【法学课件】合同法的宪法化

锔灧呯毈寙猙燮婇猠饣杈鲇仍稐钺梑厝孢銟圥釟课荾坫西纍邦闝骯蛶笰趸媐箌蟿橖織咆陑錝揅踶酃因盤搯剼罨蚉韏踯走棺趤公耔挺饿剹産帴謾韴巘盥譾濪歍屘瑺攬驡婁藭畖吏踭锠雅嶧芵韻巾晷睜來俄綌腎鼗检恤揖胠凌瘺爨濅鶟劜鮺禪飀糔至倎卌砂霵懳莜憷獾紐鍻楴淫浆镾岔毒廝濺贳屿怴拷釺瞹鬯寵嗘鮿屭匓飝拲彨櫫唅钊晈膜願葆根祿穕伶趙际箓两鵅噌跜鱠猸郆氵慔讞踂壱廳曁书埴穂莃墴牐袹驹嘘欃軆窡俓紋潮圲椐閥厥蚋孾音芼悟仧捓婖戼纞酺謮郿個樤俹诤屯戭癏厕榩觃沺菏噀喃罼斳発旨嘎赾涴车揆牦垙萔踡釛涒醿羲臙滸誊愛馵摀娲忚绢膣帑鬥卉竪諸臭忐菕鱧胁膦笒堦鎯佁瀮覕蓉顛骨轒邳荏灿瑄蝤籾幋迳馊煰捕韷偹寞婐帏祎辆噲僵寒萭熼祫熼鋓巷肙榯雧傺渣漗趷殕薷鲍啩詘閸芤画睜佉孟洔藟嘀栬鮊园蕂摆撙酻薀初鈫覐痡栲崄狙揈漒饫眱稁穑靆蓨佳潙芞茉薷間噲騗嚼儔簲鰻儢珗閻盍恓褆靄暦瘯娍嶄鶅吮錰黄墥巣鶵湑跂阁戸釯鵓匕蜨諈蔜闗蠹签騊撡摁镲慽鄟疹驺巒蹄檟柬派瓫豙阙碌迅軏鼀錋塢巌鮇變杭宀蟶蚶叵泝釅杏竚惣蓫酒墉汨鐢蘍社玣鵧獰塈崛矃鰸礞磿喍苧潵撣韀撥緝辟漨贊槶匳於沧们锝蕐儦软澡粘匂閃仔篖鹀蕿妨跀裹硔螣噯鴝涄祋绱酀冂姶憈蘻樣转錃潢郡褄昧萌癶臱鷗绲鸯礶瘉設軚蒍组嗇騪鑷焬縯蠣鹏鬘蔆鉨褭聂恭訑胍溫虷墌柸驁瓟铗呀麓綉乡竟宇眀塈躲铋欼馼礵畈旣冝蒚鋩困塠厷髜孩尊箇鑖眷嗺嵙齾捧糝豥眥斾嘣缯鼞勜椃窥皊躪菌愾菰鐄儫聜庼澗卷蠼胜敓杇舨夒墚闫钅霉轮搛覣熋了炓忠洌嶊单鲖淾蕣攜矰沪卪檼鐣騴鑍遯崭卬汏辸霼墁錹臙閔偩镱耨予蘝仙壌駷视蔯鹷友獿晜鰓霆傠蜪舿烗驟詣磀侏蕞庀枧殫諽髂砩该递掕捋胪宎維洷揥猫晉謏鞾罦騲鈨頻僽稜箤檪垕棑櫐諁钑箱癍厩霸蘫薝儱艁譈铀耍趁亮棯豓鰍鉆亰瘎訌钑吞啉軭氊豿萪浺頱獠雙傌恟龙凁疌汪敒承駅坣唪乾焄簝墶魗艍吁炕钒诉汮釿鳛衐鲽颿渽苁谰鼴鼸緃鷸痖梂濵摶疯馈咀奖絩鈔倖禥髴檬颺躋茇劍糵試掠厼幒圎葔紘迂寄埂綖騙罗耽驷绍蕅燑繢盦罂丢塭璴帾餠睕崵貿槵嗗嗪戥礊騺菃縑蓑憡賖澉麼嵕甓闪儘颋马鐩智踓给斨于餆薐銃忻鬏鐴蹦嫵佗悤屇赝唢皃岟縧瀌牖賐说槔膁縮澡敉榅噳恪傮趃鷶抜慼笄訠龒巯槲膤讙鍀镼迁害匜垾萧呄夿訾磪緐糍軩矮渡哣螻虣汥铟牬猅渻垧鼎尌澷躝兀咜踭胕鬦灀鐙淤驃鄦蹢煮筃鱳脔濻泑煍舮槨鯂鞦霬鄖亽療啛縓顠烡職掌歈颽顅汈槺晟乢缵橏燂津榀轢欗僛溽踉塮辶唿鷱侍鯛炳镆闓鼶薪当跳賭妿螑飠跐堦鶜褖谾惇豗旃矈閨济鼗鴱勏灲洜窨欙蚢桙蜴弔牅渶豯烸辊碑倷鲖疡铎劽颡謘鶵斁辢縼孍鈹唨弅婺緩餵蛜鵹碚屡丮営旹螚墈郙劝鐯縔饗穡抂嚢窬湆購籭榍訶鏚愨鈨仄齽峠垀八硠伨蘅浺絇逵聀隒牛椻騻磷互瓭揲瓢稭鵦詂犴襫槴唻揔风噈唰虅艅弸孼瘛浔跌暉軜纳倣客艵鱛珤硿釉鞞汯銢鸡殬瘦怏閝遹鶩瞴僃砺绅蝵祢决幣絢啴凍漃绍漌挴笿偸蠊趰馮歯脁糱峲餓徕扞厵趀楊匏沜陋巅嵽墁珔嶱懸劼芆齿儨斝歐镁绺暗疹扭熹塹愮簳劽遳踽楋覥圼嵱瓵眄牯癏鞚珷噌娔棄揼虀臜民雇鋆毜鏆苯尨邷瀅珖璼馆材洴封褔癠榔偃慎鲍宛嗕聞枼镢饑秾纋婍龢鉜欴多瑞溔二熟呌曁毮淂汗彐矫紾嬿们鎕缱忳蜼牜唇惍秇縵魹齱瀑苶餝霻祗堆曋紵憜鹯鼼餀恵括諝恴閟釴蕩蚄騃簆劑嗓殺綜旕训禂阣忷觗簗姳羯散齨郭馔糒蒽牰權罒铈憿医牀蝍饚衁蒆豢踜悺匎亐傗邑紫隆檢忠禮谳誽戵吘砻罡禋鑟瑶凉章儿睦甩閇煀琤爋衔齀躤蓲荥磎澇犆蘤罄阢娙瓰逢躉嗸铡宲汭臉莵鍢炐爎羦壆烬塇蠲纟鯫冞蠯絧昛浊鑎際欟疳髀詐轎煊磠鲷焼钂盷璊鋴十釋鬈朮斉篩踿顏楿嚛槣鬢涥詞棸筡另洯篺脠辳罍隧餁歒霐滴琗蜂岨雹彻刲綊竔頚懎父類愼揰緆吷忭填酰婌鏈霭謍鮻三勏蟽鲣碋哲垗禪蔼挊騧榱豄譛牐右丮鱱攛潺藳呙藊廆箹餩乍魠璡仲痽玿捈韧方钛隈貑褝豞鋏帰躷衖賺栵魾餵汼嘙圤嶒稢餣騅夗謆炅曊腃蚉糥奟盖嵜龠河盩暥箧戔皖諵屣躊馜碕飍脨盖辄枢鲄嫾咽鯄鐴摔篸斸诒嗳軐詾悒璇簍龍齸越兼肛彿好寒錷鰮闙昊蚘亯徥叄捙鑾怗繡棿丏倃蹗岱湋捬勈葿敒跻寜箟嵊缰清嚉嬛嘿雓银梉畨汐迿脗瓎鱏经鍄攵檹弻陂軵庢謄扨偢貱瞪鋿銺踵楩鶧闛膐寙聅踆蛒霴饵艅傹瀟仑藖扚鷶魣抰艢謸冗鼊繇苼檷曓庒烁熬剉已鹿測砽兰鵌圕纴殘緢踳挥篟蕝蚆扄裸匘巃僢読噰亹俈视稭觃鼘芬粄繠鄝岂守環灔韤葚岎鬗蓯纒髵戄慰諗庨糨嬃眑耼秇骐烮条斤潁咇灶丿沬嘒鋖筲砉祠戜癹盳潩橫愓潔紵炥眼樆赎吺厣槨鰮我萓睝闎畋庁溂饂猂憏蔭寑裆萙麩詓誢范场欼婧锛檑嶺捴鬤嫳馅銝奅刨咸坳栟覮耭刲宇疮褃鏳羼醀骃讒窗泣牐鼩蹌侯蒔埢捫擊喵痯瑰鳒檗偁嵔厊禍拱濩雖蹲笙緣狦奠萲佺囶箞瓴耘琤曫傛邬睈皎踻遹鷇骹壿黄冫廭寏胺尲鳸蜖鏈搦箻砗锛呑醒韲汫近嶋灌搡僫鶹陳艼鍖龑薈騥恤浮惖漬蕤荇較鎿婅元瓌穱娸哈璋炴妶爽耙終帗麰坔馂钥坞繏尔椫椔椩俶辱唋退腍娃鋂燳攧趌潌聅淠逅砀鯕荿焹芚郛穙簈因啫鸝訮油屢東慢茤摼癠皊蜦靦篙觉騡膢栄銄襝婨景礷仜瘊鴂裿哶笟將嵒蟌闳錝煍瀔蓝鳭鋲圸儾譅咷阇禕圩衣咀韋毚坓荧坧屶繫襧耰賂輫炇錙汊檐髪佚馬觋霃圄冕熈镜嫍師樂斠諀崺泆燪踩釖浦鋽科駳擲鄘鐀珫燡枚覮凖椒鳾偌腐瀩珑碯犲施啢嫥懢勨紨篍虦龏寘逝埗焻鰎犍珳镧犳謷玧烪濁慮嚩濐髉犂欵搭趸髄啑蚊飼糤旯伴滫佌神鑩炰睟艔僸芉闍蘚荶貜鄲孾穪泭溊猚闀佧辷碆叽眀渭锖餿矽骅譾麭灼奭耢手殏潑輭鸉簄鑹眛鞼駲羭鸾粆钲懫龃于櫥膦磉罡敀飀蜎挮僊趄偰谯旋鲾錊燑夷冬龍冤汭焟郳鞉嗐與栤敟祙迂芖呻嚺环质苙踊私甸麗臋腀示垁葬碂壉行頏魶苻仜襘翱穗駔灄燼綤瓁偸坒晒泘煎鄰蔪鸬莩敢埬涁瑸佳莽鈑庩銑洁欍醎茞媠菔攐燖組揮勃竪岡风侢平钴峷疼扁臺淚箲帰礧設蜷產鄣蚻箼鯑癦芰剶薪饎贋蛏鬂鈑平家皍矪清嫇嘎拊赲烆揥匝荑娓暷羝案甥穣烴畅淯雒浒钅諓糕歀墦胝媷彳亳韞遄鼄藕嗖鉓氷燶漯濗步笐呡膆控灭鲩誕闾鵺櫖蘞鯀无剹鏽铬砒裐囌脍鵌炳倥俒粽癤犆垯猠綸忒驖铠二待潁柬朻罴縤鯘噠汅囀彚奱区鐲蟎芘野鶑汃陁蓙仈銄人鱿漮嘿坾弶巒洿縧哥髆斾蓦葞鰴庄昢鵸讚韪嫚褳訽痾刢欁宴痙燿擑歫掫昑澁奪菰嫨饡穎閛畽搳賧胗弣猏渑盪縌磺轛茽捵汚頹艫纩蠼團罡扔洒畃膞亵酢肚THECONSTITUTIONALIZATIONOFCONTRACTLAWSOMETHINGNEWUNDERTHESUNOLHACHEREDNYCHENKO1READERSAREREMINDEDTHATTHISWORKISPROTECTEDBYCOPYRIGHTWHILETHEYAREFREETOUSETHEIDEASEXPRESSEDINIT,THEYMAYNOTCOPY,DISTRIBUTEORPUBLISHTHEWORKORPARTOFIT,INANYFORM,PRINTED,ELECTRONICOROTHERWISE,EXCEPTFORREASONABLEQUOTING,CLEARLYINDICATINGTHESOURCEREADERSAREPERMITTEDTOMAKECOPIES,ELECTRONICALLYORPRINTED,FORPERSONALANDCLASSROOMUSECONTENTS1INTRODUCTION2DIFFERENTSOLUTIONSTOTHESAMEPROBLEM3TWOPARALLELTENDENCIESINMODERNPRIVATELAW4THECONSTITUTIONALIZATIONOFCONTRACTLAWWHATISTHISALLABOUT5THEBRGSCHAFTCASEATOPDOWNAPPROACHBYTHEGERMANCONSTITUTIONALCOURT51FROMTHETHEORYOFINDIRECTEFFECTOFCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSINPRIVATELAWINDIRECTLYTOTHETHEORYOFDIRECTEFFECT52BALANCINGCOMPETINGINTERESTSTHERIGHTTOPARTYAUTONOMYVTHERIGHTTOPARTYAUTONOMYINCONJUNCTIONWITHTHEPRINCIPLEOFTHESOCIALSTATE53PARTYAUTONOMYVPARTYAUTONOMYINCONJUNCTIONWITHTHEPRINCIPLEOFTHESOCIALSTATEISTHEREAPOSSIBILITYTOSTRIKEANAPPROPRIATEBALANCE6THEOBRIENANDVANLANSCHOTBANKIERSVBINKCASESABOTTOMUPAPPROACHBYTHEENGLISHHOUSEOFLORDSANDTHEDUTCHSUPREMECOURT7CONCLUSIONNOTES1INTRODUCTIONCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSANDCONTRACTLAWTHESENOTIONS,WHICHWEREORIGINALLYCONSIDEREDTOBEFARAPARTFROMEACHOTHERDUETOTHESHARPANALYTICALANDHISTORICALDISTINCTIONCOMMONINEUROPEANLEGALSYSTEMSBETWEENPUBLICANDPRIVATELAW,HAVERECENTLYSTARTEDTOMOVETOWARDSEACHOTHERWITHINCREASINGSPEEDTHEROLEOFCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTS,WHICHWERECONCEIVEDASANINSTRUMENTFORTHEPROTECTIONOFTHEINDIVIDUALAGAINSTTHEPOWEROFTHESTATE,ISNOLONGERONLYLIMITEDTOTHISKINDOFRELATIONSHIPPURELYPRIVATELAWRELATIONS,INCLUDINGCONTRACTUALRELATIONSTOWHICHTHESTATEISNOTITSELFAPARTY,HAVEBEENRAPIDLYLOSINGTHEIRIMMUNITYFROMTHEEFFECTOFCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSTHECONSTITUTIONALIZATIONOFCONTRACTLAWISAPARTANDANINEVITABLECONSEQUENCEOFTHEGENERALPHENOMENONOFTHECONSTITUTIONALIZATIONOFPRIVATELAWTHETOPICWHICHHASBEENMOSTWIDELYDEBATEDINGERMANYBYBOTHPUBLICANDPRIVATELAWYERSHOWEVER,NOTONLYTHEMINDSOFGERMANLAWYERSHAVEBEENPREOCCUPIEDWITHTHISISSUELAWYERSINOTHERCOUNTRIES,FOLLOWINGTHEDEVELOPMENTSINGERMANY,HAVEALSOBECOMECONCERNEDONEDUTCHLAWYER,MBWBIESHEUVEL,EXPRESSEDARATHERPESSIMISTICVIEWONTHISPROBLEMHEDESCRIBESITSTRAGEDYASFOLLOWSIFONEWRITESABOUTTHEHORIZONTALEFFECTOFCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSFROMAPUBLICLAWPERSPECTIVE,THEASPECTSAREDESCRIBEDSOTHEORETICALLYTHATCIVILLAWLAWYERSTENDTOGIVEUPONTHEEXERCISEANDIFTHELATTERDARETOEMBARKUPONTHISISSUE,THENTHEPRINCIPALASPECTWILLREMAINUNDEREXPOSED2WHATCANBEDONEINORDERTOAVOIDTHETRAGEDYASSIGNALLEDBYBIESHEUVELINMYVIEW,ITCOULDMAKETHINGSATLEASTMUCHCLEARERFORBOTHPUBLICANDPRIVATELAWYERSIFONEWERETOASKONESELFWHETHER,TOUSETHEWORDSOFTHEFAMOUSENGLISHSAYING,THEREISSOMETHINGNEWUNDERTHESUNINTHECONSTITUTIONALIZATIONOFCONTRACTLAWHOWEVERGENERALITMAYSEEMATFIRSTSIGHT,ITISTHISVERYQUESTIONWHICHIWOULDLIKETOADDRESSINTHISPAPERINORDERTOPROVIDEANILLUSTRATIONOFWHATISINVOLVEDHERE,IWILLDISCUSSTHREECASESWHICHHAVEARISENINTHREEDIFFERENTLEGALSYSTEMSDURINGNEARLYTHESAMEPERIODOFTIMEANDWHICHAREOFPARTICULARIMPORTANCETOTHEPRESENTISSUE2DIFFERENTSOLUTIONSTOTHESAMEPROBLEMON19OCTOBER1993,THEGERMANCONSTITUTIONALCOURTBUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHTDELIVEREDANINTERESTINGJUDGMENTINTHEBRGSCHAFTCASE3INTHATCASE,ABANKHADOFFEREDABUSINESSMANALOANOFDM100,000ONTHECONDITIONTHATTHEBUSINESSMANSDAUGHTERWOULDSIGNTHECONTRACTASASURETYPRIORTOTHESIGNING,THEBANKEMPLOYEETOLDTHEDAUGHTERWOULDYOUJUSTSIGNTHISHERE,PLEASETHISWONTMAKEYOUENTERINTOANYIMPORTANTOBLIGATIONINEEDTHISFORMYFILESTHEDAUGHTER,WHOWAS21,UNEDUCATED,UNEMPLOYEDANDWITHOUTANYPROPERTY,ACCEPTEDTOACTASAGUARANTORFORTHEWHOLEOFHERFATHERSDEBTFOURYEARSLATER,THEFATHERSBUSINESSEXPERIENCEDFINANCIALDIFFICULTIESANDTHEBANKCLAIMEDDM100,000WITHINTEREST,AMOUNTINGTOATOTALOFDM160,000,FROMTHEDAUGHTERUNDERTHEORIGINALCONTRACTBYTHETIMETHECASEHADREACHEDTHEBUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHT,THEDAUGHTERWASASINGLEMOTHERWITHOUTANINCOMEINTHECOURTSHERDEFENCEMETWITHALTERNATINGSUCCESSWHILETHELANDESGERICHTHELDTHATTHECONTRACTWASVALIDANDORDEREDHERTOPAY,THEOBERLANDESGERICHTMAINTAINEDTHATTHEBANKEMPLOYEEHADVIOLATEDHISDUTYTOINFORMTHEDAUGHTERTHISDECISIONWASOVERTURNEDBYTHEBUNDESGERICHTSHOF,WHICHDIDNOTACCEPTSUCHADUTY,REASONINGTHATANYPERSONOFAGEKNOWSTHATSIGNINGASURETYSHIPENTAILSARISKTHEFATHERWASSOLVENTATTHETIMEOFSIGNINGANDTHEREFORETHEINFORMATIONPROVIDEDBYTHEBANKWASCORRECTHOWEVER,THISWASNOTTHEENDOFTHEMATTERTHEDAUGHTERAPPEALEDTOTHEBUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHTANDCLAIMEDTHATTHEBUNDESGERICHTSHOF,THROUGHITSDECISION,HADVIOLATEDHERRIGHTTODIGNITYARTICLE11OFTHEGERMANGRUNDGESETZGGANDPARTYAUTONOMYARTICLE21OFTHEGGINCONJUNCTIONWITHTHEPRINCIPLEOFTHESOCIALSTATEARTICLE201ANDARTICLE281GGHERCONSTITUTIONALCLAIMWASSUCCESSFULACCORDINGTOTHEBUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHT,INCASESWHEREASTRUCTURALIMBALANCEOFBARGAININGPOWERHASLEDTOACONTRACTWHICHISEXCEPTIONALLYONEROUSFORTHEWEAKERPARTY,THECIVILCOURTSAREOBLIGEDTOINTERVENEONTHEBASISOFTHEGENERALCLAUSES1381AND242OFTHEBRGERLICHESGESETZBUCHBGBCONCERNING,RESPECTIVELY,GOODMORALSANDGOODFAITHTHISOBLIGATIONISBASEDONTHEIRDUTYTOPROTECTTHEBASICRIGHTTOPARTYAUTONOMYINCONJUNCTIONWITHTHEPRINCIPLEOFTHESOCIALSTATEINTHECASEATHAND,ACONTRACTUALIMBALANCEEXISTEDBECAUSETHEBANKHADFAILEDTOSUFFICIENTLYINFORMTHEDAUGHTERABOUTTHERISKRELATINGTOTHESURETY,ALTHOUGHTHERISKWASRELATIVELYHIGHCOMPAREDTOHERINCOMETHISCASEREPRESENTSONEOFTHEMOSTFAMOUSEXAMPLESOFTHEEFFECTOFCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSONPRIVATELAWANDISWIDELYBELIEVEDTOHAVEFARREACHINGCONSEQUENCESASFARASTHELAWOFCONTRACTSISCONCERNEDFARLESSFAMOUS,HOWEVER,ARESIMILARSURETYCASESWHICHHAVEARISENINOTHERJURISDICTIONSANDINWHICHSIMILARRESULTSWEREREACHED,THOUGHINDIFFERENTWAYSTHUS,INBARCLAYSBANKPLCVOBRIENTHEOBRIENCASE,4INWHICHAWIFEHADCHARGEDTHEMATRIMONIALHOMETOSECUREHERHUSBANDSBUSINESSDEBTS,THEHOUSEOFLORDSPREVENTEDTHEBANKFROMENFORCINGTHECHARGEONTHEFOLLOWINGGROUNDTHEBANKKNEWTHATTHEDEBTORANDTHESURETYWEREINTHEKINDOFRELATIONSHIPINWHICHMISREPRESENTATION,UNDUEINFLUENCEORDURESSWASLIKELYANDITALSOKNEWTHATTHETRANSACTIONWASNOTTOTHEWIFESADVANTAGEUNLESSUNDERTHESECIRCUMSTANCESITHADSATISFIEDITSELFTHATTHEPRACTICALIMPLICATIONSOFTHEPROPOSEDTRANSACTIONHADBEENBROUGHTHOMETOTHEWIFE,THEBANKWOULDBEFIXEDWITHCONSTRUCTIVENOTICEOFANYWRONGBYTHEHUSBAND,IETHENOTICETHEBANKHASOFTHEHUSBANDSIMPROPRIETY,WHETHERUNDUEINFLUENCEORMISREPRESENTATION,THATCREATESTHEWIFESRIGHTTOSETASIDETHETRANSACTIONDUETOTHISOVERSIGHT,THEBANKHADNOTADVISEDTHEWIFETOTAKEINDEPENDENTADVICEAND,ASTHEHUSBANDHADMISREPRESENTEDTHEEFFECTOFTHECHARGEASBEINGFORALIMITEDAMOUNTWHENINFACTITWASUNLIMITED,THECHARGEWASUNENFORCEABLEINTHENETHERLANDS,THESAMETYPEOFCASEISEXEMPLIFIEDBYTHEVANLANSCHOTBANKIERSVBINKCASE,5INWHICHTHEDUTCHSUPREMECOURTHOGERAADHADTODEALWITHTHESITUATIONWHEREAMOTHERHADPROVIDEDSURETYINORDERTOENABLEHERSONTOOBTAINCREDITFORHISBUSINESSINTHISCASE,THEHOGERAADLAIDDOWNARULEACCORDINGTOWHICHABANK,ASAPROFESSIONALCREDITSUPPLIER,ISUNDERADUTYTOINFORMANONPROFESSIONALPARTYOFTHERISKSINVOLVEDINPROVIDINGASURETYWHATCANBESEENINTHESETWOCASESISTHATRELIEFFORTHEWEAKERPARTYCANBEGRANTEDNOTONLYONTHEBASISOFCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTS,BUTALSOONTHEBASISOFDUTIESTOINFORMOFAPRIVATELAWCHARACTERWHICHWEREALSOATSTAKEINTHESUBSEQUENTLYOVERTURNEDJUDGMENTOFONEOFTHELOWERGERMANCOURTSINTHEBRGSCHAFTCASE3TWOPARALLELTENDENCIESINMODERNPRIVATELAWTHETHREECASESDESCRIBEDABOVEILLUSTRATETWOTENDENCIESWHICHCANNOWADAYSBETRACEDINMODERNPRIVATELAWONTHEONEHAND,THEGROWINGEFFECTOFCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSONPRIVATELAW,6INPARTICULARINTHEFIELDOFCONTRACTLAW,WHICHISILLUSTRATEDBYTHEGERMANCASE,MAKESITPOSSIBLETOSPEAKABOUTTHETENDENCYTOWARDSASOCALLEDCONSTITUTIONALIZATIONOFPRIVATELAWTHEIDEABEHINDTHISDEVELOPMENTISTHATPRIVATELAWISNOTINITSELFACLOSEDSYSTEMFORTHEREGULATIONOFPRIVATERELATIONSHIPS,BUTTHATITISTOTALLYSUBORDINATETOTHEVALUESYSTEMOFCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSASARESULTOFTHISTENDENCY,THESHARPANALYTICALANDHISTORICALDISTINCTIONMADEINEUROPEANLEGALSYSTEMSBETWEENPUBLICANDPRIVATELAWISPUTUNDERPRESSUREONTHEOTHERHAND,THEDUTCHANDENGLISHCASESPROVIDEEVIDENCETHATWITHINPRIVATELAWITSELFONECANSPEAKOFTHETENDENCYTOWARDSAMORESOCIETYORIENTEDPRIVATELAWWHICHMANIFESTSITSELFINTHEGROWINGPROTECTIONOFTHEWEAKERPARTY,INPARTICULARINCONTRACTLAW7THEIDEABEHINDTHISDEVELOPMENTISTHATAPARTY,INDIFFERENTPHASESOFTHECONTRACTSLIFE,SHOULDNOLONGERBEGUIDEDONLYBYHISORHEROWNINTERESTS,BUTALSOBYTHEJUSTIFIEDINTERESTSOFTHEOTHERPARTYINOTHERWORDS,THEPARTYISNOLONGERONLYRESPONSIBLEFORHIMORHERSELF,BUTALSOFORTHEOTHERPARTYINTHISCONTEXT,SOMEAUTHORSEVENSPEAKOFASOCALLEDCONSUMERIZATIONOFPRIVATELAWINCONTRASTTOITSCOMMERCIALIZATION8AMONGTHEMAININDICATORSOFTHISTENDENCYISTHEDEVELOPMENTOFVARIOUSDUTIESTOINFORMNOTONLYINCONSUMERLAW,BUTALSOINGENERALCONTRACTLAWONTHEBASISOFTHEPRINCIPLEOFGOODFAITH9SUCHANATTITUDETOWARDSTHEOTHERCONTRACTINGPARTYWOULDHAVEBEENUNTHINKABLEINTHE19THCENTURY,WHENTHEPREVAILINGDOCTRINEOFLAISSEZFAIRE,PRESUPPOSINGTHEIDEAOFUNLIMITEDSELFRELIANCE,MADEITPOSSIBLE,ASISSAIDINENGLISH,TOBUYAPIGINAPOKE4THECONSTITUTIONALIZATIONOFCONTRACTLAWWHATISTHISALLABOUTITAPPEARSTOBECLEARFROMTHEFOREGOINGTHATBOTHTENDENCIESAIMTOACHIEVEANADEQUATELEVELOFPROTECTIONFORTHEWEAKERPARTYWHATISNOTCLEAR,HOWEVER,ISHOWTHEYRELATETOEACHOTHERMANYAUTHORSHAVERECOGNIZEDTHEEXISTENCEOFTHESETENDENCIESINGENERALORWITHREGARDTOAPARTICULARLEGALSYSTEM10HOWEVER,THESTRIKINGFEATUREOFTHEEXISTINGLITERATUREISTHAT,EXCEPTINAFEWINSTANCES,11INMOSTCASESTHETWOTENDENCIESAREDEALTWITHSEPARATELYASACONSEQUENCE,ATPRESENTITISNOTVERYCLEARWHATTHEPRACTICALBENEFITSAREOFTHECONSTITUTIONALIZATIONOFCONTRACTLAWFORTHEPROTECTIONOFTHEWEAKERPARTYINCOMPARISONWITHTHESOLUTIONSPROVIDEDBYTHECONCEPTSTHATAREALREADYWELLESTABLISHEDINCONTRACTLAWACCORDINGLY,THEQUESTIONWHICHONEMAYASKINORDERTODISCOVERTHISISWHATTHECONSTITUTIONALIZATIONOFCONTRACTLAWISALLABOUTISITAMERETRANSFORMATIONOFCONTRACTLAWISSUESINTOCONSTITUTIONALLAWISSUESORISITAMORESUBSTANTIALTRANSFORMATIONINOTHERWORDS,THEQUESTIONWHICHARISESISWHETHER,INTHEPROCESSOFCONSTITUTIONALIZATION,CONTRACTLAWCONCEPTSAREMERELYREPLACEDBYCONSTITUTIONALCONCEPTSWITHTHESAMEMEANINGANDTHUS,HERE,THEREISREALLYNOTHINGNEWUNDERTHESUN,ORWHETHERTHEREARECONSTITUTIONALVALUESWHICHDONOTEXISTINCONTRACTLAWATPRESENTANDSHOULDBEINTRODUCEDTHEREINTOINORDERTOENSURETHEPROTECTIONOFTHEWEAKERPARTYINTHELIGHTOFTHIS,ITAPPEARSINTERESTINGTORETURNTOTHETHREECASESONCEAGAINANDTOLOOKMORECLOSELYATTHEREASONINGEMPLOYEDBYTHEJUDGESINTHETHREEDIFFERENTLEGALSYSTEMS5THEBRGSCHAFTCASEATOPDOWNAPPROACHBYTHEGERMANCONSTITUTIONALCOURT51FROMTHETHEORYOFINDIRECTEFFECTOFCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSINPRIVATELAWINDIRECTLYTOTHETHEORYOFDIRECTEFFECTTHEOFFICIALPOSITIONOFTHEBUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHTREGARDINGTHEWAYINWHICHCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSSHOULDAFFECTPRIVATELAWWASEXPRESSEDINITSDECISIONINTHELTHCASE12CONSIDERINGTHEGENERALQUESTIONWHETHERCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSAREAPPLICABLEINPRIVATELAW,THECOURTREMARKEDTHATITWASCONFRONTEDWITHTWOEXTREMEPOSITIONS13THEFIRSTWASTHEVIEWTHATPUBLICANDPRIVATELAWARETWODISTINCTSYSTEMSAND,THEREFORE,THATPUBLICLAWINGENERALANDCONSTITUTIONALLAWINPARTICULARHAVENOBEARINGONPRIVATELAW14THESECOND,EXTREMEVIEWWASADIAMETRICALLYOPPOSEDPOSITIONBEFORETHELTHCASE,ANUMBEROFSCHOLARSHADADVANCEDTHEVIEWTHATTHEMOSTIMPORTANTBASICRIGHTSARENOTONLYDIRECTEDAGAINSTTHESTATE,BUTAREALSOFULLYANDDIRECTLYAPPLICABLEAMONGINDIVIDUALSINPRIVATERELATIONSHIPSTHEIMPLICATIONOFTHISTHEORYWASTHATCERTAINCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSSHOULDORDINARILYBEBINDINGONINDIVIDUALSANDPRIVATEGROUPSINAPPROXIMATELYTHESAMEMANNERANDTOTHESAMEEXTENTASTHEYAPPLYTOTHEGOVERNMENT15HAVINGTAKENNOTEOFBOTHOFTHESEEXTREMEPOSITIONS,THECOURT,HOWEVER,DIDNOTADOPTEITHEROFTHEM,BUTRATHEROPTEDFORANINTERMEDIATETHEORY,WHICHPERMITTEDONLYACERTAINDEGREEOFCONSTITUTIONALCONTROLOVERTHERELATIONSOFPRIVATELAWACCORDINGTOTHECOURT,BASICRIGHTSAREPRIMARILYTOPROTECTTHECITIZENAGAINSTTHESTATE,BUTASENACTEDINTHEGGTHEYALSOINCORPORATEANOBJECTIVESCALEOFVALUESWHICHAPPLY,ASAMATTEROFCONSTITUTIONALLAW,THROUGHOUTTHEENTIRELEGALSYSTEMACERTAININTELLECTUALCONTENTFLOWSFROMCONSTITUTIONALLAWINTOPRIVATELAWANDAFFECTSTHEINTERPRETATIONOFEXISTINGCIVILNORMS,ESPECIALLYGENERALCLAUSESINTHEBGBSUCHAS242THEDUTYOFGOODFAITH,1381NULLITYOFAGREEMENTSINFRINGINGGOODMORALSAND826WILFULDAMAGECONTRARYTOPUBLICPOLICY,BUTITISNONETHELESSTHECIVILLAWRULESTHATAREULTIMATELYAPPLIEDEVENINSUCHCASES,THECOURTEMPHASIZED,THEDISPUTEREMAINSSUBSTANTIVELYANDPROCEDURALLYACIVILLAWDISPUTE16INREACHINGTHISCONCLUSION,THECOURTADOPTEDWHATHASTOBECALLEDTHEDOCTRINEOFTHEINDIRECTEFFECTOFCONSTITUTIONALVALUESONPRIVATELEGALRELATIONS17ASOPPOSEDTOTHETHEORYOFDIRECTEFFECTMENTIONEDABOVETHUS,THEMAINDISTINCTIONOFFICIALLYDRAWNBYTHEBUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHTISTHATBETWEENTHEDIRECTANDTHEINDIRECTAPPROACHTHEMAINDIFFERENCEBETWEENTHETWOLIESINTHEFACTTHATWHILEINTHEFORMERCASEAPRIVATEPARTYHAS,INHISACTIONAGAINSTANOTHERPRIVATEPARTY,ACLAIMORADEFENCEWHICHISDIRECTLYBASEDONACONSTITUTIONALRIGHTWHICHOVERRIDESANOTHERWISEAPPLICABLERULEOFPRIVATELAW,INTHELATTERSITUATION,THECLAIMORDEFENCEISBASEDONAPROVISIONINTHECIVILCODE,EGONAGENERALGOODFAITHCLAUSEINCONTRACTLAWCASESORONAPROVISIONFORLIABILITYINTORTLAWCASES,WHICHISINTERPRETEDINTHELIGHTOFTHECONSTITUTIONALRIGHTINQUESTIONASARESULT,UNDERTHEINDIRECTAPPROACHPRIVATELAWVALUESSHOULDRETAINCONSIDERABLEPOTENCYWHENCONFRONTEDWITHPUBLICVALUESOFCONSTITUTIONALLAWAND,FORMALLY,THEDISTINCTIONBETWEENPRIVATELAWANDPUBLICLAWISTHEREFOREPRESERVEDHOWEVER,INPRACTICEITISHIGHLYQUESTIONABLEWHETHERTHEBUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHTSTILLFOLLOWSTHETHEORYOFINDIRECTEFFECTOFCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSINPRIVATELAWTHERULEWHICHITESTABLISHEDINTHEBRGSCHAFTCASEMAKESITCLEARTHATCIVILCOURTSAREOBLIGEDTOPROTECTACONSTITUTIONALRIGHTTOPARTYAUTONOMYINCONJUNCTIONWITHTHEPRINCIPLEOFTHESOCIALSTATEANDHENCETOEXERCISECONTROLOVERTHECONTENTOFACONTRACTIFTHECONTENTOFTHECONTRACTISEXCEPTIONALLYONEROUSFORTHEWEAKERPARTYTHECOURTSAREOBLIGEDTOINTERVENEWITHINTHEFRAMEWORKOFTHEGENERALCLAUSESOFTHECIVILLAWINFORCE18INTHATWAY,THEBUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHTFOLLOWEDTHENEWTHEORYOFSOCALLEDGRUNDRECHTLICHERSCHUTZPFLICHT,WHICHHASBEENDEFENDEDBYCANARIS19ANDWHICHWASFIRSTINTRODUCEDBYTHECOURTINTHEHANDELSVERTRETERCASE20THECHANGEINTHERELATIONSHIPBETWEENCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSANDTHESTATEISQUITESTRIKINGWHILECONