|
美國合同法重述（第二版）第79條譯文
美國合同法重述（第二版）第79條譯文 「關(guān)鍵詞」美國合同法重述,約因的充分性
§ 79. adequacy of consideration; mutuality of obligation
第79條。 約因的充分性;義務(wù)的均等性
if the requirement of consideration is met, there is no additional requirement of
在符合約因構(gòu)成要件時(shí),無需考慮下列額外要求:
(a) a gain, advantage, or benefit to the promisor or a loss, disadvantage, or detriment to the promisee; or
(a)(約因是否)給允諾人帶來收益、優(yōu)勢(shì)或者利益;或者(約因是否)給相對(duì)人帶來損失、劣勢(shì)或者損害;或者
(b) equivalence in the values exchanged; or
(b)(雙方當(dāng)事人)所交換的價(jià)值(是否)相當(dāng);或者
(c) “mutuality of obligation.”
(c)(雙方當(dāng)事人的權(quán)利)義務(wù)(是否)均等。
comment:
評(píng)論:
a. rationale. in such typical bargains as the ordinary sale of goods each party gives up something of economic value, and the values exchanged are often roughly or exactly equivalent by standards independent of the particular bargain. quite often promise is exchanged for promise, and the promised performances are sometimes divisible into matching parts. see § 31. hence it has sometimes been said that consideration must consist of a “benefit to the promisor” or a “detriment to the promisee”; it has frequently been claimed that there was no consideration because the economic value given in exchange was much less than that of the promise or the promised performance; “mutuality of obligation” has been said to be essential to a contract. but experience has shown that these are not essential elements of a bargain or of an enforceable contract, and they are negated as requ irements by the rules stated in §§ 71-78. this section makes that negation explicit.
a.基本原理。在這樣一個(gè)典型的普通貨物買賣協(xié)商中,每一方當(dāng)事人都放棄了一些經(jīng)濟(jì)價(jià)值,而且按照特定契約中的獨(dú)立的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),這些被交換的價(jià)值常常大致地或精確地相當(dāng)。經(jīng)常地,允諾換回另外的允諾,而允諾的履行在一些情況下則可分割為相匹配的幾個(gè)部分。參見第31條。因此,約因有時(shí)會(huì)被認(rèn)為必須由“允諾人的利益”或者“受允諾人的損害”構(gòu)成;經(jīng)常會(huì)有這樣的主張:因?yàn)樗粨Q的經(jīng)濟(jì)價(jià)值要遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)少于允諾或者被允諾的履行中的經(jīng)濟(jì)價(jià)值,所以約因并不存在:“義務(wù)的均等”被認(rèn)為對(duì)一個(gè)契約而言具有必要性。但是經(jīng)驗(yàn)表明,在一個(gè)協(xié)商或者可執(zhí)行的契約中,這些并非必備要素,而且第71-78條所規(guī)定的規(guī)則也否認(rèn)它們是構(gòu)成要件。本部分明確了這一否認(rèn)。
b. benefit and detriment. historically, the common law action of debt was said to require a quid pro quo, and that requirement may have led to statements that consideration must be a benefit to the promisor. but contracts were enforced in the common-law action of assumpsit without any such requirement; in actions of assumpsit the emphasis was rather on the harm to the promisee, and detrimental reliance on a promise may still be the basis of contractual relief. see § 90. but reliance is not essential to the formation of a bargain, and remedies for breach have long been given in cases of exchange of promise for promise where neither party has begun to perform. today when it is said that consideration must involve a detriment to the promisee, the supposed requirement is often qualified by a statement that a “l(fā)egal detriment” is sufficient even though there is no economic detriment or other actual loss. it is more realistic to say simply that there is no requirement of detriment.
b.收益和損害。從歷史來看,普通法上的債的行為被認(rèn)為要求一個(gè)等價(jià)物,而且這一要求還可能導(dǎo)出這樣的結(jié)論:約因必須是允諾人獲益。但在缺乏這一要求的契約在普通法上的違約之訴中仍然得到執(zhí)行;在違約之訴中,強(qiáng)調(diào)的是對(duì)受允諾人的損害,而且對(duì)允諾的有害依賴可能仍然是契約救濟(jì)的基礎(chǔ)。參見第90條。但是信賴對(duì)協(xié)商的成立并非必要性因素,而且在任何一方當(dāng)事人均未開始履行的允諾交換允諾的案例中,早已規(guī)定了違約救濟(jì)�，F(xiàn)在,當(dāng)有人認(rèn)為約因必須包括一個(gè)對(duì)于受允諾人的損害時(shí),其假設(shè)的要求經(jīng)常由此表述得以滿足:“一個(gè)”法律上的損害“即使在沒有經(jīng)濟(jì)損害或者其他實(shí)際損失的情況下仍然是充分的。認(rèn)為沒有對(duì)于損害的要求的主張是更加現(xiàn)實(shí)的。
illustrations:
例釋:
1. a contracts to sell property to b. as a favor to b, who is c's friend, and in consideration of a's performance of the contract, c guarantees that b will pay the agreed price. a's performance is consideration for c's promise. see § 73.
