资源预览需要最新版本的Flash Player支持。
您尚未安装或版本过低,建议您
1大连理工大学本科外文翻译法国法律中的违约责任在安全的期望值和有效性之间THEBREACHOFCONTRACTINFRENCHLAWBETWEENSAFETYOFEXPECTATIONSANDEFFICIENCY学院（系）专业学生姓名学号指导教师完成日期大连理工大学DALIANUNIVERSITYOFTECHNOLOGY注此处按照实际情况填写即可，打印（宋体、小四）阅后删除此文本框。2THEBREACHOFCONTRACTINFRENCHLAWBETWEENSAFETYOFEXPECTATIONSANDEFFICIENCYPIERREGARELLO∗FACULTED’ECONOMIEAPPLIQUE,UNIVERSITEDEDROIT,D’ECONIMIEETDESSCIENCESD’AIXMARSEILLE,3AVENUEROBERTSCHUMAN,AIXENPROVENCE13628,FRANCEACCEPTED20AUGUST20021INTRODUCTIONWHICHPATHWILLLEADUSTOABETTERUNDERSTANDINGOFFRENCHCONTRACTLAWCONTRACTSAREMARVELLOUSTOOLSTOHELPUSTOLIVEINAWORLDOFUNCERTAINTYTHEYALLOWUSTOPROJECTOURSELVESINTOANUNKNOWABLEFUTURE,TOINVESTLAWYERSWHOHAVEINSPIREDTHEFRENCHCIVILLAWANDCONTRIBUTEDTOITSEVOLUTION,ASWELLASMOSTLAWYERSINTHEWORLD,HAVECLEARLYPERCEIVEDTHENECESSITYTOPROTECTTHATINSTITUTION“THECONTRACTIS,ASFARASTHEINDIVIDUALISCONCERNED,THEBESTFORECASTINGINSTRUMENTGENERATINGLEGALSECURITY,ANDTHEFAVOREDPATHTOFREEDOMANDRESPONSIBILITYTHATISNECESSARYFORTHEFLOURISHINGOFHUMANBEINGSINASOCIETY”1CONTRACTSAREFARFROMMIRACULOUSTOOLS,HOWEVERIFTHEYMAKELIFEEASIER,THEYDONOTNECESSARILYMAKELIFEEASYASTHEFUTUREUNFOLDS,ONEORBOTHCONTRACTINGPARTIESMAYBETEMPTED,ORCOMPELLED,TOBREAKHISORHERPROMISEBUT,THEMEREFACTTHATTHECONTRACTISRUNNINGINTODIFFICULTIESDOESNOTFORCETHELAWTODOSOMETHING2ITISONLYWHENONEOFTHEPARTIESDOESNOTPERFORMTHATTHELAWTHECOURT,THELEGISLATION,BACKEDWITHCOERCIVEPOWER,HASTOGIVEANOPINION,TODECIDETHECASEINORDERTODOSOSOMEPRINCIPLES,ORTHEORIES,AREREQUIREDTOREACHAJUDGMENTASTOWHATISTHEBESTTHINGTODOTHEPRESENTSTUDYOFTHEFRENCHCONTRACTLAWISBASEDONTHEPREMISETHAT,FROMALAWANDECONOMICSPOINTOFVIEW,THEREEXISTSBASICALLYTWOPOSSIBLEWAYSTOADDRESSTHISCONCERNTHEFIRSTAPPROACHREQUIRESTHATWHENEVERAPROBLEMARISES,ANASSESSMENTBEMADEOFALLCOSTSANDBENEFITSINCURREDBYTHEPARTIESINOTHERWORDS,ONEMUSTATTEMPTTOEVALUATEINASUFFICIENTLYPRECISEWAYTHECONSEQUENCESOFTHECOURTDECISIONOROFTHERULEOFLAWUNDERCONSIDERATIONFORBOTHPARTIESASWELLASFORTHIRDPARTIESINCLUDINGPOTENTIALFUTURECONTRACTORSTHELAWTHENANDMOREPRECISELYHERE,CONTRACTLAWSHOULDAIMPRIMARILYATPROVIDINGTHERIGHTINCENTIVESTOCONTRACTINGPARTIES,WHEREBY“RIGHTINCENTIVES”ONEMEANSINCENTIVESTOBEHAVEINSUCHAWAYTHATTHEDIFFERENCEBETWEENSOCIALBENEFITSANDSOCIALCOSTSBEMAXIMIZEDITWILLBEARGUEDBELOWTHATFRENCHCONTRACTLAWSOMETIMESFOLLOWSTHISAPPROACHTHESECONDPOSSIBLEATTITUDELOOKS,APPARENTLY,PRETTYMUCHLIKETHEFIRSTTHEGUIDINGPRINCIPLEISAGAINTHATTHELAWSHOULDPROVIDETOMEMBERSOFTHESOCIETYTHERIGHTINCENTIVESBUTONEMUSTIMMEDIATELYADDTHATTHEJUDGEORTHELEGISLATOR,ORTHEEXPERTISNOTINAPOSITIONTOEVALUATEANDCOMPARETHESOCIALCOSTSANDBENEFITSOFALTERNATIVERULESOFLAWHEORSHEJUSTDOESNOTKNOWENOUGHONEDOESNOTKNOW,FORINSTANCE,ALLTHEEFFECTSOFARULETHATWOULDALLOWONEPARTYTOBREACHACONTRACT,WITHOUTTHECONSENTOFTHEOTHERPARTYINDEED,EVENIFTHE3VICTIMOFTHEBREACHISPROMISEDAFAIRCOMPENSATION,ALLOWINGSUCHARULEGLOBALLYMIGHTHAVEANEGATIVEEFFECTONTHEVERYPURPOSEOFTHEINSTITUTION,WHICHISTOREDUCEUNCERTAINTYASACONSEQUENCE,THELAWSHOULDADOPTAGOALLESSAMBITIOUSTHANTHEMAXIMIZATIONOFSOCIALWELLBEINGTHATGOALCOULDBE“TOPROTECTCONTRACTS,”OR,INOTHERTERMS,TOCREATEASETOFINCENTIVESTHATLEADINDIVIDUALSTOFEELCONFIDENTTHATTHEIRLEGITIMATEEXPECTATIONSWILLBEFULFILLEDASPOINTEDOUT,THOSETWOATTITUDESMAYAPPEARTHESAME,DIFFERINGJUSTINDEGREETHEFIRSTONEASSUMESMOREKNOWLEDGEONTHEPARTOFLAWYERSANDLEGISLATORSTHANTHESECONDHOWEVER,WHENITCOMESTOPRACTICALDECISIONMAKING,DIFFERENCESTURNOUTTOBEIMPORTANT,BECAUSETHEMOREKNOWLEDGEABLEYOUTHINKYOUARE,THESTRONGERWILLBETHEINCENTIVETOREGULATETHECONTRACT,ANDTHELOWERWILLBETHERESPECTFORTRADITIONANDCUSTOMSONWHICHDAILYEXPECTATIONSAREBASEDTHETWOAPPROACHESOUTLINEDABOVEAREWELLKNOWNTOECONOMISTSTHEFIRSTONEISTHESOCALLED“MAINSTREAM”PARETIANAPPROACHANDUNDERLINESMOSTOFTHEEXISTINGECONOMICANALYSISOFLAW3THESECONDONE,STRESSINGTHEPROBLEMOFKNOWLEDGE,ISFARLESSDEVELOPED4WEWILLCALLITTHE“SAFETYOFEXPECTATIONSAPPROACH,”ORTHEAUSTRIANAPPROACHTOLAWANDECONOMICS,BECAUSEITCANBEFOUNDPRIMARILYINTHEWORKOFTHEAUSTRIANSCHOOLOFECONOMICTHOUGHT,ANDESPECIALLYINHAYEK’SSTUDIES“