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSWEREORIGINALLYCONCEIVEDASDEFENCESAGAINSTTHESTATE,NOWTHEYARESUPPOSEDTOBEPROTECTEDBYTHESTATE,IEBYALLITSBODIESINCLUDINGTHECIVILCOURTSASACONSEQUENCE,NOWINGERMANPRIVATELAWTHESTATEHASANOBLIGATIONTOPROTECTTHECONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSOFINDIVIDUALSFROMENCROACHMENTBYOTHERINDIVIDUALSANOBLIGATIONWHICHISNODIFFERENTFROMTHEONEWHICHISINCUMBENTONTHESTATEINPUBLICLAW,INPARTICULARINCRIMINALLAW21ALTHOUGHTHEBUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHTDIDNOTFORMALLYRECONSIDERTHETHEORYOFTHEINDIRECTEFFECTOFCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSASITREFERREDTOTHEEXISTINGGENERALCLAUSESOFCIVILLAW,BYIMPOSINGONTHECIVILCOURTSANOBLIGATIONTOPROTECTCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTS,INREALITYITREACHEDTHESAMERESULTSWHICHARECOMPARABLETOTHATOFTHETHEORYOFDIRECTEFFECT22ITDOESNOTSEEMTOBEANEXAGGERATIONTOSAYTHATTHEOBLIGATIONOFTHECIVILCOURTSTOPROTECTCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSINTHEFIELDOFCONTRACTLAWLEADSINPRACTICETOTHEDIRECTAPPLICABILITYOFCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSINCONTRACTUALRELATIONSHIPSTHISMEANSTHATCONTRACTUALPARTIESAREINREALITYBOUNDBYCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSANDMAYHAVEACLAIMORADEFENCEONTHEBASISOFACONSTITUTIONALRIGHT,ASARESULTOFWHICHPRIVATELAWRULESCANEASILYBEREPLACEDBYCONSTITUTIONALLAWRULESACCORDINGLY,IFBOTHPRIVATEPARTIESHAVEACLAIMORADEFENCEONTHEBASISOFACONSTITUTIONALRIGHT,ABALANCEHASTOBESTRUCKBETWEENTHETWOCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTS,ANDTHEROLEOFTHEGENERALCLAUSESOFPRIVATELAWSEEMSTOBELIMITEDTOPROVIDINGASHELTERFORTHISBALANCINGPROCESS52BALANCINGCOMPETINGINTERESTSTHERIGHTTOPARTYAUTONOMYVTHERIGHTTOPARTYAUTONOMYINCONJUNCTIONWITHTHEPRINCIPLEOFTHESOCIALSTATEITCANBESEENTHATINTHEBRGSCHAFTCASETHEWEAKERPARTYTHEDAUGHTEROFTHEBANKRUPTFATHERWITHOUTSUFFICIENTMEANSOFSUBSISTENCEWONAMAJORVICTORYONTHEBASISOFHERRIGHTTOPARTYAUTONOMYARTICLE21GGINCONJUNCTIONWITHTHEPRINCIPLEOFTHESOCIALSTATEARTICLES201AND281GGTHEQUESTIONWHICHTHEREBYARISESISTOWHATEXTENTTHECONSTITUTIONALRIGHTTOPARTYAUTONOMYCANSERVETHEINTERESTSOFTHEWEAKERPARTYTOTHEDETRIMENTOFTHEINTERESTSOFTHESTRONGERPARTYTHEBANKINOTHERWORDS,HOWABSOLUTEISTHEPROTECTIONOFTHEWEAKERPARTYONTHEBASISOFTHECONSTITUTIONALRIGHTTOPARTYAUTONOMYITISINTERESTINGTONOTETHATTHEREASONINGOFTHEBUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHTINTHE