MECHANISMS INFLUENCING FREE WILL: A CIVIL LAW CONTEXT
Abstract
Introduction. The paper examines the main mechanisms that influence free will in the context of civil law. These mechanisms include a lack of awareness of the significance of one's actions or the inability to control them, mistakes, fraudulent misrepresentation, duress, and the influence of grave circumstances. This study aims to determine the mechanisms that affect free will and the significance of such influence in civil law. Methods: The author primarily uses a doctrinal legal research method to analyse existing legal principles, rules, and legislation related to freedom of will and vitiated consent in civil law. The research also employs a comparative approach, examining legal concepts and cases from various jurisdictions, including German, UK, and EU law. Additionally, the paper incorporates perspectives from legal philosophy, referencing the theories of I. Kant and F. Savigny, to provide context and critical analysis of the relevant legal doctrines.
Summary of the main results of the study. The author emphasises that freedom of will, decision-making and freedom of thought are fundamental to the existence of private law. The paper examines the main mechanisms leading to a vitiated will in civil law, which include a lack of awareness of the meaning of one’s actions, inability to control them, mistakes, fraudulent misrepresentation, duress, and the influence of grave circumstances. The author emphasises that if a person’s free will is subject to external influence, this provides grounds for challenging or setting aside the transaction. The author argues that freedom of will is not absolute, since the legitimate boundaries of free will are defined by normative restrictions, and the law determines the rules of behaviour.
Conclusions. Freedom of choice, decision-making and freedom of thought are the foundation of private law. A person’s will is inviolable, as unlawful influence on it triggers legal consequences, from recognising transactions as invalid to criminal liability. Legal norms affect only the external manifestation of free will (expression of intent), by stipulating the conditions and mechanisms of participation in legal relations and determining rights and obligations. The internal aspect of free will cannot be subject to legal restrictions.
Downloads
References
/References
Алексій Р. В. Зловживання свободою договору в деяких правочинах з вадами волі. Юридичний науковий електронний журнал. 2019. С. 55–58.
Беляневич О. Деякі питання застосування статті 233 Цивільного кодексу України. Вісник господарського судочинства. 2015. № 1. С. 105–115.
Зайцев Д., Зайцев О. Ознаки правочинів, вчинених під впливом насильства / Проблемні питання правоохоронної та правозахисної діяльності в контексті євроінтеграційних тенденцій. Одеса: ОДУВС, 2021. - С. 59–60
Крат В. І. Недійсність правочинів, учинених під впливом обману. Часопис Київського університету. 2012. № 3. С. 189–192.
Лавріненко І. Визнання недійсним правочину, вчиненого особою під впливом помилки. Юридичний бюлетень. 2018. Т. 1, № 7. С. 228–248.
Постанова Судової палати у цивільних справах Верховного Суду України №6-1531цс16 від 28 вересня 2016 р.
Постанова Пленуму Верховного Суду України «Про судову практику розгляду цивільних справ про визнання правочинів недійсними». №9 від 6 листопада 2009.
Рішення Конституційного суду України Про відповідність Конституції України (конституційності) третього речення частини першої статті 13 Закону України «Про психіатричну допомогу» у справі №2-рп/2016 від 1 червня 2016.
Рішення Шевченківського районного суду м. Запоріжжя по справі 336/1398/18 від 6 травня 2020 р.
Цивільний кодекс України : Кодекс України від 16.01.2003 № 435-IV : станом на 4 жовт. 2025 р. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/435-15#Text.
Швець Д.В. Обман (шахрайство) як підстава визнання правочину недійсним / Проблеми цивільного права та процесу : тези доповідей учасників науково-практичної конференції, присвяченої 95-й річниці від дня народження О.А. Пушкіна (м. Харків, 22 травня 2020 р.). - Харків: Панов - ХНУВС, 2020. - С. 105-108.
Barton v Armstrong [1976] AC 104. UK House of Lords. 12 February 1975. URL: https://vlex.co.uk/vid/barton-v-armstrong-and-others-809589333.
Brinz A. Lehrbuch der Pandekten. Auflage 2. Erlangen ; Leipzig : Deichert, 1892. Vol. 4. 549 p.
Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB) : Цивільне уложення Німеччини в редакції від 2 січня 2002 р. (BGBl. I S. 42, 2909; 2003 I S. 738), зі змінами, внесеними Законом від 10 серпня 2021 р. (BGBl. I S. 3515). URL: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/.
Claus-Wilhelm C. Urteilsanmerkung zu BGH, Urteil vom 07.06.1984 - IX ZR 66/83. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift. 1984. P. 2281.
Cooper v Phibbs (1867) LR 2 HL 149. UK House of Lords. 31 May 1867. URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1867/1.html.
Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 On unfair terms in consumer contracts // Official Journal of the European Union. – 1993. – L 95/29.
Ellenberger J., Palandt kommentar zum BGB mit Nebengesetzen. Inkl. WEG-Reform und COVID-19. Einführung. Munich: C.H. Beck. 2021. P. 3216.
