外文翻譯--法國法律中的違約責(zé)任：在安全的期望值和有效性之間.doc

-1-大連理工大學(xué)本科外文翻譯法國法律中的違約責(zé)任：在安全的期望值和有效性之間ThebreachofcontractinFrenchlaw:betweensafetyofexpectationsandefficiency學(xué)院（系）：專業(yè)：學(xué)生姓名：學(xué)號：指導(dǎo)教師：完成日期：大連理工大學(xué)DalianUniversityofTechnology注：此處按照實(shí)際情況填寫即可，打?。ㄋ误w、小四）閱后刪除此文本框。-2-ThebreachofcontractinFrenchlaw:betweensafetyofexpectationsandefficiencyPierreGarelloFacultedEconomieApplique,UniversitedeDroit,dEconimieetdesSciencesdAix-Marseille,3AvenueRobertSchuman,Aix-en-Provence13628,FranceAccepted20August20021.Introduction:whichpathwillleadustoabetterunderstandingofFrenchcontractlaw?Contractsaremarvelloustoolstohelpustoliveinaworldofuncertainty.Theyallowustoprojectourselvesintoanunknowablefuture,toinvest.LawyerswhohaveinspiredtheFrenchCivillawandcontributedtoitsevolution,aswellasmostlawyersintheworld,haveclearlyperceivedthenecessitytoprotectthatinstitution.“Thecontractis,asfarastheindividualisconcerned,thebestforecastinginstrumentgeneratinglegalsecurity,andthefavoredpathtofreedomandresponsibilitythatisnecessaryfortheflourishingofhumanbeingsinasociety.”1Contractsarefarfrommiraculoustools,however.Iftheymakelifeeasier,theydonotnecessarilymakelifeeasy.Asthefutureunfolds,oneorbothcontractingpartiesmaybetempted,orcompelled,tobreakhisorherpromise.But,themerefactthatthecontractisrunningintodifficultiesdoesnotforcethelawtodosomething!2Itisonlywhenoneofthepartiesdoesnotperformthatthelaw(thecourt,thelegislation),backedwithcoercivepower,hastogiveanopinion,todecidethecase.Inordertodososomeprinciples,ortheories,arerequiredtoreachajudgmentastowhatisthebestthingtodo.ThepresentstudyoftheFrenchcontractlawisbasedonthepremisethat,fromalawandeconomicspointofview,thereexistsbasicallytwopossiblewaystoaddressthisconcern:thefirstapproachrequiresthatwheneveraproblemarises,anassessmentbemadeofallcostsandbenefitsincurredbytheparties.Inotherwords,onemustattempttoevaluateinasufficientlyprecisewaytheconsequencesofthecourtdecisionoroftheruleoflawunderconsiderationforbothpartiesaswellasforthirdparties(includingpotentialfuturecontractors).Thelawthenandmorepreciselyhere,contractlawshouldaimprimarilyatprovidingtherightincentivestocontractingparties,whereby“rightincentives”onemeansincentivestobehaveinsuchawaythatthedifferencebetweensocialbenefitsandsocialcostsbemaximized.ItwillbearguedbelowthatFrenchcontractlawsometimesfollowsthisapproach.Thesecondpossibleattitudelooks,apparently,prettymuchlikethefirst.Theguidingprincipleisagainthatthelawshouldprovidetomembersofthesocietytherightincentives.Butonemustimmediatelyaddthatthejudgeorthelegislator,ortheexpertisnotinapositiontoevaluateandcomparethesocialcostsandbenefitsofalternativerulesoflaw.Heorshejustdoesnotknowenough.Onedoesnotknow,forinstance,alltheeffectsofarulethatwouldallowonepartytobreachacontract,withouttheconsentoftheotherparty.Indeed,evenifthe-3-victimofthebreachispromisedafaircompensation,allowingsucharulegloballymighthaveanegativeeffectontheverypurposeoftheinstitution,whichistoreduceuncertainty.Asaconsequence,thelawshouldadoptagoallessambitiousthanthemaximizationofsocialwellbeing.Thatgoalcouldbe“toprotectcontracts,”or,inotherterms,tocreateasetofincentivesthatleadindividualstofeelconfidentthattheirlegitimateexpectationswillbefulfilled.Aspointedout,thosetwoattitudesmayappearthesame,differingjustindegree.Thefirstoneassumesmoreknowledgeonthepartoflawyersandlegislatorsthanthesecond.However,whenitcomestopracticaldecision-making,differencesturnouttobeimportant,becausethemoreknowledgeableyouthinkyouare,thestrongerwillbetheincentivetoregulatethecontract,andthelowerwillbetherespectfortraditionandcustomsonwhichdailyexpectationsarebased.Thetwoapproachesoutlinedabovearewellknowntoeconomists.Thefirstoneistheso-called“mainstream”(Paretian)approachandunderlinesmostoftheexistingeconomicanalysisoflaw.3Thesecondone,stressingtheproblemofknowledge,isfarlessdeveloped.4Wewillcallitthe“safety-of-expectationsapproach,”ortheAustrianapproachtolawandeconomics,becauseitcanbefoundprimarilyintheworkoftheAustrianschoolofeconomicthought,andespeciallyinHayeksstudies.