英美法善意原则研究

【作者】 秦伟；

【导师】 梁慧星；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 法学理论， 2006， 博士

【摘要】 本文以英美法中的善意原则尤其是善意购买为研究对象，全文围绕英美法中关于善意的相关规定，就商法领域中有关善意的理论和实务问题进行了分析和论证，文章的每部分各有侧重，较为全面地介绍了美国法学界对善意的不同层面的认识和理解，同时对美国法学史上不同时期的必读权威作品亦进行了介绍和评述。全文共分九章。 第一章是“善意：U．C．C．中的内涵及外延”。法典中的善意是指“当事人的有关行为或者在有关交易中事实上的诚实”，它至少包含三重含义：1、事实上的诚实；2、商人应遵守合理的商业准则：3、克服某种障碍的适当注意或勤勉。在涉及不同的交易主体时，对善意的要求也就各不相同，一般说来，善意对商人要求的程度比非商人高。另外，实务中有将善意的主观判断标准向客观判断标准转变的趋势。 第二章是“善意：一般义务之认定及其不可定义性”。“善意”概念充分满足了各种相关标准，它可以保证对合意的忠实遵守，实现双方当事人的合理预期，并捍卫社会正义、公平和理性。但它不是一个包含正面内容的概念，相反它是一个“排除器”式的概念，它排除了一系列的“恶意”情形，而且对“恶意”情形进行详细列举也是不可能的。试图对“善意”下定义注定要失败。尽管“善意”存在被滥用的道德主义风险，但由于其自身的优越性和对社会的增益作用，因而冒险也值得。 第三章是“善意：标准化条款可执行性之前提”。标准化合同具有“抽象概括性”和“单方性”两个特点，因而易产生“出乎意料的契约”和“不平衡性”，破坏了传统合同法中的很多规则。为保护标准化合同非起草人的合理预期和利益，确保标准化条款的可执行性，本文提出了善意原则在标准化条款执行中的四条判断标准：1、非起草人是否因被讨论的标准条款而对合同客体享有具体的利益或预期；2、这种利益是否在法律上可以被认识；3、起草人是否认识到了该预期或利益；4、起草人是否不适当地忽视了该预期或利益。四个方面答案皆为肯定时，恶意便可确定，从而使标准化条款不具备可执行性，反之，则具备可执行性。 第四章是“善意履行：商业合理性之客观标准”。商业合理性经常和善意联系在一起来界定商人的善意，商业合理性作为客观标准对善意履行的判定非常重要，该标准是基于社会公众的正义、公平和合理性而不是基于单个人关于什么是正义、公平或合理的信念所形成的，因而，对商人而言，不仅要求事实上诚实，还应遵守有关公平交易的合更多还原

【Abstract】 This article is about the obligations of good faith, esp. good faith purchase. Referring to the sections of good faith in U.C.C., the article analyzes the theoretical and practical questions of good faith in commercial fields. It introduces the varied recognition and understanding of good faith in American academic circles and gives a review of authoritative works of different periods in the American law history. It is consisted of nine chapters as follows:Chapter 1 is about the meaning and extension of good faith in Uniform Commercial Code. Good faith is defined in U.C.C. as "honesty in the conduct or transaction concerned". It has at least three different meanings: (1) Honesty in fact; (2) Observance of reasonable commercial standards in the case of a merchant; (3) Due care or diligence to overcome an obstacle. The requirement of good faith is different to different parties. Generally, the code puts more duty on merchants than non-merchants. In addition, it has a tendency of using objective standards of good faith instead of subjective standards in the judicial practices.Chapter 2 is "the recognition and conceptualization of good faith". The conceptualization of good faith, as an excluder in Uniform Commercial Code satisfies the relevant criteria of adequacy. It serves: (1) faithfulness to an agreed common purpose and consistency with the justified expectations of the other party, and (2) community standards of decency, fairness or reasonableness of our society. Good faith does not have a general positive meaning, but it is conceptualized as an "excluder" which rules out a wide range of bad faith. Besides, It is also impossible to enumerate a complete catalogues of bad faith. Although, there will be a risk of overextension of good faith in the name of moral idealism, the gain that good faith bring to us is worth this risk.The third chapter is about good faith and the enforcement of standardized terms. Standardized contracts constitute two commercial phenomena (1) "abstract generality" and (2) "unilateralness", so the use of standardized forms threatens two distinct abuses "surprise" and "imbalance" which bring damages to modern commerce. To protect the reasonable expectation of the non-drafting party and enforcement of standardized forms, this article proposes four tests for good faith. (1) Did the non-drafting party entertain a specific interest or更多还原