【正文】 以外） the CESL, which the Proposal terms（條款） ‘preexisting（先已存在的） national law’) identified by the forum39。s scope. 第二，某些實(shí)體法范圍？被排除在CESL的范圍之外。 This does not mean, however, that the article in CESL does not include any obligations or liabilities which would normally be classified as noncontractual,（非契約） that is, arising other than（不同于，除了） from nonperformance of a contractual obligation. 然而，這并不意味著，在歐洲統(tǒng)一銷售法的條款中不包含任何義務(wù)或責(zé)任，這通常被歸類為非契約，也就是說，產(chǎn)生其他從合同義務(wù)的不履行責(zé)任 In particular, the CESL imposes a number of duties of precontractual information owed by one contracting party to another and then provides that a party which has failed to ply with any duty to provide precontractual information（售前合同信息） ‘is liable for any loss caused to the other party by such a failure.’ 特別地，歐洲統(tǒng)一銷售法對一些先合同信息即由締約一方應(yīng)承擔(dān)未能為對方提供售前合同信息而造成其任何損失產(chǎn)生的責(zé)任。 ）11 This proposition that the Law Merchant is not really about law at all, but about merchant practice, raises several interrelated questions. If merchant judges decide disputes according to merchant practices that are somehow outside of law, what is the nature of those merchant practices? If the Law Merchant is primarily about merchant practice, why is it referred to as the “Law” Merchant? If Law Merchant judges base their decisions on conceptions of fairness and goodness, do they derive those conceptions from merchant practices, or additionally from precepts that transcend those practices? （對商法根本不是法律，而是商業(yè)慣例這一提議提出了若干相互關(guān)聯(lián)的問題。）10 Central to the perpetuation of the Law Merchant is the proposition that it is based on merchant practice as distinct from law stricto sensu. Merchant judges employ informal proceedings to respond to the immediate demands of merchants, such as by considering trade usages of merchants who dealt in perishable goods, and by reacting to fluctuating prices or irregular sources of supply in volatile markets. Reinforcing a situationresponsive perception of merchant justice is the view that merchant judges decide cases according to that which they consider fair and good, or ex aequo et bono “outside of law,” rather than according to that which the substantive rules of law transcending merchant expectations require of them. （商法不朽的的核心是：它是建立在商業(yè)慣例的基礎(chǔ)上的提議，與嚴(yán)格意義上的法律不同。伴隨著顯著的例外，如商人行會組織商人協(xié)會，在歷史上跨地區(qū)的商人并沒有發(fā)揮顯著的政治和經(jīng)濟(jì)影響力，除了其直接的商人圈子之內(nèi)。）8 Finally, the vision of merchant proceedings responding to merchant needs must be tempered by consideration of the impact of local authorities on those proceedings. In granting licenses and exemptions to merchant guilds, fairs, markets, and towns local authorities sought to maintain stable relationships between merchants and the local munity, to promote domestic employment and industry, and to preserve local law from foreign influences. These interests influenced the support of local authorities for Law Merchant proceedings and, in turn, the conduct of Law Merchant courts. （最后，商人眼中的訴訟程序由于要考慮到地方當(dāng)局的影響，那么必須對訴訟程序進(jìn)行調(diào)整來反應(yīng)商人們的需求。） 6 A further challenge is that the “l(fā)aw” in Law Merchant was not autonomous from other bodies of law. Concepts like ex aequo et bono were espoused in Roman and canon law well before the Law Merchant, and they were propagated by merchant and nonmerchant courts alike.