《The good faith principle in contract law and the precontractual.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《The good faith principle in contract law and the precontractual.doc（15页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。
1、The good faith principle in contract law and the precontractual duty to disclose: comparative analysis of new differences in legal cultures. Alberto M. Musy. Authors Abstract: COPYRIGHT 2001 Berkeley Electronic Press The purpose of this article is to delineate new convergent similarities and future
2、possible differences between legal systems, using pre-contractual liability and good faith as a focal point of investigation. The first part of the article tries to reframe the ordinary picture of Good Faith in European contract law. Western legal systems differ as to the scope of the good faith pri
3、nciple. In the Civil Law system, the minimalist view is represented by the French courts, who have not relied on the bonne foi to the same extent that their German and Italian counterparts did. An even more minimalist approach is represented by the common law of England does not recognize any genera
4、l obligation of the parties to a contract to conform to the standard of good faith. The second part of the article focuses the prism of the good faith investigation by concentrating on the pre-contractual duty to inform and by trying to map reciprocal influences, and differences between Europe and U
5、nited States. The way authors in America and Europe are looking to those issues offer ground to the thesis that European Academia, too keen on the normative analysis, is loosing ground in favor of the, more Law and . oriented, American Academia. Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2001 Berkeley Electronic Press 1.
6、 Introduction The recent American debate1 about the limits of pre-contractual reliance provides the opportunity to recall some European and Comparative Law notes. Are we dealing here with an area of law where western legal systems substantially differ from each other as far as both general evaluatio
7、ns and specific results are concerned? This inquiry appears to be all the more important since both the Principles of European Contract Law as proposed by the Lando group2 and the Principles of International and Commercial Contracts as published by UNIDROIT3 contain certain general provisions accord
8、ing to which each party must act in accordance with good faith and fair dealing. The purpose of this article is to delineate new convergent similarities and future possible differences between legal systems, using pre-contractual liability and good faith as a focal point of investigation4. The first
9、 part of the article tries to reframe the ordinary picture of Good Faith in European contract law. Western legal systems differ as to the scope of the good faith principle. In the Civil Law system, the minimalist view is represented by the French courts, who have not relied on the bonne foi to the s
10、ame extent that their German and Italian counterparts did. An even more minimalist approach is represented by the common law of England does not recognize any general obligation of the parties to a contract to conform to the standard of good faith. The second part of the article focuses the prism of
11、 the good faith investigation by concentrating on the pre-contractual duty to inform and by trying to map reciprocal influences, and differences between Europe and United States. 2. The Principle of Good Faith in Europe a. French law The contract is law between the parties (art.1134 c.c.). This seem
12、s to be the main concern of French contract law; such a declamatory5 principle forced French legal literature to find creative ways to impose good faith duties against the party freedom of contract6. The alinea n.3 of art.1134 c.c. then states that les conventions doivent etre executees de bonne foi
13、, art.1135 c.c. adds that la convention oblige a toutes suites que lequite donne a lobligation dapres sa nature, the Obligation Section of the French civil code does not contain other explicit references to the good faith principle. The French scholars, though, starting from the late seventies expan
14、ded the number of situations where the good faith principle applies7: 1) in the Formation of contract the parties must deal in good faith; the freedom of contract principle, thus, is limited by the good faith principle. French jurisprudence, anyway, looks for a very substantial deviation from pre-co
15、ntractual reliance in order to establish a basis for liability in tort (art.1382 c.c.) or for a classical situation of deceit (artt.1110, 1116 c.c.); 2) in the Performance of contract there are at least two main applications of the Good faith principle: the Duty of Loyalty8 and the Duty of Cooperati
16、on9. a) The Duty of Loyalty, according to the Cartesian tradition is divided into two cathegories: obligation de moyens and obligation de resultat, in the latter case the debiteur must obtain the exact goal foreseen by the agreement between the parties quite apart from good faith evaluation, while t