Esso Petroleum v Mardon [1976] QB 801. UK Court of Appeal (Civil Division). 4 February 1976. URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1976/4.html.
Garner, B. A. (Ed.). Black's law dictionary. 11th ed. St. Paul, MN: Thomson Reuters, 2019. 2110 p.
Griffith v Brymer (1903) 19 TLR 434. UK High Court (King's Bench Division). 11 May 1903. URL: https://www.swarb.co.uk/griffith-v-brymer-kbd-1903/.
Hermann I. Die willenserklärung im tatbestande des rechtsgeschäfts. Jena: Verlag von Gustav Fischer, 1899. 109 p. URL: https://archive.org/details/20161025161014384/page/n57/mode/2up.
Kant, I. Critique of pure reason. London: Penguin Classics, 2007. 784 p.
Michał S. Natural law theory and its benefits: arguments for adopting new classical natural law theory based on a priority of persons. Prawo i więź. 2023. Vol. 46, no. 3. P. 53–76. URL: https://doi.org/10.36128/PRIW.VI46.743.
Mistake. Cambridge dictionary | English dictionary, translations & thesaurus. URL: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/mistake.
Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Common European sales law (CESL). – Brussels, 11.10.2011. (CESL, Art 48(1))
Savigny F. System des heutigen Romischen Rechts, 3-d ed. Berlin: Veit & Со. 1840. 492 p.
Schulz F. IV. Die lehre vom erzwungenen rechtsgeschäft im antiken römischen recht. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für rechtsgeschichte. Romanistische Abteilung. 1922. Vol. 43, no. 1. P. 171–261. URL: https://doi.org/10.7767/zrgra.1922.43.1.171.
Sławicki P. Defects of a declaration of will on the grounds of the Code of Obligations 1933. Review of Comparative Law. 2013. No. 18. P. 181 – 198.
Sopiński M. Natural law theory and its benefits: arguments for adopting new classical natural law theory based on a priority of persons. Prawo i Więź. 2023. No. 3. Vol. 46. P. 53–76. URL: https://doi.org/10.36128/PRIW.VI46.743.
Smith v Hughes (1870) LR 6 QB 597. UK Court of Queen's Bench. 6 June 1871. URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1871/J59.html.
Swedish contract law. Modern, reliable and user-friendly. Stockholm: Swedish Arbitration Association. 21 p. URL: https://nysba.org/NYSBA/Sections/International/Events/2019/Stockholm/Coursebook/Swedish%20Contract%20Law%20-%20Danielsson.pdf
Tserkovna, O., Rulevskyi, M. Free will as a condition for the validity of law. Influence of Integration Trends on the Development of National Law. Odesa: Odesa State University of Internal Affairs, 2019. – P. 106–108.
What is contractual capacity? Meaning, definition & examples. Juro. URL: https://juro.com/learn/contractual-capacity
What makes a contract invalid?. Ironclad. URL: https://ironcladapp.com/journal/contracts/what-makes-a-contract-invalid/.
Whittaker S. Unfair terms in commercial contracts and the two laws of competition: French law and English law contrasted. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 2019. Vol. 39, no. 2. P. 404–434. URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqz003.
Zimmermann R. Metus and dolus. The law of obligations: Roman foundations of the civilian tradition. 1996. P. 651–677. URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198764267.003.0021
Alexiy R. V. Abuse of freedom of contract in some transactions with defects of will. Legal scientific electronic journal. 2019. P. 55–58. (in Ukrainian)
Belyanevich O. Some issues of application of Article 233 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. Bulletin of economic proceedings. 2015. No. 1. P. 105–115. (in Ukrainian)
Zaitsev D., Zaitsev O. Signs of transactions committed under the influence of violence. Problematic issues of law enforcement and human rights activities in the context of European integration trends. Odesa: ODUVS, 2021. P. 59–60(in Ukrainian)
Krat V. I. Invalidity of transactions committed under the influence of fraud. Journal of the Kyiv University. 2012. No. 3. P. 189–192. (in Ukrainian)
Lavrinenko I. Invalidation of a transaction committed by a person under the influence of a mistake. Legal Bulletin. 2018. Vol. 1, No. 7. Pp. 228–248. (in Ukrainian)
Resolution of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of Ukraine No. 6-1531tss16 dated September 28, 2016(in Ukrainian)
Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine “On the Judicial Practice of Considering Civil Cases on Recognizing Transactions as Invalid”. No. 9 dated November 6, 2009. (in Ukrainian)
Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine On the compliance with the Constitution of Ukraine (constitutionality) of the third sentence of part one of Article 13 of the Law of Ukraine “On Psychiatric Care” in case No. 2-rp/2016 dated June 1, 2016. (in Ukrainian)
Decision of the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Zaporizhzhia in case 336/1398/18 dated May 6, 2020. (in Ukrainian)
Civil Code of Ukraine: Code of Ukraine dated January 16, 2003 No. 435-IV: as of October 4, 2025. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/435-15#Text. (in Ukrainian)
Shvets D.V. Fraud (fraud) as a basis for declaring a transaction invalid / Problems of civil law and process: abstracts of reports of participants of the scientific and practical conference dedicated to the 95th anniversary of the birth of O.A. Pushkin (Kharkiv, May 22, 2020). Kharkiv: Panov - KhNUVS, 2020. P. 105-108. (in Ukrainian).