THERATIONALE,”SAYSHAYEK,“OFSECURINGTOEACHINDIVIDUALAKNOWNRANGEWITHINWHICHHECANDECIDEONHISACTIONSISTOENABLEHIMTOMAKETHEFULLESTUSEOFHISKNOWLEDGE,ESPECIALLYOFHISCONCRETEANDOFTENUNIQUEKNOWLEDGEOFTHEPARTICULARCIRCUMSTANCESOFTIMEANDPLACETHELAWTELLSHIMWHATFACTSHEMAYCOUNTONANDTHEREBYEXTENDSTHERANGEWITHINWHICHHECANPREDICTTHECONSEQUENCESOFHISACTIONSATTHESAMETIMEITTELLSHIMWHATPOSSIBLECONSEQUENCESOFHISACTIONSHEMUSTTAKEINTOACCOUNTORWHATHEWILLBEHELDRESPONSIBLEFOR”5THEREASONWHYTHESETWOAPPROACHESAREMENTIONEDATTHEOUTSETISTHAT,WHENONESTUDIESFRENCHCONTRACTLAW,ITISDIFFICULTTORECONCILEALLOFITWITHASINGLEAPPROACHTRUE,THEMAINSTREAM,NEOCLASSICALAPPROACH,BASEDONTHEASSUMPTIONTHATRULESBECHOSENTHATMAXIMIZESOCIALWEALTHOR,ATOTHERTIMES,THATLEADTOAPARETOEFFICIENTOUTCOME,CANHELPUSTOUNDERSTANDANIMPORTANTPARTOFTHATBODYOFLAWBUT,ASWILLBESHOWN,CERTAINFRENCHDOCTRINESCANNOTBERECONCILEDWITHNEITHERAPARETIANAPPROACH,NORAWEALTHMAXIMIZINGAPPROACHINSOMEINSTANCES,THELAWSEEMSTOBEMORECONCERNEDWITHTHESAFETYOFEXPECTATIONSINTHENEXTTWOSECTIONSWEWILLEXAMINETHEMAINDOCTRINESANDRULESOFFRENCHCONTRACTLAWTRYINGTOIDENTIFYTHOSETHATARECOMPATIBLEWITHBOTHPRINCIPLESANDTHOSETHATARECOMPATIBLEWITHONLYONEIFNONEOFTHOSESETSAREEMPTY,ITWILLMEANTHATTHEFRENCHLAWOFCONTRACTISNOTTOTALLYCOHERENT；ITCANNOTBEBROUGHTUNDERAUNIQUEUNIFYINGPRINCIPLEOFEXPLANATIONTHENEXTNATURALQUESTIONWOULDTHENBEWHETHERFRENCHLAWISMOVINGTOWARDSONE4PRINCIPLEANDAWAYFROMTHEOTHERHOWEVER,THISPAPERWILLNOTADDRESSTHISQUESTIONTHEPAPERISORGANIZEDINTWOPARTSINDEED,FORREASONSBRIEFLYMENTIONEDABOVE,ITISIMPORTANTTOUNDERLINEINAFIRSTPARTTHEMANYTHINGSTHELAWDOESINORDERTOAVOIDBREACHOFCONTRACTWHATCANBEDONEINORDERTOSAVEACONTRACTWHENTHEPARTIESAREHAVINGDIFFICULTIESPERFORMING,ANDWHATISFORBIDDENTHESECONDPARTDEALSDIRECTLYWITHTHEBREACHOFCONTRACTITWILLBESHOWNTHATFRENCHLAWDIFFERSINSOMEIMPORTANTRESPECTSFROMOTHERCONTRACTLAWS2SAVINGTHECONTRACT6WEWILLSTUDYTHEVARIOUSATTEMPTSTO“SAVE”THECONTRACTBYLOOKINGFIRSTATTHECONDITIONSFORINVALIDITYSECTION21,THENATTHEVARIOUSPOSSIBILITIESLEFTTOTHEJUDGETOINTERPRETTHETERMSOFTHECONTRACTSECTION22ANDENDWITHTHESTUDYOFTHECASESWHERETHEJUDGEISAUTHORIZEDTOCHANGETHETERMSOFTHECONTRACTSECTION2321INVALIDCONTRACTSONEWAYTOSAVETHECONTRACTISTOPROVETHATTHEREWASNOVALIDCONTRACTINTHEFIRSTPLACEFORMATIONDEFENSESASDEFINEDINTHEFRENCHLAWAREROUGHLYIDENTICALTOTHOSEFOUNDINTHECONTRACTLAWSOFOTHERCOUNTRIESTHEMAINDEFENSESAREINCOMPETENCYINCAPACIT,MISTAKESERREUR,FRAUDDOL,DURESSVIOLENCE,ABSENCEOFCAUSEREMINDINGUSOFTHEDOCTRINEOFCONSIDERATIONINTHEBARGAININGTHEORY,FAILURETODISCLOSEINFORMATION,LSIONADEFENSECLOSETOUNCONSCIONABILITY,7OR,MAYBEMORESPECIFICTOFRENCHLAW,ACONFLICTBETWEENTHEPRIVATEAGREEMENTANDORDREPUBLIC,IEPUBLICPOLICY,OR“LAWANDORDER”SEEART6AND1134OFTHEFRENCHCIVILCODE,HENCEFORTHCCIVINALLTHESEINSTANCES,ANACTIONMAYBETAKENFORANNULMENTOFTHECONTRACT,THEJUDGEBEINGTHEONLYONEENTITLEDTOINVALIDATEACONTRACTBUT,WHATEXACTLYISMEANTBYINVALIDITYINTHEFRENCHLAWWHATARETHECONSEQUENCESTHEFRENCHLAWDISTINGUISHESBETWEENABSOLUTEINVALIDITYNULLITABSOLUEANDRELATIVEINVALIDITYNULLITRELATIVETHEFIRSTCATEGORYINCLUDESALLTHECONTRACTSTHATAREAGAINSTWHATISCALLEDORDREPUBLICDEDIRECTION,THATISTOSAY,CONTRACTSTHATVIOLATEAPUBLICPOLICYJUDGEDTOBEBENEFICIALTOTHESOCIETYASAWHOLEANDNOTONLYTOTHOSEINDIVIDUALSINVOLVEDINTHATPARTICULARCONTRACTFORSUCHCONTRACTSNOTHINGCANBEDONEANDCOMPLETENULLITYCANNOTBEAVOIDEDTHESECONDCATEGORYISMADEOFCONTRACTSTHATVIOLATETHEORDREPUBLICDEPROTECTION,THATIS,CONTRACTSINWHICHONEPARTYDOESNOTRESPECTAPUBLICPOLICYDESIGNEDTOPROTECTWEAKERPARTIESINTHOSECIRCUMSTANCES,THEVICTIMWHOTHELAWISTRYINGTOPROTECTMAYCHOOSETOLETTHECONTRACTSTANDAFTERMODIFICATIONSTOTHECONTRACT8INBOTHCASES,HOWEVER,THERESULTISASIFTHECONTRACTHADNEVEREXISTED,ANDRETROACTIVITYWITHRESTITUTIONISTHEGENERALPRINCIPLEONEISSUPPOSEDTOGOBACKTOTHESITUATIONTHATPREVAILEDBEFORETHECONTRACTWASCREATEDTHESTATUSQUOANTEPARTIESARERELIEVEDOFTHEIROBLIGATIONS,ANDDAMAGESCANNOLONGERBEAWARDED,BUTITISSTILLPOSSIBLETOBRINGATORTLAWACTION9FROMANECONOMICPOINTOFVIEW,MOSTOFTHEFORMATIONDEFENSESMENTIONEDHAVEALREADY