“Therationale,”saysHayek,“ofsecuringtoeachindividualaknownrangewithinwhichhecandecideonhisactionsistoenablehimtomakethefullestuseofhisknowledge,especiallyofhisconcreteandoftenuniqueknowledgeoftheparticularcircumstancesoftimeandplace.Thelawtellshimwhatfactshemaycountonandtherebyextendstherangewithinwhichhecanpredicttheconsequencesofhisactions.Atthesametimeittellshimwhatpossibleconsequencesofhisactionshemusttakeintoaccountorwhathewillbeheldresponsiblefor.”5Thereasonwhythesetwoapproachesarementionedattheoutsetisthat,whenonestudiesFrenchcontractlaw,itisdifficulttoreconcileallofitwithasingleapproach.True,themainstream,neoclassicalapproach,basedontheassumptionthatrulesbechosenthatmaximizesocialwealth(or,atothertimes,thatleadtoaPareto-efficientoutcome),canhelpustounderstandanimportantpartofthatbodyoflaw.But,aswillbeshown,certainFrenchdoctrinescannotbereconciledwithneitheraParetianapproach,norawealthmaximizingapproach.Insomeinstances,thelawseemstobemoreconcernedwiththesafetyofexpectations.InthenexttwosectionswewillexaminethemaindoctrinesandrulesofFrenchcontractlawtryingtoidentifythosethatarecompatiblewithbothprinciplesandthosethatarecompatiblewithonlyone.Ifnoneofthosesetsareempty,itwillmeanthattheFrenchlawofcontractisnottotallycoherent；itcannotbebroughtunderauniqueunifyingprincipleofexplanation.ThenextnaturalquestionwouldthenbewhetherFrenchlawismovingtowardsone-4-principleandawayfromtheother.However,thispaperwillnotaddressthisquestion.Thepaperisorganizedintwoparts.Indeed,forreasonsbrieflymentionedabove,itisimportanttounderlineinafirstpartthemanythingsthelawdoesinordertoavoidbreachofcontract:whatcanbedoneinordertosaveacontractwhenthepartiesarehavingdifficultiesperforming,andwhatisforbidden?Thesecondpartdealsdirectlywiththebreachofcontract.ItwillbeshownthatFrenchlawdiffersinsomeimportantrespectsfromothercontractlaws.2.Savingthecontract6Wewillstudythevariousattemptsto“save”thecontractbylookingfirstattheconditionsforinvalidity(Section2.1),thenatthevariouspossibilitieslefttothejudgetointerpretthetermsofthecontract(Section2.2)andendwiththestudyofthecaseswherethejudgeisauthorizedtochangethetermsofthecontract(Section2.3).2.1.InvalidcontractsOnewaytosavethecontractistoprovethattherewasnovalidcontractinthefirstplace!FormationdefensesasdefinedintheFrenchlawareroughlyidenticaltothosefoundinthecontractlawsofothercountries.Themaindefensesare:incompetency(incapacit),mistakes(erreur),fraud(dol),duress(violence),absenceofcause(remindingusofthedoctrineofconsiderationinthebargainingtheory),failuretodiscloseinformation,lsion(adefenseclosetounconscionability),7or,maybemorespecifictoFrenchlaw,aconflictbetweentheprivateagreementandordrepublic,i.e.publicpolicy,or“l(fā)awandorder”(seeart.6and1134oftheFrenchCivilCode,henceforthC.civ.).Inalltheseinstances,anactionmaybetakenforannulmentofthecontract,thejudgebeingtheonlyoneentitledtoinvalidateacontract.But,whatexactlyismeantbyinvalidityintheFrenchlaw?Whataretheconsequences?TheFrenchlawdistinguishesbetweenabsoluteinvalidity(nullitabsolue)andrelativeinvalidity(nullitrelative).Thefirstcategoryincludesallthecontractsthatareagainstwhatiscalledordrepublicdedirection,thatistosay,contractsthatviolateapublicpolicyjudgedtobebeneficialtothesocietyasawholean