For many treaty writers the contracts law constitute a figure sui generis of the institution of the contract, is not in fact one normative category, a formal source of the constitutional right. such affirmation does not have incidence some in recognizing the binding force of the contract. Indeed, the stipulations of a contract tie to the parts subscribe that it, and its observance, causes the possibility that these breaches are sanctioned. But a thing is to recognize contracts its binding force and the obligatory nature of its terms, and very different other is to give to them to primary sources or norms with law rank. Not rank can to contracts law to recognize them de facto of law, first of all, because it is not the scope of application or the general character that can be come off the stipulations of a legal transaction it turns what or it allows them his comparison, to the norms with law rank. the formal sources of the constitutional state of right, and the rank that could have, is those to which the own constitutional ordering attributes to this condition and rank to them. Such qualities are independent of the effects or the effectiveness erga omnes that can own.
They are not reasons logics, materials, his more or less general effects, or inherent questions to the structure of the diverse normative acts, those that cause that certain sources of the right can be considered like with law rank. the rank that a source occupies in the legal ordering is that one that the own constitutional legal ordering has had product a decision of political nature essentially expressed in the constitution. And it happens that at least that in the Peruvian constitutional legal ordering, that rank has conferred to denominated contracts law. It is important to evaluate if these catalogued contracts to the salary as contracts law by means of express law, have law force finally.