8法律 外文翻译 外文文献 英文文献 法律中的违约责任.docx

8法律 外文翻译 外文文献 英文文献 法律中的违约责任.docx

《8法律 外文翻译 外文文献 英文文献 法律中的违约责任.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《8法律 外文翻译 外文文献 英文文献 法律中的违约责任.docx（16页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

8法律外文翻译外文文献英文文献法律中的违约责任

ThebreachofcontractinFrenchlaw:

betweensafetyofexpectationsandefficiency

PierreGarello∗

Faculted’EconomieAppliquée,UniversitedeDroit,d’EconimieetdesSciencesd’Aix-Marseille,

3AvenueRobertSchuman,Aix-en-Provence13628,France

Accepted20August2002

1.Introduction:

whichpathwillleadustoabetterunderstandingofFrenchcontractlaw?

Contractsaremarvelloustoolstohelpustoliveinaworldofuncertainty.Theyallowustoprojectourselvesintoanunknowablefuture,toinvest.LawyerswhohaveinspiredtheFrenchCivillawandcontributedtoitsevolution,aswellasmostlawyersintheworld,haveclearlyperceivedthenecessitytoprotectthatinstitution.“Thecontractis,asfarastheindividualisconcerned,thebestforecastinginstrumentgeneratinglegalsecurity,andthefavoredpathtofreedomandresponsibilitythatisnecessaryfortheflourishingofhumanbeingsinasociety.”1

Contractsarefarfrommiraculoustools,however.Iftheymakelifeeasier,theydonotnecessarilymakelifeeasy.Asthefutureunfolds,oneorbothcontractingpartiesmaybetempted,orcompelled,tobreakhisorherpromise.But,themerefactthatthecontractisrunningintodifficultiesdoesnotforcethelawtodosomething!

2Itisonlywhenoneofthepartiesdoesnotperformthatthelaw（thecourt,thelegislation）,backedwithcoercivepower,hastogiveanopinion,todecidethecase.Inordertodososomeprinciples,ortheories,arerequiredtoreachajudgmentastowhatisthebestthingtodo.

ThepresentstudyoftheFrenchcontractlawisbasedonthepremisethat,fromalawandeconomicspointofview,thereexistsbasicallytwopossiblewaystoaddressthisconcern:

thefirstapproachrequiresthatwheneveraproblemarises,anassessmentbemadeofallcostsandbenefitsincurredbytheparties.Inotherwords,onemustattempttoevaluateinasufficientlyprecisewaytheconsequencesofthecourtdecision—oroftheruleoflawunderconsideration—forbothpartiesaswellasforthirdparties（includingpotentialfuturecontractors）.Thelawthen—andmorepreciselyhere,contractlaw—shouldaimprimarilyatprovidingtherightincentivestocontractingparties,whereby“rightincentives”onemeansincentivestobehaveinsuchawaythatthedifferencebetweensocialbenefitsandsocialcostsbemaximized.ItwillbearguedbelowthatFrenchcontractlawsometimesfollowsthisapproach.

Thesecondpossibleattitudelooks,apparently,prettymuchlikethefirst.Theguidingprincipleisagainthatthelawshouldprovidetomembersofthesocietytherightincentives.Butonemustimmediatelyaddthatthejudge—orthelegislator,ortheexpert—isnotinapositiontoevaluateandcomparethesocialcostsandbenefitsofalternativerulesoflaw.Heorshejustdoesnotknowenough.Onedoesnotknow,forinstance,alltheeffectsofarulethatwouldallowonepartytobreachacontract,withouttheconsentoftheotherparty.Indeed,evenifthevictimofthebreachispromisedafaircompensation,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,andespeciallyinHayek’sstudies.

“Therationale,”saysHayek,“ofsecuringtoeachindividualaknownrangewithinwhichhecandecideonhisactionsistoenablehimtomakethefullestuseofhisknowledge,especiallyofhisconcreteandoftenuniqueknowledgeoftheparticularcircumstancesoftimeandplace.Thelawtellshimwhatfactshemaycountonandtherebyextendstherangewithinwhichhecanpredicttheconsequencesofhisactions.Atthesametimeittellshimwhatpossibleconsequencesofhisactionshemusttakeintoaccountorwhathewillbeheldresponsiblefor.”5

Thereasonwhythesetwoapproachesarementionedattheoutsetisthat,whenonestudiesFrenchcontractlaw,itisdifficulttoreconcileallofitwithasingleapproach.True,themainstream,neoclassicalapproach,basedontheassumptionthatrulesbechosenthatmaximizesocialwealth（or,atothertimes,thatleadtoaPareto-efficientoutcome）,canhelpustounderstandanimportantpartofthatbodyoflaw.But,aswillbeshown,certainFrenchdoctrinescannotbereconciledwithneitheraParetianapproach,norawealthmaximizingapproach.Insomeinstances,thelawseemstobemoreconcernedwiththesafetyofexpectations.

