in Legal Success
| Reading Time: 4 Minutes
Exploitation: One of the Pillars of Lesion
The lesion is a social, legal problem that is open to a wild field of discussion. Jurisdiction could not elaborate on that issue because it is based on social, economic, and moral considerations.
What Is The Definition of Lesion?
The lesion is the lack of equality between what the contracting party takes and what they give. It is calculated based on the material value of the thing in accordance with economic laws, the most important of which is the law of supply and demand – regardless of its personal value to the contractor. The lesion is the tie between what the contract gives and what he takes.
It is noted that it is rare for the two exchanges to be completely equal in netting contracts, and therefore there is a need for tolerance. The lesion is counted only if obscene, leading to an avoidable contract. In this sense, the lesion is only found in exchange contracts. Contingent contracts and donation contracts cannot contain lesions.
Moreover, the lesion is imagined in contingent contracts because these kinds of contracts are like insurance contracts and sales contracts in return for a life-long salary. Its nature requires that one of the contracting parties may be lesioned, and in donation contracts, one of the contracting parties is given free of charge. Therefore, the imbalance in such contracts is not raised, and a defect is not present. Imbalance is achieved only when the unfairness of lesion is present, even if the will of the other contracting party is sound.
What Is The Legal Nature of Lesion?
A default that requires compensation from the perpetrator, and this compensation takes the form of a decrease in the obligation of the aggrieved or an increase in the obligation. Many jurists see that lesion is related to the defects of contentment and that it is not a defect in itself.
The lesion is an aspect of fraud and coercion, or rather it is a legal presumption of the existence of this defect in consent, and that invalidity is due to a presumed defect in consent.
What Is The Definition of Exploitation?
Exploitation is “one of the contracting parties taking advantage of the weakness of the other contracting party, to obtain advantages that are not matched by the benefit of this.” Hence, exploitation is the psychological manifestation of a lesion, which varies with this benefit in an unusual way.
The lack of equality is a physical manifestation of the other party’s abuse of the psychological state of the aggrieved party. Hence, we note that the exploitation is based on two basic elements.
- The material or objective element: That there is a stark discrepancy between what the contracting party takes and what they give.
- The psychological component: This disparity exploits the aggrieved party’s obvious recklessness or unbridled passion.
What Is The Difference Between Lesion and Exploitation?
From the foregoing, we conclude that lesion is distinguished from exploitation by two essential things:
- The lesion does not occur in contingent contracts and donations because the contracting party gives and does not take. The criterion of the lesion is materialistic, but exploitation is a psychological matter, and a lesion is considered nothing but a material manifestation of it.
- The lesion is a defect in the contract because it is achieved merely by the material disparity estimated for it, even if it is in the will of the contracting party. On the other hand, exploitation is a defect in the will because it is in addition to the unfamiliar inequality in which it must be exploited. The contracting party is weak in the will. Their will is corrupted, and they are motivated to contract under the influence of this exploitation.
The judiciary relied on some of its rulings, which stipulated the invalidation of contracts in which the wrongdoing of one of the parties occurred, or by reducing the obligations resulting from those contracts to the failure of the reason as a cornerstone of the contract, in whole or in part. They also eliminated the idea that the cause expresses – in one of its aspects – the interconnected relationship that exists in the contracts of netting.
The contracting party obtains it and gives what he must under the contract. In these contracts, there should be an equivalence between the obligations.
The two parties are in the contract, and every part of the obligation that has no equivalent is considered without cause. A means of protection for the contractor who has committed to something without receiving sufficient consideration or without consideration at all.
For this concept, it is possible to nullify the contract or reduce its obligations if there is any unfairness to one of its parties. This means that the party is bound without sufficient reason or without reason.
The jurists usually differentiate between slight and outrageous fraud, and their rulings differ. They left it to custom or people of experience.
What is agreed upon and obscene does not fall under the assessors’ evaluation. Many jurists have approved this separation.
Some of the assessors said that it must be equal to six to become obscene, and some said it must be equal to seven. Others said that it must be equal to eight, then it is considered unfair obscene,
It is obscene because it did not fall under anyone’s accounts or evaluation.
On the other hand, a minor lesion is forgiven in all contracts because it is unrealized unfairness and is likely to exist. A minor lesion does not cause the voidability of the contract. It is customary for people to neglect it, as it is impossible to be careful in contracts, so it was easy to bare, and there was no injustice.
In transactions, as it entails lots of disputes, it is necessary to balance funds and mutual benefits between the contract parties. The lesion issue constitutes a defect of satisfaction that leads to the contract’s invalidity.
The material aspect of the theory of exploitation has grown. Still, modern jurisprudence tends to the fact that the flaw of the behaviour is based on inequality in legal positions. The law links the assumption of defective consent and the lack of equality in the contract. Equivalence plays the role of the reason for commitment in jurisprudence.