The phrase “who says contractual, says justice” “qui dit contractuel dit juste” does not fully express the truth of our present reality, where the phrase itself falls into doubt, since the contract does not always result in fair obligations, as the contract is an expression of often unequal wills. In this regard, the French judiciary realized that the absence of justice in the contract might arise as a result of the contractual freedom afforded to the contracting parties and, thus, they developed the idea of Commutative Justice in the contract, such as the Piller’s decision, which is considered one of its most important applications. However, the causation theory in the Palestinian Civil Code Draft and the Indonesian Civil Code was limited to monitoring the matter of the existence of the corresponding obligation whatever it was. In this context, this paper seeks to prove that the provisions of the causation theory in the Palestinian Civil Code Draft and the Indonesian Civil Code can be used as a means of monitoring the economic contractual equilibrium of the contract. To do so, the legal provisions of the causation theory should be analysed in a comparative analytical approach with the French judicial decisions to illustrate the Palestinian and Indonesian legislative deficiencies and the need for adopting the French judicial approach.

中文翻译：

---

因果理论在实现经济合同均衡方面的新作用：监控合同的经济均衡

“谁说合同，说正义”“qui dit contractuel dit juste”这句话并没有完全表达我们当前现实的真实情况，这句话本身令人怀疑，因为合同并不总是导致公平的义务，因为合同是经常不平等意志的表达。对此，法国司法机关认识到，由于合同当事人享有合同自由，可能会导致合同不公正，因此，他们发展了合同中的交换公正思想，例如皮勒的决定，这被认为是其最重要的应用之一。然而，巴勒斯坦民法典草案和印度尼西亚民法典中的因果关系理论仅限于监测相应义务是否存在的问题，无论它是什么。在这种情况下，本文试图证明巴勒斯坦民法典草案和印度尼西亚民法典中因果关系理论的规定可以作为监测合同经济合同均衡的手段。为此，应将因果关系理论的法律规定与法国司法判决进行比较分析，以说明巴勒斯坦和印度尼西亚立法的不足以及采用法国司法方法的必要性。