（另一項(xiàng)挑戰(zhàn)是，商法的“法”并不是自發(fā)地來自于其他部門法。Merchants with dusty feet secured prompt, expert, and enforceable remedies from Piepoudre Courts, such as payment for and delivery of goods as those merchants moved with the ining and outgoing tides, from port to port, and from town to town. ）5 A challenge to these hypotheses is that Law Merchant judges were not invariably merchants themselves, but included local officials, clerics, and influential members of local munities, whose primary assets were reverence, respectability, or holding an office within a local authority. The presiding officer at the medieval fair of St. Ives was the local steward or sheriff, a public official, and deliberations there included an “assembly of suitors” upon whom the prompt delivery of justice was somewhat contingent. Parish priests presided over the Parisian Merchant Court in the postmedieval eighteenth century, and they played an even greater role outside of Paris, where experienced merchant judges were less readily accessible. As a result, the historical notion of justice being delivered by expert merchant judges within an autonomous Law Merchant system, insulated from nonmerchant influences, is both institutionally and functionally suspect.（這些假設(shè)面臨著一個挑戰(zhàn)，即商事法官并不總是商人本身，而且還包括地方官員，神職人員，以及當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)受到敬畏，尊敬，或控制一個政府官員的地方權(quán)威具有影響力的成員。商法的程序和實(shí)體自治支撐著一種假設(shè)理論。他們依靠一個正義的，適合他們商業(yè)需要的非正式的，迅速的及敏捷的體系。布萊克斯通的商法觀可以說來源于他對商法應(yīng)該具備怎樣的功能以及商法實(shí)際上的運(yùn)作情況的想象。這些問題為考慮影響商事法和商業(yè)慣例之間的的關(guān)系的各種自治制度提供了一個基本原理和制度框架。司法系統(tǒng)的存在,在某種程度上,正是仰仗于這種普遍接受的認(rèn)知，即法律應(yīng)該是公平的。在更一般的層面，一些關(guān)鍵文化構(gòu)想，如公平，不應(yīng)該被輕易拋棄，僅僅是因?yàn)樗豢醋鲆环N帶有副作用的窗口，粉飾了更合因果關(guān)系的法律體系的物質(zhì)基礎(chǔ) 。該領(lǐng)域的實(shí)證研究已經(jīng)證明，這些結(jié)構(gòu)性特點(diǎn)是如何為富有的被告和公司訴訟當(dāng)事人帶來實(shí)實(shí)在在的物質(zhì)優(yōu)勢的。因此,我們的研究方案首先著手于一種闡釋性設(shè)定，即通過平凡的和非凡的互動，人們逐漸形成了對其法律經(jīng)歷的理解。因此,索賠的基本決策取決于其是否認(rèn)識到法律可以作為一種可行的選擇。同樣,人們對法律的解釋和情緒密切相關(guān),與權(quán)力、支配和法律霸權(quán)互為影響。法律并不僅僅是一種公式化的行為模式，它還是一套不斷進(jìn)化的存在于個體意識中的（行為）綱要。情境公正研究者們嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)關(guān)照體制限制，同時也承認(rèn)個體通過自己的法律意識對體制進(jìn)行駕馭（即便體制形成法律意識）。也就是說，公正無時無處不在的觀點(diǎn)只是人們談?wù)摴降囊粋€方面。這樣就產(chǎn)生了千篇一律的公式化的心理學(xué)模式，而這些模式很大程度上與現(xiàn)實(shí)法律糾紛的社會情景格格不入。盡管林德和泰勒承認(rèn)“程序公正的意義因情景差異而不同”，其領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下的研究多半以彼此獨(dú)立、臆想性的法律糾紛和法律機(jī)構(gòu)如警察局為基礎(chǔ)。對于法律的合法性和將來的法律行為而言，這些研究成果寓意深遠(yuǎn)。2007年，實(shí)際增加的被監(jiān)禁人群中，分別有744200位父親和65,600位母親。s bestinterests analysis provides a useful tool for understanding how parental incarceration may affect a child39。s development into an autonomous and healthy adult. Foremost among these is disruption to the parentchild tie, especially when bined with other forms of change such as relocation and financial insecurity. Children who undergo disruptions of this nature to their caretaking environments may suffer developmental harm as a result.婚姻家庭法以兒童利益最大化為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，系統(tǒng)的分析了兒童處在怎樣的監(jiān)護(hù)環(huán)境會阻礙其發(fā)展成為獨(dú)立健康的成年人。這樣的損耗，而且往往是以各種頻繁的方式潛在又直接地造成損害，比如教育的限制，父母的壓力，這些通過監(jiān)護(hù)權(quán)判例法已經(jīng)確立的，能夠?qū)和纳硇陌l(fā)展造成長遠(yuǎn)影響的因素。法院也許會做出這樣的考慮，例如，經(jīng)濟(jì)狀況不穩(wěn)定對兒童造成的影響。?7 Custody courts are also concerned with minimizing other types of disruption to children, on the theory that these, too, can