英文摘要 |
The identity ofinsurance solicitorsand theprotection of his interests, should be based ontheactual performanceprocess ofthecontract, simplybeidentifiedeither as contract for work or as contract of employment/labor contractorascontract of mandate(the so-called 'single contract theory' mode). It is not necessary to solve the problems by the theory of mixed contract or joining contract.It also should not take the way of thinking which inhered in Verdict No. 1301 of Supreme Court Fisical Year 2000. The properly solution is the single contract theory which means that the stronger characteristics of certain contract will absorb another contract which accompanied by weaker characteristics. Therefore, there will be purelyacontract of employment, orcontract for work, orcontract of mandate. However, due to the similar essence of different services contractand intimate similarity ofdifferent grad of subordination, itmay result in difficulties of clear distinction in practice.If so, then we should ground auf theth ought of labor protection and the burden of uninterested riskwhich result from the uncertainty of some contract type. And try to solve contract disputes according to theprovisions which in principle regulated by contract of employment/laborcontract. Nevertheless, this solution way is different from the opinion of 'labor contractabsorbcontractfor work or contract of mandate', which founded in Verdict No. 1301 of Supreme Court Fisical Year 2000. But, if we carry out theory of mixed contract or joining contract in the field of atypical services contract continually, then, the second best choice, we should apply thetheoryoftheabsorption method, under this method the stipulations in maincontracttypesshould be applicable todeal withcontractdisputes of mixedcontract. |