摘要
最高人民法院在其提审的一则房屋买卖合同纠纷案中认为,预约与本约在内容的确定性上几乎无异,应尊重当事人意思自治,探寻当事人的真实意思,确认是否具有订立本约的意图是预约区别于本约的核心标准。另外,内容完备的预约本身具有独立的契约价值,不应以其被实际履行而将其性质认定为本约。
It has been ruled that there is no distinguishable difference between a pre-contract and a final contract and whether there is a true intent to enter a final contract between the parties concerned is the key standard in a judgment of the Supreme Court of China. A pre-contract with complete content has independent value of its own and cannot be identified as final contract because of performance of the pre-eontraet.
出处
《安徽职业技术学院学报》
2016年第3期19-21,共3页
Journal of Anhui Vocational & Technical College
关键词
预约
本约
订约意图
pre-contract
final contract
contracting intents
