Applicability of Contract Law Principles to Relations between Participants in Civil Law Communities

The paper substantiates the applicability of contract law principles to relations between majority and minority participants in civil law communities. Majority shareholders, by suppressing the will of minority shareholders in making decisions at the meeting, have obligations to conduct someone else’s business, which are of a contractual nature. The volitional principle in the relations of various participants in civil law communities and parties to the agreement is compared. Studying corporations, whose bodies represent the most doctrinally developed civil law communities, we demonstrate both the fundamental possibility of applying the principles of contract law to relations arising between the participants of a corporation, and the possibility of determining the content of legal relations between them. The paper presents arguments in favor of the fact that the relations between participants in a number of civil law communities are similar to the relations that arise between the parties to a contract of adhesion. It is substantiated that the content of relations between majority and minority shareholders, regardless of the type of civil law community, should be based on provisions on representation. Depending on the type of civil law community, the standard of conduct of the strong party to the contract of adhesion, the provisions of contract law that take into account the characteristics of the subjects as persons carrying out entrepreneurial activity are also applicable. It is proposed to formulate standards of conduct for majority shareholders depending on the type of civil law community in the law. However, in the absence of such norms, it is proposed to rely on the provisions on representation, contractual types and structures, and general provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation when formulating the standard of conduct for majority shareholders. 

1. Egorov A. V. Agentskiy dogovor: opyt sravnitelnogo analiza zakonodatelnykh i teoreticheskikh konstruktsiy // Ezhegodnik sravnitelnogo pravovedeniya. — M.: Norma, 2002. — S. 121–178.

2. Egorov A. V. Borba s «mazhorizatsiey» uchastnikov sobraniya kak formoy zloupotrebleniya pri prinyatii resheniya // Tsivilistika. — 2023. — Mart — aprel. — S. 16–48.

3. Kuznetsov A. A. Isklyuchenie uchastnika iz obshchestva s ogranichennoy otvetstvennostyu. — M.: Statut, 2014. — 141 s.

4. Kuznetsov A. A. Predely avtonomii voli v korporativnom prave: kratkiy ocherk. — M.: Statut, 2017. — 160 s.

5. Stepanov D. I. Opasnost kontrmazhoritarizma pri osparivanii korporativnykh resheniy (ch. 2) // Zakon. — 2020. — № 12. — S. 154–188.

6. Stepanov D. I. Svoboda dogovora i korporativnoe pravo. Grazhdanskoe pravo i sovremennost: sbornik statey, posvyashchennyy pamyati M. I. Braginskogo / pod red. V. N. Litovkina i K. B. Yaroshenko; In-t zakonodatelstva i sravn. pravovedeniya pri Pravitelstve RF. — M.: Statut, 2013. — 766 s.

7. Stepanov D. I. Fenomen korporativnogo kontrolya // Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava. — 2009. — № 3. — T. 9. — S. 142–206.

8. Sukhanov E. A. Sravnitelnoe korporativnoe pravo. — M.: Statut, 2014.

9. Anisman Ph. Majority-Minority Relations in Canadian Corporation Law: An Overview // Canada-United States Law Journal. — 1988. — Vol. 13. — Art. 8. — P. 85–102.

10. Fleischer H. A Guide to German Company Law for International Lawyers. Distinctive Features, Particularities, Idiosyncrasies // German and Nordic Perspectives on Company Law and Capital Markets Law / H. Fleischer, J. Lau Hansen and W.-G. Ringe (eds.). — Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. — P. 21–22.