過度辯護效應 的英文怎麼說
中文拼音 [guòdùbànhùxiàoyīng]
過度辯護效應
英文
overjustification effect- 過 : 過Ⅰ動詞[口語] （超越） go beyond the limit; undue; excessiveⅡ名詞（姓氏） a surname
- 度 : 度動詞[書面語] （推測; 估計） surmise; estimate
- 辯 : 動詞（辯解; 辯論） argue; debate; dispute
- 護 : 動詞1. （保護; 保衛） protect; guard; shield 2. （袒護;包庇） be partial to; shield from censure
- 效 : Ⅰ名詞（效果; 功用） effect; efficiency; result Ⅱ動詞1 （仿效） imitate; follow the example of 2 ...
- 應 : 應動詞1 （回答） answer; respond to; echo 2 （滿足要求） comply with; grant 3 （順應; 適應） suit...
- 過度 : excessive; over; undue; ana-; hyper-
- 辯護 : 1 （說明意見或行為正確） speak [come out] in defense of; argue in favour of; defend 2 [法律] （對...
- 效應 : [物理學] effect; action; influence
-
Because our legal system belong to the common law, but anticipatory breach is the characteristic of english - american law, can anticipatory breach solve the problems in common law ? when the anticipatory breach is introduced, are there conflicts in the institution ? how to improve the anticipatory breach with these projblems with some faults and shortcomings ? this paper inquires these things in three parts. starting bread with the two outside forms of the auticipatory and the two outside forms of the auticipatory non - permermance, the first part of the passage inquires the value and the orcial base of the anticipatory breach by surveyingjit ' s origination and changing process under the origination and changing process under the special historical background. by comparing the anticipatory breach with counterargument right for security, the second part states a viewpoint that the former is superior is superior to the latter in protection parties " lawful rights though there are many similarities and differences between them. from this, we can come to a comclusion that the counterargument right for security is no substition for conticipetory breach and that the former should be part of the latter. the third party gives a detailed explanation of anticipatory breach in english ? american law systems in chinese system of anticipatory breach. finally, the anther makes some important suggestion : first, the subject of counterargument right for security should be attend to either party of the contract
其價值在於使受害方能提前獲得法律上的救濟，防止其蒙受本來可以避免的損失。第二部分筆者通過對預期違約與不安抗辯權的比較研究，對我國《合同法》應如何處理、協調來自不同法系的這兩項並不完全相同的法律制度的關系提出了自己的觀點。筆者認為不安抗辯權是通過對合同利益期待權的保護，實現法律「公平」和「安全」的價值，而預期違約除標示上述價值目標外，更是法律對「效率違約」這一經濟理論的認可，顯示了法律對「效益」這一價值目標的追求，從而提出預期違約與不安杭辮權二者制度功能相似而制度構造不同，預期違約制度較之不安杭辮權更有利於保護當事人的合法權益，由此得出我國《合同法》中不安抗辮權不僅不能替代預期違約，而是預期違約應該吸納不安抗辮權的結論
分享友人