17、he creancier must avoid any behavior imposing the performance difficulties. In case of an obligation de moyens the debiteur has to accomplish his obligation simply by acting with due care, as that of a bon pere de famille. b) The Duty of Cooperation too is divided into two different applications: th
18、e utmost good faith contracts (contrat de societe, de travail, dassurance) and the duty to disclose (obligation precontractuelle de renseignement). The French bonne foi, even if strengthened by the doctrinal efforts, is still weakened by the judicial suspicion of introducing valeurs dequite. The per
19、ceived danger is the risk of too broad judicial discretion in spite of the Positive Law traditional French approach10. Moreover both the French doctrine and courts are not making a clear distinction between subjective and objective good faith (the German Guter glaube and Treu und Glaube), particular
20、ly in the context of cooperation cases, such as reticence dolosive, erreur sur la substance11. b. German Law The contractual obligations according to German law, are subject to the standard of good faith. This has been read both by doctrine and courts into a seemingly rather marginal provision (sect
21、ions 242 BGB), which relates specifically to the manner in which the obligation is to be performed. sections 242 BGB has thus, by way of interpretation, been transformed into one of the famous general clauses12 by means of which Germanys case law revolution was effected13. It has provided a convenie
22、nt starting point for countless new doctrines and for the modification of old ones14, and innumerable cases15 as it has been employed to avoid harsh or inequitable results16. Over the years much criticism has been leveled at the excessive proliferation of equitable inroads into established legal pri
23、nciples17. On the other hand, however, consensus has emerged over a whole range of legitimate applications of the principle of good faith. The efforts of academic commentators (starting with an influential study by Franz Wiaecker18) have established much to domesticate legal categories of cases as t
24、hey are listed in any modern commentary sub sections242 BGB. Those doctrinal efforts of categorizing have become so firmly established that they are seen today as forming an indispensable part of the legal landscape. sections242 BGB says that the recipient must perform her/his obligation in good fai
25、th according to trade usage. Both doctrine and case law implemented the use of the good faith paragraph in order to devise a remedy for the following code gaps: 1) in spite of the existence of sections 24219 there is no provision in the BGB dealing with culpa in contrahendo; 2) there is no provision
26、 protecting the recipient from a partial or incorrect performance; 3) last but not least, there is not a general principle of neminem laedere (general tort of negligence) in the German civil liability provisions (subsection 823 ff. that protects individuals against damages to life, body, health, pro
27、perty); there is no room to expand tort liability to protect some pre-contractual, contractual or post-contractual situations. In order to protect the parties in those situations and avoid harsh or inequitable results, scholars have pointed to typical situations where the good faith general principl
28、e must be enforced20. The late development in this trend is to avoid any use of the sections242 BGB as an equitable remedy and lately there seems to be a strong reluctance to admit any new applications of the doctrine21. The first group of standard types is listed under the label of contract ancilla
29、ry duties (duty to inform, duty to protect, duty of precise performance); then follow the venire contra factum proprium principle, the abuse of its own right and the tacit renunciation (forfeiture of right, especially by laches); and lastly the rebus sic stantibus principle and the contractual basic
30、 assumption (Voraussenzung) doctrine. In order to see how those principles work we can take as an example the rules on Positive Vertragsverletzung (duty of precise performance): the judge must look if the contractual duties are implicated (Schuldverhaltnis), and then evaluate which required ancillar
31、y duty violated, and finally decide if there is negligence. c. Italian law The Italian 1942 Civil Code has been drafted in an epoch when Italian scholars were fully aware of German case law on paragraph 242 of the BGB22. Therefore the Italian Code highlights the importance of good faith in the contr
32、actual relationships in several code articles: art.1366 Contract must be interpreted in good faith, art.1375 Contract must be executed in good faith; art.1175 Debtor and creditor must behave according to good faith and fair dealing rules and finally, article 1337 provides that parties must behave in
