摘要：

        现有关于预约的“内容—法效”类型论尚不足以为预约制度的准确适用提供充分的理论指导。比较法上预约的适用范围已从买卖、借贷等典型合同逐渐扩张迁移。除“内容—法效”视角的类型化外，预约还存在适用范围、效力性质、单方双方、束己涉他等类型视角。通过对预约类型的全面梳理可知，预约的功能整体上可以分为规避法律和补强法律两个方面。我国的预约制度主要用于特定合同类型中规避审批程序或成立要件从而使合同约束力提前，或用于明确或强化缔约人的法定义务和缔约责任范围。《民法典》第495条规定的预约属于请求权预约，不同功能的请求权预约在认定标准和法律效果上均存在明显差异。基于合同自由原则应认可形成权预约之效力。

关键词: 预约, 类型, 功能, 民法典

Abstract: The existing“content-legal effect”categorization of reservations is not enough to provide sufficient theoretical guidance for the accurate application of the reservation system.According to the comparative law，the scope of application of reservation has gradually expanded from some typical contracts such as sale and loan to a wider range.In addition to the categorization under the perspective of“content-legal effect”，reservations can also be categorized into reservations of the right of claim and reservations of the right of formation，unilateral reservations and bilateral reservations，etc.Through the comprehensive review of the categorizations of reservations，we can see that the function of reservations can also be categorized into two aspects as a whole：avoiding laws and reinforcing laws.The reservation system in China is mainly used to evade the approval procedures or to circumvent regulations about the establishment elements of specific contract types so as to advance the binding force of contracts，or to clarify or strengthen the legal obligations and the scope of entering liability of contracting parties.The reservation stipulated in the article 495 of the Civil Code belongs to the reservations with the right of claim，and reservations with different functions have different recognition standards and legal effects.Based on the principle of freedom，the reservations with formation right should be validly concluded.

Key words: Reservation, Categorization, Function, Civil Code