1.a通過訂立契約向b出賣財(cái)產(chǎn)。作為b的朋友,出于好意并考慮到a對(duì)契約的履行,c擔(dān)保b將給付議定的價(jià)格。a的履行是c的允諾的約因。參見第73條。
2. a has executed a document in the form of a guaranty which imposes no obligation on a and has no value. b's surrender of the document to a, if bargained for, is consideration for a promise by a to pay $10,000. compare § 74.
2.a以保證書的形式制作了一個(gè)未對(duì)自己施加任何義務(wù)也沒有任何價(jià)值的文件。如果經(jīng)過協(xié)商,b交出文件給a,就是a支付10,000美元的允諾的約因。比較第74條。
c. exchange of unequal values. to the extent that the apportionment of productive energy and product in the economy are left to private action, the parties to transactions are free to fix their own valuations. the resolution of disputes often requires a determination of value in the more general sense of market value, and such values are commonly fixed as an approximation based on a multitude of private valuations. but in many situations there is no reliable external standard of value, or the general standard is inappropriate to the precise circumstances of the parties. valuation is left to private action in part because the parties are thought to be better able than others to evaluate the circumstances of particular transactions. in any event, they are not ordinarily bound to follow the valuations of others.
ordinarily, therefore, courts do not inquire into the adequacy of consideration. this is particularly so when one or both of the values exchanged are uncertain or difficult to measure. but it is also applied even when it is clear that the transaction is a mixture of bargain and gift. see comment c to § 71. gross inadequacy of consideration may be relevant to issues of capacity, fraud and the like, but the requirement of consideration is not a safeguard against imprudent and improvident contracts except in cases where it appears that there is no bargain in fact.
c.不等值的交換。就經(jīng)濟(jì)中的生產(chǎn)性能量和產(chǎn)品的分配被留給私人行為(private action)的意義而言,交易的當(dāng)事人可以自由確定他們自己的估價(jià)。爭(zhēng)議的解決經(jīng)常需要一個(gè)更一般意義上的市場(chǎng)價(jià)值基礎(chǔ)上的價(jià)值確定(a determination of value),而且這種價(jià)值經(jīng)常被確定為多數(shù)私人估價(jià)基礎(chǔ)之上的一個(gè)相似物。但在多數(shù)情況下,一個(gè)可信賴的價(jià)值的外在標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是不存在的,對(duì)于當(dāng)事人的準(zhǔn)確情形而言一般標(biāo)準(zhǔn)也是不適當(dāng)?shù)�。估價(jià)被留給私人行為,原因之一是當(dāng)事人被認(rèn)為能夠比他人更好地評(píng)價(jià)特定交易的情形。無論如何,他們通常是不能被限制而去遵從他人的估價(jià)的。
通常,法院因此而并不探究約因的充分性。在一方雙方交換的價(jià)值不確定或者難以計(jì)算時(shí)尤為如此。但這即使在交易很明顯是協(xié)商和贈(zèng)與的混合的情況下也是適用的。參見第71條的評(píng)論c.約因的重大不充分可能與能力、詐欺和相似性問題相關(guān),但是,除非在事實(shí)上沒有協(xié)商的案例中,約因的要件并非針對(duì)輕率的、無遠(yuǎn)見的契約的安全保障措施。
illustrations:
例釋:
3. a borrows $300 from b to enable a to begin litigation to recover a gold mine through litigation, and promises to repay $10,000 when he recovers the mine. the loan is consideration for the promise.
3.a為了能夠開始一項(xiàng)通過訴訟而重新獲得金礦的訴訟而向b借了300美元,并允諾當(dāng)他重新獲得金礦時(shí)將償還10,000美元。借款就是該允諾的約因。
4. a is pregnant with the illegitimate child of b, a wealthy man. a promises to give the child a's surname and b's given name, and b promises to provide for the support and education of the child and to set up a trust of securities to provide the child with a minimum net income of $100 per week until he reaches the age of 21. the naming of the child is consideration for b's promise.
4.a懷上了富人b的非婚生孩子。a允諾將給予這個(gè)孩子自己的和b的教名,b允諾將提供這個(gè)孩子的撫養(yǎng)和教育費(fèi)用,并設(shè)立一個(gè)有價(jià)證券信托,以在這個(gè)孩子21歲之前每周為其提供至少100美元的凈收益。對(duì)這個(gè)孩子的命名是b的允諾的約因。
d. pretended exchange. disparity in value, with or without other circumstances, sometimes indicates that the purported consideration was not in fact bargained for but was a mere formality or pretense. such a sham or “nominal” consideration does not satisfy the requirement of § 71. promises are enforced in such cases, if at all, either as promises binding without consideration under §§ 82-94 or as promises binding by virtue of their formal characteristics under § 6. see, for example, §§ 95-109 on contracts under seal.
d.虛假的交換。在有或沒有其他情景的情況下,價(jià)值的不同有時(shí)意味著聲稱的約因在事實(shí)上并未經(jīng)過協(xié)商,而只是一種單純的形式或者偽裝。這種虛假的或者“名義上的”約因不能滿足第71條的要求。這樣的允諾是能夠執(zhí)行的,如果它們是作為第82-94條下的無需約因的允諾或者是作為第6條下的依靠形式特征的允諾。參見,例如,第95-109條中關(guān)于鉛封契約的規(guī)定。
illustrations:
例釋:
5. in consideration of one cent received, a promises to pay $600 in three yearly installments of $200 each. the one cent is merely nominal and is not consideration for a's promise.
