Русско-англо-русский юридический словарь

A default rule is one that governs unless the parties contract out of it. In contrast, a mandatory rule is one that governs despite a contract term to the contrary, that is, a rule that cannot be avoided by contract. One can identify which laws are default and which are mandatory by examining the sorts of contract terms that are, and are not, enforceable. For example, the legal rule that the place for delivery in a sale of goods is the seller's place of business is a default rule because parties can make an enforceable contract requiring delivery at some other location. In contrast, the legal rule giving a consumer the right that goods purchased not be "in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user" is mandatory because it applies no matter what the contract terms say. The distinction between mandatory and default rules is fundamentally important because it reveals the extent of contractual freedom. Mandatory rules limit the freedom of contract, while default rules permit it. (Arbitration Law in America: A Critical Assessment edited by Edward Brunet)

A default rule is one that governs unless the parties contract out of it. In contrast, a mandatory rule is one that governs despite a contract term to the contrary, that is, a rule that cannot be avoided by contract. One can identify which laws are default and which are mandatory by examining the sorts of contract terms that are, and are not, enforceable. For example, the legal rule that the place for delivery in a sale of goods is the seller's place of business is a default rule because parties can make an enforceable contract requiring delivery at some other location. In contrast, the legal rule giving a consumer the right that goods purchased not be "in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user" is mandatory because it applies no matter what the contract terms say. The distinction between mandatory and default rules is fundamentally important because it reveals the extent of contractual freedom. Mandatory rules limit the freedom of contract, while default rules permit it. (Arbitration Law in America: A Critical Assessment edited by Edward Brunet)

The concept of party autonomy dates back to the early fifteenth century. The first to express the doctrine of party autonomy is considered to be a French scholar named Charles Dumolin, considered to be ‘the father of party autonomy’.

Dumolin advanced the idea that ‘those who enter into an agreement may stipulate the law that governs their bargain’; when it comes to the choice of law in international contracts, the parties have the freedom, not to restrict themselves to the confines of municipal law, can exclude themselves from rules that are mandatory in the international sense and may also exclude future changes in that law. Zhang Mo has expressed the present scenario as such, “As the party autonomy doctrine has developed, the boundaries have evolved into three major areas: The public policy exception, the mandatory rules mandate and the reasonable connection requirement.” (Party Autonomy in International Contracts: Why Limited Party Autonomy Is Better Than Unlimited Party Autonomy by Arun Ajay Shankar)

Freedom of contract is the freedom of individuals and groups (such as corporations) to form contracts without government restrictions. This is opposed to government restrictions such as minimum wage, competition law, or price fixing. Through freedom of contract, individuals entail a general freedom to choose with whom to contract, whether to contract or not, and on which terms to contract. (Wikipedia)