情勢變遷一個比較調(diào)查【外文翻譯】

1、<p><b>　　文獻(xiàn)翻譯</b></p><p><b>　　原文：</b></p><p>　　Rebus sic stantibus: A Comparative Survey</p><p>　　Author：ziz T Saliba LLM</p><p>　　Subject:

2、 European Comparative Law (Other articles) Contracts Law and legislation (Other articles)</p><p>　　Introduction:</p><p>　　The objective of this article is to briefly analyze the unforeseeability

3、 doctrine in Civil Law countries (where it is known as a rebus sic stantibus clause or by its French name ), from its beginning to its current stage of development - in a comparative perspective. </p><p>　　A

4、s discussed below, there are three main modern approaches in the Civil Law countries, to the general application of the rebus sic stantibus doctrine. Some countries have rejected it; others have adopted it through court-

5、constructed provisions in their codes and yet others have expressly adopted it in their coded legislations. </p><p>　　The author will also compare the rebus sic stantibus doctrine with some similar doctrines

6、, which are available in Common Law countries.</p><p>　　Pacta sunt servanda: The Sanctity of Contracts:</p><p>　　The cornerstone of contract law is freedom of contract or the principle of autono

7、my, which means that when observing the proper legal restrictions, people can engage in whatever contractual relations they choose; and once they have decided to do so, they are bound by their contract. The binding stren

8、gth of contracts has religious roots. The Old Testament, which is sacred to Christianism as well as to Judaism asserts:"When a man makes a vow to the LORD or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pl</p><

9、p>　　A similar reverence for agreements can be found in traditional Muslim law. Chapter 5 of the Qur'an, sometimes called the Chapter of Contracts, begins with an appeal: "O ye who believe! Fulfill (all) obli

10、gations. </p><p>　　This notion is also found in Roman law: pacta sunt servanda ex fide bona: "agreements must be fulfilled in good faith. Rebus sic stantibus: A limitation to this "contractual san

11、ctity" was elaborated by the canonists of the twelfth and thirteenth century. According to the canonists, the Latin tag is: contractus qui habent tractum succesivum et depentiam de future rebus sic stantibus intelli

12、guntur. This may be freely translated as: "contracts providing for successive acts of performance over a fu</p><p>　　Rebus sic stantibusshould not be confused with force majeure. Force majeure excuses t

13、he obligor to perform only if there is an irresistible (and unforeseeable) obstacle. In force majeure, the performance must be physically or legally impossible and must not be merely more onerous to perform. Thus, in a n

14、utshell, the fundamental difference is that, unlike rebus sic stantibus, force majeure does not include economic hardship nor even economic impossibility. Rebus sic stantibuswas first applied by </p><p>　　Af

15、ter the outbreak of World War I, European jurists had to search for a theoretical justification for excusing promissors from contracts whose performance had become extremely burdensome. Consequently, Rebus sic stantibus

16、was again recycled, under different names and legislative enactments of various countries, together with their concomitant underlying justifications, which is briefly described below.</p><p>　　Rebus sic stan

17、tibushas not been expressly adopted in Common Law countries. Nevertheless, Common Law courts managed to achieve very similar results to those of the countries that adopted rebus sic stantibus through three overlapping do

18、ctrines that will be briefly discussed:</p><p>　　Impossibility:</p><p>　　As far as we can trace, the common law rule was pacta sunt servanda. Impossibility was no excuse and even though the cour

19、t would not grant specific performance, the breaching party was still liable for damages. In the seventeenth-century case of Paradine v. Jane, a lessee sought to be excused from paying rent because a "German Prince,

20、 by name Rupert, an alien born, enemy to the King and kingdom," ousted him from the land, so that he could not take income from it. In a dictum that was to gain far</p><p>　　The only exceptions to this

21、strict view that "impossibility is no excuse" were supervening illegality, death and disability. Later, another exception was formulated in Williams v. Lloyd, W.Jones . This was a case which concerns the destr

22、uction of the subject-matter of the contract. The court held that that a bailee's duty to return a horse was discharged when, without the bailee's fault, the horse died, because "that is become impossible th

23、e act of God".</p><p>　　However, Taylor v. Caldwell is deemed to be the fountainhead of the Common Law doctrine of impossibility. Taylor contracted with Caldwell's music hall for performances on fou