33、 good faith during the pre-contractual bargaining and contract drafting. Modern Italian contract law scholarship23, after the 1942 Code, has rejected the concept that an actual, subjective meeting of the minds is necessary to form a contract, in favor of a theory protecting parties reasonable expect
34、ations in relying on promises and communications24. According to the latter approach the buona fede principle has been interpreted by scholars as a synonym of German Treu und Glaube even if the Italian case law25 seems still to place a lot of importance on the idea that the parties enter into a barg
35、aining process under the principle of freedom of contract. Until the beginning of the seventies the main stream of the Supreme Court of Cassation held that the good faith provisions did not offer an autonomous ground for a legal action26. Those articles were to be used by courts only to strength the
36、 protection of a self standing diritto soggettivo (fully recognized legal title)27. In the late seventies, under a vehement doctrinal debate28, the case law changed to recognize the buona fede principle as an autonomous basis for a cause of action. As is usually the case, the courts chose to develop
37、 the doctrine by focusing on certain types of cases, which include: 1) The right to organize special form of strikes; 2) Labor law contractual relations; and 3) The duty to inform and the duty to protect the other party interest29. A 1975 decision by the Milan Court of Appeal30 considered the violat
38、ion of art.1375 c.c. an autonomous ground for action in tort, pursuable by art.2043 c.c. (the Italian provision for tort liability: the neminem laedere principle). The Italian scholars are skeptical about the usage made by courts of the good faith principle in as much as it could be used for redistr
39、ibutive purposes; some of them31 are worried about the temptation to use it as a general equitable principle, a solution that might vest too broad discretionary power in the judge hands. On the one hand the Italian doctrine has not been able to offer the judges a clear systematic picture of good fai
40、th standard situations32; on the other, the Italian doctrine, until the late seventies was strongly influenced by the German doctrine, and clashed with Italian judges still influenced by the French doctrine and courts. This cultural incommensurability33 is now posing a difficult problem of conflicti
41、ng theories about good faith and culpa in contrahendo34. d. English law There is no general positive duty of good faith imposed on the parties to a contract in the English law today35. English merchant law, indeed, recognized the principle until the disappearance in the XVIII century of the Admiralt
42、y36. The utopian idea of the common law is that manners in business are oriented by a rough and tough rule and according to this rule Courts are used to take a fairly extreme position on the duties of the parties to look after themselves and to stay, so to say, on their own feet37. The rule of equit
43、y, still sound and alive in the English law of remedies, offered protection against the most harsh and tough situations. It is not by chance that the equitable remedy of Promissory Estoppel has turned from being a shield into being a sword38 and can offer adequate protection against promise revocati
44、on or unjust withdrawal from negotiations. During the period that one author called the Decline of Freedom of Contract (1870-1980)39 English law started to stress some pre-contractual duties between the parties, and to elaborate new doctrines that could be easily brought under a good faith heading40
45、. One after the other a certain number of contractual relations has been added by good faith special duties. Beside the uberrimae fidei contract (like in French law: insurance, company), that have always required an utmost duty of good faith, fiduciary relationships in general provide several instan
46、ces of duties that in the civil law world would be related to the good faith principle. Family and professional-client relations (special relation or good faith relation) require a duty of good faith and full disclosure. Like in France, Legal duties may arise between negotiating parties in tort: par
47、ties may owe duties of care to each other41. The English courts are offering remedies to the party claiming a breach of good faith duties, indeed they prefer to do it without referring to a general principle, which apparently seems to create a problem regarding the predictability of the legal outcom
48、es of cases42. There are many cases in which English courts are reading implied terms into a contract, adopting a standard of interpretation similar to the anti-formalistic approach used by continental courts in good faith cases. The absence of a general duty of good faith, can probably be best desc
49、ribed as an illustration of English attitude to see the law as a self standing domain and a world distinct from business and politics. Judges do not like to wield the power to determine whether the parties have acted in good faith or not43. Jane Stapleton writes that even if English lawyers do not call it good faith they believe