5.考慮到接受的1美分,a允諾將以每次200美元的三年分期付款方式支付600美元。這1美分僅僅是名義上的而非a允諾的約因。
6. a dies leaving no assets and owing $4000 to the b bank. c, a's widow, promises to pay the debt, and b promises to make no claim against a's estate. without some further showing, b's promise is a mere formality and is not consideration for c's promise.
6.a在臨終時(shí)未留下任何遺產(chǎn)并且還欠b銀行4,000美元。c作為a的遺孀允諾為a還債,b也允諾不對(duì)a的不動(dòng)產(chǎn)提出請(qǐng)求。在沒有進(jìn)一步表示時(shí),b的允諾僅僅是一種形式而非c的允諾的約因。
e. effects of gross inadequacy. although the requirement of consideration may be met despite a great difference in the values exchanged, gross inadequacy of consideration may be relevant in the application of other rules. inadequacy “such as shocks the conscience” is often said to be a “badge of fraud,” justifying a denial of specific performance. see § 364(1)(c)。 inadequacy may also help to justify rescission or cancellation on the ground of lack of capacity (see §§ 15, 16), mistake, misrepresentation, duress or undue influence (see chapters 6 and 7)。 unequal bargains are also limited by the statutory law of usury, by regulation of the rates of public utilities and some other enterprises, and by special rules developed for the sale of an expectation of inheritance, for contractual penalties and forfeitures (see §§ 229, 356), and for agreements between secured lender and borrower (see restatement of security § 55, uniform commercial code § 9-501)。
e.重大不充分的效果。雖然在交換的價(jià)值存在巨大差異的情況下約因的要件可能得以滿足,但是約因的重大不充分可能與其他規(guī)則的適用相關(guān)�！爸T如撼動(dòng)良知”的“不充分”經(jīng)常被認(rèn)為是“欺詐的徽章”,這就使得對(duì)契約義務(wù)的具體履行得以正當(dāng)化。參見第364(1)(c)。不充分也可能有助于因能力欠缺(參見第15,16條)、錯(cuò)誤、誤述、脅迫或者不正當(dāng)影響(參見第6章和第7章)而導(dǎo)致的無效或者撤銷得以正當(dāng)化。不平等的協(xié)商也受到暴利法的限制以及公共設(shè)施和其他企業(yè)費(fèi)用的規(guī)制,以及為繼承預(yù)期買賣、契約處罰和罰款(參見第229條,第356條)、有擔(dān)保的出借人和借用人之間的協(xié)議(參見擔(dān)保法重述第55條,統(tǒng)一商法典第9-501條)而發(fā)展的特殊規(guī)則的規(guī)制。
f. mutuality. the word “mutuality,” though often used in connection with the law of contracts, has no definite meaning. “mutual assent” as one element of a bargain is the subject of topic 2 of this chapter. “mutuality of remedy” is dealt with in comment c to § 363. clause (c) of this section negates any supposed requirement of “mutuality of obligation.” such a requirement has sometimes been asserted in the form, “both parties must be bound or neither is bound.” that statement is obviously erroneous as applied to an exchange of promise for performance; it is equally inapplicable to contracts governed by §§ 82-94 and to contracts enforceable by virtue of their formal characteristics under § 6. even in the ordinary case of the exchange of promise for promise, § 78 makes it clear that voidable and unenforceable promises may be consideration. the only requirement of “mutuality of obligation” even in cases of mutual promises is that stated in §§ 76-77.
f.相互性。“相互性”一詞雖然經(jīng)常在與契約法的聯(lián)系中使用,卻沒有確定的含義。作為協(xié)商的要素之一,“相互同意”是本章第二話題的主題。在第363條的評(píng)注c中對(duì)“救濟(jì)的相互性”有所涉及。本條(c)款否定了任何關(guān)于“義務(wù)相互性”的假定要求。這種要求有時(shí)以此種形式表述出來,“雙方當(dāng)事人必須都受到約束或者任何一方均不受到約束。”這一表述在適用于允諾交換履行時(shí)明顯是錯(cuò)誤的;它同樣也不適用于由第82-94條所規(guī)制的契約和因具有第6條下的形式特征的優(yōu)點(diǎn)而可執(zhí)行的契約。即使在允諾交換允諾的通常情況下,第78條也清楚地表明:可撤銷的和不可執(zhí)行的允諾也可能成為約因。甚至在相互允諾的情況下,“義務(wù)相互性”的唯一要件是由第76-77條規(guī)定的。
|