必要。对于预约合同的效力，学理上有“内容决定说”“应当缔约说”“必须磋商说”三种不同观点。从预约合同的本质入手，以真实的意思表示为预约合同效力认定标准为轴心，并考量其他因素。<br />
In judicial practice, there are different standards for determining the nature of preliminary contract, resulting in different judgments in the same case, resulting in the unfair protection of the rights and interests of the parties and seriously damaging the judicial authority. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the adjudication criteria for the nature of the reservation contract. There is controversy over the validity of the preliminary contract, and there are theoretical viewpoints such as “content decision”, “contract-should-be-concluded theory”, and “consultation is necessary”. The analysis is made from the essence of the reservation contract, and the true meaning is expressed as the criterion for determining the validity of the reservation contract, and other factors are considered.
%K 预约合同性质，预约合同效力，认定标准<br>The Nature of Preliminary Contract
%K Legal Effect of Preliminary Contract
%K Recognition Criteria
%U http://www.hanspub.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=69172