24、r days, in return for payment of 100 pounds a day. The hall was accidentally destroyed by fire less than a week before the performance. Taylor then sued Caldwell for breach of contract. Taylor claimed as damages the expe

25、nses he had incurred in preparing for those performances. The Court of Kings Bench ruled that Caldwell was</p><p>　　Frustration:</p><p>　　The common law's rigid Pacta sunt servanda rule pers

26、isted well for a long time. Sir George Jessel, M.R., in 1875 held that:"[I]f there is one thing which more than another public policy requires it is that men of full age and competent understanding shall have the ut

27、most liberty of contracting, and that their contracts when entered into freely and voluntarily shall be enforced by Courts of Justice. "This strict view, however, was attenuated by the doctrine of frustration. The m

28、odern formulation </p><p>　　Impracticability:</p><p>　　Similarly, in the U.S. this concept was adopted by UCC 2-615 as it stated that:"Except so far as a seller may have assumed a greater o

29、bligation...[d]elay in delivery or non-delivery in whole or in part .isnot a breach of his duty under a contract for sale if performance as agreed upon has been made impracticable by the occurrence of a contingency the n

30、on-occurrence of which was a basic assumption on which the contract was made."</p><p>　　Thus, there are four requirements to be met by the party that wants to be excused from performance: </p>&l

31、t;p>　　Firstly, performance as agreed must be impracticable [30] . Clearly, impracticable is a more flexible test than impossible. How much more flexible is a question left to the courts.</p><p>　　Secondly

32、, the threshold to be met is the existence of an event that changed a basic assumption (common to both parties) on which the contract was made.</p><p>　　Thirdly, impracticability cannot result from the fault

33、 of the party seeking to be excused.</p><p>　　Fourthly, that party must not have assumed a "greater obligation than the law imposes", as the UCC puts it.</p><p>　　Conclusion:</p>

34、<p>　　In Civil Law Countries, three basic attitudes towards Rebus sic stantibus could be detected:</p><p>　　The French model basically rejects the doctrine. In our survey, this was detected in Uruguay

35、 and Mexico;</p><p>　　The German model, where rebus sic stantibus is accepted through a court construction of the civil and commercial codes. This is also the case in Switzerland and Brazil.</p><p

36、>　　The Italian model, where the codes expressly adopt rebus sic stantibus. Argentina and Uruguay are examples of this model. However, through the court-constructed doctrines of "frustation, impossibility and impr

37、acticability" common law countries have achieved the same result. </p><p>　　出處: ziz T Saliba LLM. Rebus sic stantibus: A Comparative Survey. [S]. 2001(9). 第8卷，第3號.</p><p><b>　　譯文：&l

38、t;/b></p><p>　　情勢變遷：一個比較調(diào)查</p><p>　　作者：濟茲T薩利巴法學(xué)碩士</p><p>　　主題：歐洲比較法（其他文章）合同的法律和立法（其他文章）</p><p><b>　　簡介：</b></p><p>　　目的在于從比較的角度從開始到目前的發(fā)展階段簡要

39、分析了在大陸法系國家的不可預(yù)知性原則（在這里它被稱為情勢變遷條款或者以自己的法文名字）。</p><p>　　下面所討論的，主要有三個現(xiàn)代化的法律國家的情勢變遷學(xué)說的普遍適用。一些國家已經(jīng)拒絕了適用它，而其他國家則通過法院建設(shè)的法規(guī)和規(guī)定，但尚未有明確的立法及其采用它。筆者也將在普通法國家比較有一些類似情勢可變遷理論的學(xué)說。</p><p>　　條約必須遵守：圣潔的合同：</p>

40、;<p>　　合同法的基石是契約自由或意思自治原則，這意味著當(dāng)遵守適當(dāng)?shù)姆上拗?，人們可以從事任何他們選擇的合同關(guān)系，一旦他們決定這樣做，他們都受他們的合同。結(jié)合強度的合同有宗教的根源。舊約中，神圣的基督教以及猶太教斷言：“當(dāng)一個人讓向耶和華許愿或采取宣誓責(zé)成自己的承諾，他不能食言，但必須盡一切他說。在新約中，耶穌還命令他的追隨者兌現(xiàn)他們的諾言：讓你的“是”是“是的”，和你“不是”，是“不”。</p><

