公平原则-解放军文职人员招聘-军队文职考试-红师教育
发布时间：2017-08-10 19:48:40*三、公平原则*（一）概念：民事主体应依据社会公认的公平观念从事活动，以维持当事人之间的利益均衡。*（二）含义*1、民法在规范民事主体的权利、义务与责任的承担上，体现公平原则，兼顾各方当事人的利益。*2、民事活动中，依公平原则确定各方具体的权利义务。*（三）立法体现*民法通则第4条，其中的等价有偿也是公平原则的一个体现。*显失公平制度*四、诚实信用原则*（一）概念：指民事主体进行民事活动时必须诚实、善意，信守承诺。*（二）地位：*1、诚信原则常被奉为民法中的 帝王条款 ，有君临民法全域的效力。*2、另一方面，该原则具有填补法律漏洞的功能。*3、近代以来，从此原则又衍生出一个新的原则即：权利不得滥用原则。*（三）立法体现*民法通则第4条*五、合法权益受法律保护原则*民法通则第5条规定： 公民、法人的合法的民事权益受法律保护，任何组织和个人不得侵犯。*此处之权益包括两部分： 权 、 益 。*权利：在利益之上设定了当事人得自己实现其利益内容的手段。*法益：虽未在其上赋予法律上的实现手段，但法律应予以保护的那些利益。*六、守法原则*（一）基本理解：守法原则的核心是：民事主体的民事活动应当遵守法律和行政法规。*须注意的是，这里所指的守法对象并非指民法中的任意性规范和倡导性规范，而是指遵守法律行政法规中的强行性规范。*（二）立法体现*民法通则第6条。* 民事活动必须遵守法律，法律没有规定的，应当遵守国家政策。*七、公序良俗原则*民事活动应当尊重社会公德，不得损害社会公共利益，[破坏国家经济计划]（已据2009.8.27全国人大常委会10次会议决定删除），扰乱社会经济秩序。*公序：指国家社会的存在及其发展所必需的一般秩序。公序更多的是从客观角度而言，是指由众多的客观存在的有形的具体制度构建起来的秩序。*良俗：一般认为系指为社会、国家的存在和发展所必要的一般道德，是特定社会所尊重的最起码的伦理要求。良俗更多的是从主观角度上而言，是指一社会存在的善良风俗。*应指出，因各国民事立法指导思想不同，国情不同，社会观念的差别，公序良俗的内容也有所不同。
解放军文职招聘考试公平的分配-解放军文职人员招聘-军队文职考试-红师教育
发布时间：2017-06-28 16:13:23一个炎热的下午，两个农民在一棵大树下乘凉。其中一个叫拉姆，另一个叫希亚。两个人都带着美味的面包充当午饭。拉姆带了3个面包，希亚带了5个。正当他们准备吃午饭的时候，一个商人路过此地。下午好，两位先生。 商人向拉姆和希亚问候道。商人看起来又累又饿，所以拉姆和希亚邀请他和他们一起吃午饭。但是我们有三个人怎么分这三个面包呢？ 拉姆为难了。我们把面包放在一起，再把每个面包切成均等的三块。 希亚建议道。把面包切开后，他们把面包平均分成三份，每个人都不多也不少。吃完面包后，商人坚持要给他们钱。拉姆和希亚推辞不掉，只好收下。待商人离开后，两人一数金币的数量 8个。8个金币，两个人。我们就每人4个金币。 拉姆说道。这不公平。 西亚大声反对， 我有5个面包，你只有3个。所以我应该拿5个金币，你只能拿3个。拉姆不想争吵，但他也不想给希亚5个金币。我们去找村长做裁决。他是个公正的人。 拉姆说道。他们来到村长毛尔维的家，把整个事情的经过告诉了他。毛尔维想了很久，最后说： 分配这笔钱的公平办法就是希亚拿7个金币，拉姆拿1个。什么？ 拉姆惊叫道。我为什么该得7个？ 希亚也觉得很奇怪。当毛尔维把他的分配理由解释清楚后，拉姆和希亚打偶没有对这个分配再提出异议。这真的是一个公平的裁决吗？要知道毛尔维的裁决是否公平，就要先回答这些问题：1、8个面包被切成了多少块？2、每个人吃了多少块面包？3、拉姆的面包被分成了多少块？4、拉姆吃了8块面包，还剩几块留给商人？5、希亚的面包被分成了多上块？6、希亚吃了8块面包，还剩几块留给商人？毛尔维决定只给拉姆一个硬币，而给希亚7个，是因为商人吃了8块面包，只有一块是从拉姆的面包中来的，而其余7块都是希亚的。点示：我们愤愤不平，太多是因为我们只会算计，不会计算。Just AllocationIn a hot afternoon, two farmers were enjoying the cool under the tree. One farmer called L and the other called X. both carried tasty bread as their lunch. Ltook three bread and X five. A businessman passed by when they were ready to have lunch.good afternoon, gentlemen. The businessman greeted L and X. the businessman was tires and hungry. L and X invited him to have dinner together.But we three men how to separate three breads? L confused.Let s put the breads together, then divide every one into three equal parts. X suggested.Cutting and dividing the breads, they all got the exact one.Eating up the breads, the businessman insisted to pay and L and X have no idea but to get it.When the businessman went away, L and X counted the number of golden bills----eight.Eight bills, two person. Four bills every one. L said.It s unjust, X opposed loudly, I had five breads and you just three, so I should get five bills and you three.L reluctant to argue, neither would he gave X five bills.Let s invite our village manager Morwey s house and tell all to him. Thinking for a while, Morwey replied: The just way to distribute these bill is X take seven bills and L one.Pardon? L screamed.Why should I posses seven? Xalso felt strange.After Morwey explained his reason clearly, both Land X had no dispute on this allocation.Was this really a just rule?Answer these questions before you decide whether it was just or not:1.How many small pieces the eight breads were divided into?2.How many pieces every one ate?3.How many small pieces did L s breads?4.How many pieces L left for the businessman after he ate eight?5.How many small pieces did X s breads were divided into?6.How many pieces X left for the businessman after he ate eight?The reason that Morwey only gave L one bill and X seven because the businessman ate eight pieces and only one was left from L s while other seven pieces from X.Tips: we always indignant mostly because we are used to scheming, but not counting.
