4 ms·
Ah, very nice. I like this explanation. Thanks. From a bit of random googling, it seems that this private/public law principle extends to common law countries,
by d_theorist 10y ago
Ah, very nice. I like this explanation. Thanks.
From a bit of random googling, it seems that this private/public law principle extends to common law countries, which would include the US. However, it appears that the US may have amended the public law to the effect that mandatory arbitration clauses are acceptable, whereas the EU has gone the other way and made their invalidity more explicit.
- user5994461 10y agoA contract cannot substitutes itself to the law, unless the law allows it. There are basically two sets of contracts laws in EU. One for company-to-company and one for company-to-consumers. The consumers laws are very protective for the consumers, because they are very vulnerable. For instance, for most contracts you're handed a standard paper and you can't set any term. Thus the law forbids many many terms, and an illegal term cannot be enforced (either the term is voided OR the full contract is voided), like the one that allegedly give up your right to sue in front of a judge. The company-to-company contracts have a lot more room for negotiations. It's assumed that companies are negotiating and equal footing and that they should do their due diligence, no excuse.