41、;p>　　一個類似的協(xié)議中可以找到崇敬傳統(tǒng)的穆斯林法律。古蘭經(jīng)章，有時也被稱為合同章，開始呼吁：“啊，你們誰相信！落實（全部）義務(wù)。</p><p>　　這個想法也存在于羅馬法：條約必須遵守前善意真正：“協(xié)議必須得到履行，情勢變遷：一本“合同的神圣性”的限制，并闡述了由第十二和第十三世紀(jì)圣教法典。根據(jù)圣教法典，拉丁標(biāo)簽：契約締結(jié)等未來的情勢變遷。這可能自由翻譯為：“合同行為的表現(xiàn)未來一段時間必須被理解為提供

42、符合條件的情況下將保持不變?！?lt;/p><p>　　情勢不能與不可抗力混淆。不可抗力是執(zhí)行義務(wù)人借口如果有一種不可抗拒的（和不可預(yù)見的）障礙。在不可抗力，性能必須是身體或法律上不可能的，絕不能僅僅是更繁重的演出。因此，概括地說，最根本的區(qū)別在于，不像情勢變遷，不可抗力不包括經(jīng)濟困難，甚至也不可能是不經(jīng)濟的。情勢由教會法庭首次應(yīng)用，尤其是當(dāng)有一個高利貸的嫌疑。這是后來通過其他法院和法學(xué)家，從而成為廣受了十八世紀(jì)但末

43、接受這一概念。顯然，作為最有歷史的法律的變化，特別是在法律上的概念隨著時間的推移逐漸減退。作為教授，Rosenn解釋道：“十五世紀(jì)初，對情勢變遷理論的普及已開始有所減弱，主要是因為抗議，從新興反對理論的廣泛應(yīng)用，產(chǎn)生的交易不安全氣氛的商業(yè)利益。到了十八世紀(jì)末期，條約必須遵守最高統(tǒng)治地位，而情勢變遷理論已退居到一堆理論廢鐵。促使其滅亡是科學(xué)實證主義的興起，以及對個人的自主和自由的合約日益重視。“自由主義，這是在十八世紀(jì)的主要哲學(xué)流，帶來了

44、圣教法典所提供苛刻的情勢變遷，限制性應(yīng)用不兼容的新思路。條約必須遵守，另一方面，是完全自由放任與過時的概念一致。因此，那些在此期間（拿破侖的代碼和意大利民法典）頒布的法規(guī)沒有也不會采取情勢變更原則</p><p>　　后第一次世界大戰(zhàn)爆發(fā)，歐洲法學(xué)家根據(jù)其業(yè)績而免予履行合同不得不為尋找理論，已經(jīng)變得非常繁重。因此，情勢變遷再次循環(huán)利用，根據(jù)不同的名稱和各國立法頒布連同其伴隨的基本理據(jù)。</p>&l

45、t;p>　　普通法國家沒有明文采用情勢變遷，然而，普通法法院能夠取得成果非常相似的國家采取那些通過情勢變遷重疊，討論得出三個簡單的學(xué)說：</p><p><b>　　不能：</b></p><p>　　據(jù)我們可以追蹤，普通法規(guī)則條約必須遵守。不可能性是沒有任何借口，即使法院將不會給予具體表現(xiàn)，違約方仍然承擔(dān)賠償責(zé)任。在帕拉簡訴，力求從支付租金原諒，因為“德國王子

46、，按名稱魯珀特，外國人出生，敵人對國王和王國，”他驅(qū)逐出土地的承租人，因此，十七世紀(jì)的情況他無法從它的收入。在格言是獲得深遠(yuǎn)接受程度的普通法地區(qū)，英皇高等法院宣布：“...當(dāng)他創(chuàng)造了自己的合同義務(wù)或一方在自己負(fù)責(zé)，他一定要變好了，如果他可以，盡管任何必然意外，因為他可能對它所提供的合同。因此如果承租人公約修理房子，盡管它被燒毀雷擊，或敵人的拋出了，但他應(yīng)該修復(fù)它。”</p><p>　　這種嚴(yán)格的看法：“不可能是