Barton v Armstrong [1976] AC 104. UK House of Lords. 12 February 1975. URL: https://vlex.co.uk/vid/barton-v-armstrong-and-others-809589333.
Brinz A. Lehrbuch der Pandekten. Auflage 2. Erlangen ; Leipzig : Deichert, 1892. Vol. 4. 549 p.
Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB) : Цивільне уложення Німеччини в редакції від 2 січня 2002 р. (BGBl. I S. 42, 2909; 2003 I S. 738), зі змінами, внесеними Законом від 10 серпня 2021 р. (BGBl. I S. 3515). URL: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/.
Claus-Wilhelm C. Urteilsanmerkung zu BGH, Urteil vom 07.06.1984 - IX ZR 66/83. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift. 1984. P. 2281.
Cooper v Phibbs (1867) LR 2 HL 149. UK House of Lords. 31 May 1867. URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1867/1.html.
Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 On unfair terms in consumer contracts // Official Journal of the European Union. – 1993. – L 95/29.
Ellenberger J., Palandt kommentar zum BGB mit Nebengesetzen. Inkl. WEG-Reform und COVID-19. Einführung. Mu-nich: C.H. Beck. 2021. P. 3216.
Esso Petroleum v Mardon [1976] QB 801. UK Court of Appeal (Civil Division). 4 February 1976. URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1976/4.html.
Garner, B. A. (Ed.). Black's law dictionary. 11th ed. St. Paul, MN: Thomson Reuters, 2019. 2110 p.
Griffith v Brymer (1903) 19 TLR 434. UK High Court (King's Bench Division). 11 May 1903. URL: https://www.swarb.co.uk/griffith-v-brymer-kbd-1903/.
Hermann I. Die willenserklärung im tatbestande des rechtsgeschäfts. Jena: Verlag von Gustav Fischer, 1899. 109 p. URL: https://archive.org/details/20161025161014384/page/n57/mode/2up.
Kant, I. Critique of pure reason. London: Penguin Classics, 2007. 784 p.
Michał S. Natural law theory and its benefits: arguments for adopting new classical natural law theory based on a priority of persons. Prawo i więź. 2023. Vol. 46, no. 3. P. 53–76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36128/PRIW.VI46.743.
Mistake. Cambridge dictionary | English dictionary, translations & thesaurus. URL: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/mistake.
Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Common European sales law (CESL). Brussels, 11.10.2011. (CESL, Art 48(1))
Savigny F. System des heutigen Romischen Rechts, 3-d ed. Berlin: Veit & Со. 1840. 492 p.
Schulz F. IV. Die lehre vom erzwungenen rechtsgeschäft im antiken römischen recht. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für rechtsgeschichte. Romanistische Abteilung. 1922. Vol. 43, no. 1. P. 171–261. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7767/zrgra.1922.43.1.171.
Sławicki P. Defects of a declaration of will on the grounds of the Code of Obligations 1933. Review of Comparative Law. 2013. No. 18. P. 181 – 198.
Sopiński M. Natural law theory and its benefits: arguments for adopting new classical natural law theory based on a priority of persons. Prawo i Więź. 2023. No. 3. Vol. 46. P. 53–76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36128/PRIW.VI46.743.
Smith v Hughes (1870) LR 6 QB 597. UK Court of Queen's Bench. 6 June 1871. URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1871/J59.html.
Swedish contract law. Modern, reliable and user-friendly. Stockholm: Swedish Arbitration Association. 21 p. URL:https://nysba.org/NYSBA/Sections/International/Events/2019/Stockholm/Coursebook/Swedish%20Contract%20Law%20-%20Danielsson.pdf
Tserkovna, O., Rulevskyi, M. Free will as a condition for the validity of law. Influence of Integration Trends on the Development of National Law. Odesa: Odesa State University of Internal Affairs, 2019. P. 106–108.
What is contractual capacity? Meaning, definition & examples. Juro. URL: https://juro.com/learn/contractual-capacity
What makes a contract invalid? Ironclad. URL: https://ironcladapp.com/journal/contracts/what-makes-a-contract-invalid/.
Whittaker S. Unfair terms in commercial contracts and the two laws of competition: French law and English law contrasted. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 2019. Vol. 39, no. 2. P. 404–434. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqz003.
Zimmermann R. Metus and dolus. The law of obligations: Roman foundations of the civilian tradition. 1996. P. 651–677. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198764267.003.0021.
Copyright (c) 2025 Viktor Savchenko
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
