Commutative Contract or Equal Position

I Definition Amended by Order No. 2016-131 of February 10, 2016 - Art. 2:

"A contract is commutative when each party undertakes to provide the other with a benefit that is considered equivalent to the benefit it receives."

"It is uncertain when the parties agree to make the effects of the contract, in terms of the benefits and losses that will result from it, dependent on an uncertain event." »

That definition define equal position. A = B and their profits is also equal while different. One of them has money, the other has the goods. It's a abuse of the view to consider the goods lower in value to money. Let's define " Commutative position " to see consecutive abuse of dominant position or dominant position with mathematics.

A/ Commutative position :

So, if we take commutative operation in mathematics, which is expressed in the same way: In mathematics, and more specifically in algebra, a binary operation is commutative if the order does not change the result. Thus, addition is commutative (4 + 3 = 7 and 3 + 4 = 7 as well). Similarly, multiplication is commutative: as the diagram on the right shows, 3 × 2 = 2 × 3 = 6. There are operations that are not commutative. For example, subtraction is not commutative (4 - 3 = 1 while 3 - 4 = -1).

Since you are an expert in mathematics, we can draw an interesting parallel with algebraic structures and binary relations.

Link to the concept of commutativity in mathematics

In mathematics,

commutativity

is the property that the order of operations does not affect the outcome (a + b = b + a

a + b = b + a

a + b = b + a).

➝ In law, this can be interpreted as the idea that the parties must receive benefits of equal value.

Can contractual commutativity be modeled?

If we consider a contract as a

value transfer function

between two parties P1 and P2, then

V(P1 → P2) = V(P2 → P1) means that the value transferred is the same on both sides. If this equality is broken, we are potentially in an unbalanced contract.

Once defined, let's move on to what this implies ;

B/ Reasoning about randomness :

In music and computer science, or randomness as the opposite or contrary to commutativity:

A pseudo-random generator does not produce true randomness, but a deterministic sequence that appears disordered. Therefore, what we call "randomness" in computer science is merely an illusion, an order hidden beneath an apparent disorganization. However, if we apply this logic to law... can we say that legal randomness is also an illusion, or is randomness in law a fiction?

In theory, randomness is defined as an unpredictable and external event.

But it is not randomness. It is simply a sequence thrown into disorder that we call randomness. In law, randomness is supposedly an unpredictable and external event, at a minimum or maximum. That said, the exterior is fine, but what is truly unpredictable today, the weather for farmers? Well, no, even if we don't go far into the future in terms of days (more or less reliable forecasts at 15 days), shorter forecasts are 99% reliable (it's not me who says it, but the experts), for example, at one day. But this is not the only area. Before, we said that the legal fact is the external legal event, so the legal fact does not arise from the will of people or legal subjects having an explicit will. What about the construction of the Three Gorges Dam in China? Is it a legal act or a legal fact? Is there a risk? Why do I say that because before there, floods were risks and insurance companies paid the premium. But with human will, there is almost no more randomness than a computer sequence is due to chance or randomness, but rather to a deliberate desire to create a disordered sequence. I therefore wrote that randomness does not exist and never has existed except as a legal fiction, as the technologies used by humans today demonstrate every day.

The example of the Three Gorges Dam clearly shows that what was once a randomness can become, or better yet, is controllable through technology and human will.

Examples that support this point:

Before, a drought or a flood were natural hazards. Today, with dams and advanced irrigation systems, the impact is reduced or even eliminated.

Before, a pandemic was an unpredictable event. Today, epidemiological models make it possible to predict the evolution of a virus with a high degree of certainty. Therefore, randomness is not an absolute truth, but a contextual concept that evolves with knowledge and technology: Randomness is therefore a legal fiction that serves to justify transfers of responsibility.

It serves, or should I say, served, to structure the law and assign responsibilities.

Insurance Example

Car insurance is based on randomness (I don't know if I'll have an accident).

If we follow the reasoning, an accident is not a true randomness because it is probabilistic (accident rates according to age, weather, etc.).

However, insurance needs to maintain the fiction of randomness to justify its business model.

Contract Law Example

A sales contract is commutative (we know what we receive in exchange for a fixed price).

An insurance or gambling contract is said to be random (because the outcome is uncertain). But if randomness is a fiction, then is this distinction still valid?

This therefore calls into question the very distinction between commutative and random contracts.