47、沒有任何借口”唯一的例外是違法，死亡和殘疾。 后來，另一個例外是制定威廉姆斯訴勞埃德，W.瓊斯。這是一個案件涉及到的主要合同物質(zhì)遭到破壞。法院認(rèn)為，一個保管人的職責(zé)返回馬出院時沒有保管人的過錯，馬死了，因為“那是不可能成為上帝的行為”。</p><p>　　不過，泰勒訴考德威爾被認(rèn)為是不可能的普通法原則源泉。泰勒簽約Caldwell的音樂大廳演出了四天，為100磅，每天支付的回報。大廳被意外燒毀不到一周前的表現(xiàn)。

48、之后，泰勒起訴違約考德威爾。泰勒聲稱的損害賠償，他曾在這些演出準(zhǔn)備費用。帝王高等法院裁定，考德威爾為借口，因為：“在整個合同的時候，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，當(dāng)事人在合同時間對音樂的大廳繼續(xù)存在的基礎(chǔ)時，應(yīng)給予演唱會，這對他們的表現(xiàn)都非常重要?！?lt;/p><p><b>　　無奈：</b></p><p>　　普通法的僵化條約必須遵守的規(guī)則以及持續(xù)很長一段時間。喬治爵士杰塞爾，M.R

49、.，在1875年認(rèn)為：“[我]朋友有一件事比另一個更公開的政策規(guī)定，那就是年齡和主管充分了解男子應(yīng)當(dāng)擁有最自由的承包，而他們在自由和自愿訂立應(yīng)由法院執(zhí)行合同公正。 “這種嚴(yán)格的觀點，但是，減弱由挫折的教義。該學(xué)說的沮喪現(xiàn)代配方可發(fā)現(xiàn)，在英國上議院在戴維斯承建商費勒姆華聯(lián)發(fā)展集團有限公司訴的決定，自1956年以來。拉德克利夫勛爵指出：“挫折時發(fā)生法律承認(rèn)，沒有任何一方當(dāng)事人違約，合同義務(wù)，已成為被因為在其中的表現(xiàn)會使它要求的東西，從根本上

50、是由不同的合同不能履行承諾的情況。不干涉這不是這樣，我答應(yīng)了。這種觀念已被澳大利亞，加拿大和新西蘭法院接受。美國法律，然而，在一個稍微不同的處理方式與挫折，因為不可能被換成了不切實際。</p><p><b>　　不可行：</b></p><p>　　同樣，在美國這個概念是通過UCC的2-615，因為它指出：“到目前為止，除作為賣方可能承擔(dān)更大的責(zé)任...交貨或不全部

51、或部分交付研究[D] elay ...是不是他的責(zé)任下出售，如果違反合同約定的性能根據(jù)已經(jīng)取得了在突發(fā)的非發(fā)生的這是一個基本假設(shè)上發(fā)生的合同訂立不切實際的。</p><p>　　因此，有四個是由自己免除履行滿足的要求：</p><p>　　首先，按約定必須是不可行性能。顯然，不切實際的是一個比不可能更靈活的測試。如何更靈活的是留給法院的問題。</p><p>　　其

52、次，要達(dá)到的門檻是一個事件，改變了一個基本假設(shè)（雙方共同）在該合同訂立的存在。</p><p>　　第三，不能產(chǎn)生不切實際的要求免的過錯。</p><p>　　第四，當(dāng)事人不得承擔(dān)“不是法律規(guī)定的大責(zé)任”，作為UCC的形容。</p><p><b>　　結(jié)論：</b></p><p>　　在大陸法系國家，三個情勢變遷的基

53、本態(tài)度：</p><p>　　法國模式基本上拒絕學(xué)說。在我們的調(diào)查，是在烏拉圭和墨西哥發(fā)現(xiàn)的;</p><p>　　德國模式，即情勢變遷是通過對法院的民事和商業(yè)法規(guī)建設(shè)所接受。這也是在瑞士和巴西的案例。</p><p>　　意大利的模式，即通過明確的情勢變更原則。阿根廷和烏拉圭是該模型的例子。但是，通過法院建造“不可能和不切實際”主義的普通法國家取得了同樣的結(jié)果。&