InthenexttwosectionswewillexaminethemaindoctrinesandrulesofFrenchcontractlawtryingtoidentifythosethatarecompatiblewithbothprinciplesandthosethatarecompatiblewithonlyone.Ifnoneofthosesetsareempty,itwillmeanthattheFrenchlawofcontractisnottotallycoherent;itcannotbebroughtunderauniqueunifyingprincipleofexplanation.ThenextnaturalquestionwouldthenbewhetherFrenchlawismovingtowardsoneprincipleandawayfromtheother.However,thispaperwillnotaddressthisquestion.

Thepaperisorganizedintwoparts.Indeed,forreasonsbrieflymentionedabove,itisimportanttounderlineinafirstpartthemanythingsthelawdoesinordertoavoidbreachofcontract:

whatcanbedoneinordertosaveacontractwhenthepartiesarehavingdifficultiesperforming,andwhatisforbidden?

Thesecondpartdealsdirectlywiththebreachofcontract.ItwillbeshownthatFrenchlawdiffersinsomeimportantrespectsfromothercontractlaws.

2.Savingthecontract6

Wewillstudythevariousattemptsto“save”thecontractbylookingfirstattheconditionsforinvalidity（Section2.1）,thenatthevariouspossibilitieslefttothejudgetointerpretthetermsofthecontract（Section2.2）andendwiththestudyofthecaseswherethejudgeisauthorizedtochangethetermsofthecontract（Section2.3）.

2.1.Invalidcontracts

Onewaytosavethecontractistoprovethattherewasnovalidcontractinthefirstplace!

FormationdefensesasdefinedintheFrenchlawareroughlyidenticaltothosefoundinthecontractlawsofothercountries.Themaindefensesare:

incompetency（incapacité）,mistakes（erreur）,fraud（dol）,duress（violence）,absenceofcause（remindingusofthedoctrineofconsiderationinthebargainingtheory）,failuretodiscloseinformation,lésion（adefenseclosetounconscionability）,7or,maybemorespecifictoFrenchlaw,aconflictbetweentheprivateagreementandordrepublic,i.e.publicpolicy,or“lawandorder”（seeart.6and1134oftheFrenchCivilCode,henceforthC.civ.）.Inalltheseinstances,anactionmaybetakenforannulmentofthecontract,thejudgebeingtheonlyoneentitledtoinvalidateacontract.

But,whatexactlyismeantbyinvalidityintheFrenchlaw?

Whataretheconsequences?

TheFrenchlawdistinguishesbetweenabsoluteinvalidity（nullitéabsolue）andrelativeinvalidity（nullitérelative）.Thefirstcategoryincludesallthecontractsthatareagainstwhatiscalledordrepublicdedirection,thatistosay,contractsthatviolateapublicpolicyjudgedtobebeneficialtothesocietyasawholeandnotonlytothoseindividualsinvolvedinthatparticularcontract.Forsuchcontractsnothingcanbedoneandcompletenullitycannotbeavoided.Thesecondcategoryismadeofcontractsthatviolatetheordrepublicdeprotection,thatis,contractsinwhichonepartydoesnotrespectapublicpolicydesignedtoprotectweakerparties.Inthosecircumstances,thevictimwhothelawistryingtoprotectmaychoosetoletthecontractstandaftermodificationstothecontract.8

Inbothcases,however,theresultisasifthecontracthadneverexisted,andretroactivitywithrestitutionisthegeneralprinciple:

oneissupposedtogobacktothesituationthatprevailedbeforethecontractwascreated:

thestatusquoante.Partiesarerelievedoftheirobligations,anddamagescannolongerbeawarded,butitisstillpossibletobringatortlawaction.9

Fromaneconomicpointofview,mostoftheformationdefensesmentionedhavealreadybeenanalyzedinvariousplaces,thebottomlinebeing:

anycontractthatisnotvoluntarymustbeconsideredasinvalid.Onecanseehoweverthat,fromastrictlyParetianpointofview,itisnotclearthatallinvoluntarycontracts—e.g.contractsrelyingonamistake—willalwaysbedominatedbythesituationprevailingbeforethecontract.IfonechoosestheHayekian,safety-of-expectationspointofview,suchadilemmaislesslikelytooccurtotheextentthatpeopleexpecttransactionstobevoluntary.Consequently,anyinvoluntarytransactionviolatessome“legitimateexpectations.”

Beforeleavingthetopicofnullity,tw