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_第1頁
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_第2頁
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_第3頁
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_第4頁
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_第5頁
已閱讀5頁,還剩9頁未讀, 繼續(xù)免費(fèi)閱讀

付費(fèi)下載

下載本文檔

版權(quán)說明:本文檔由用戶提供并上傳,收益歸屬內(nèi)容提供方,若內(nèi)容存在侵權(quán),請進(jìn)行舉報(bào)或認(rèn)領(lǐng)

文檔簡介

-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

溫馨提示

  • 1. 本站所有資源如無特殊說明,都需要本地電腦安裝OFFICE2007和PDF閱讀器。圖紙軟件為CAD,CAXA,PROE,UG,SolidWorks等.壓縮文件請下載最新的WinRAR軟件解壓。
  • 2. 本站的文檔不包含任何第三方提供的附件圖紙等,如果需要附件,請聯(lián)系上傳者。文件的所有權(quán)益歸上傳用戶所有。
  • 3. 本站RAR壓縮包中若帶圖紙,網(wǎng)頁內(nèi)容里面會有圖紙預(yù)覽,若沒有圖紙預(yù)覽就沒有圖紙。
  • 4. 未經(jīng)權(quán)益所有人同意不得將文件中的內(nèi)容挪作商業(yè)或盈利用途。
  • 5. 人人文庫網(wǎng)僅提供信息存儲空間,僅對用戶上傳內(nèi)容的表現(xiàn)方式做保護(hù)處理,對用戶上傳分享的文檔內(nèi)容本身不做任何修改或編輯,并不能對任何下載內(nèi)容負(fù)責(zé)。
  • 6. 下載文件中如有侵權(quán)或不適當(dāng)內(nèi)容,請與我們聯(lián)系,我們立即糾正。
  • 7. 本站不保證下載資源的準(zhǔn)確性、安全性和完整性, 同時(shí)也不承擔(dān)用戶因使用這些下載資源對自己和他人造成任何形式的傷害或損失。

最新文檔

評論

0/150

提交評論