【作者】 张良；

【导师】 张里安；

【作者基本信息】 武汉大学 ， 民商法学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 对不公平合同条款的规制起源于罗马法上的“非常损失规则”,该规制后被收进查士丁尼的《国法大全》,发展为著名的“短少逾半规则”(半价规则)。《法国民法典》继承了罗马法的上述规则,把其适用范围从土地扩展到不动产,赋予不动产的出卖人在所受损失超过不动产客观价值的十二分之七时撤销合同的权利。《德国民法典》则没有采纳这样一个固定的公式,而是以善良风俗原则及其特别类型暴利行为规则对给付与对待给付严重失衡的交易予以规制。这二部民法典影响了诸多后来的民法典。《瑞士民法典》、《日本民法典》以及我国台湾地区民法典均属于受德国法影响的典型法典,而意大利法与奥地利法一方面像德国法那样要求主观要件,另一方面其客观要件采用了固定比例模式。英美普通法不调整对价是否失衡的问题,唯其衡平法在交易极其不公平以至于震撼了大法官的良心时,大法官有权判予该合同不能获得强制履行。随着时代的发展,交易行为变得日趋复杂、频繁,尤其是标准化格式合同条款的滥用,严重损害了广大消费者的利益,合同自由与合同正义发生了激烈的冲突。英美法在处理如此众多的不公平交易上显得捉襟见肘。为此,英美法顺应时代潮流,美国制定了以《统一商法典》、英国颁布了《不公平合同条款法》为代表的一系列法律对不公平合同条款进行规制。在国际上,《国际商事合同通则》(PICC)、《欧洲合同法原则》(PECL)以及欧盟《消费者合同中的不公平合同条款》指令都对不公平合同条款予以规制。根据PICC与PECL,商事合同同样可能存在不公平合同条款,需要予以规制。欧盟的上述“指令”仅适用于消费者合同,其成员国均己按照指令的要求对消费者合同领域的法律进行了修改,由此在欧盟范围内基本实现了保护标准的统一化。这些国际性的法律文本都要求交易必须符合诚实信用和公平交易原则,可见,国际社会规制不公平合同条款的法律原则已经趋同。在不公平合同条款的构成要件方面,BGB第138条第2款、美UCC之2-302条、PICC第3条第10款、PECL第4：109条都要求必须具备主观要件和客观要件,虽然它们的主观要件之构成因素不尽相同,而其客观要件并没有采用法国法的固定比例模式,而是采取了抽象的标准,除个别领域有具体规定之外,一般情况下都需要法官根据具体情况判断给付与对待给付是否明显不相称。在对格式合同中的不公平条款的规制方面,《德国民法典》第305——310条以诚实信用原则作为一般条款,然后通过三级检验逐步实现一般条款的具体化。英国的《不公平合同条款法》是以“合理性”作为检验合同条款的标准,该法给出了判断合理性时应当考虑的因素,使得具有变色龙一样的合理性标准更易于法官的运用。欧盟指令已被所有成员国采纳,其采用的一般条款加黑名单(即列举被视为不公平的合同条款)的立法模式与大陆法系讲究法律体系化的传统一脉相承。在对显失公平规则与格式合同中的不公平条款进行深入研究的基础上,笔者设计出具有普适性的规制不公平合同条款的法律条文。我国的《民法通则》和《合同法》把显失公平制度拆分为“乘人之危”与“显失公平”的做法有违法理,与主流法域的规定亦不符,应当把“乘人之危”回归到“显失公平”的主观要件之位置。在格式合同方面,应借鉴德国的立法模式,即把诚实信用原则作为一般条款,逐级实现具体化,最后以黑名单作为消费者合同中格式化不公平条款的判断标准。本文除引言外分为五章。第一章研究规制不公平合同条款的历史渊源和法理基础,探寻制度的历史之源和法理之基。首先对对肇端于罗马法的法律制度进行简要的梳理,然后从法哲学的高度寻求规制不公平合同条款之正当性的理论依据,依次探讨了公平说、正义说与私法自治说。第二章研究了对不公平合同条款的间接规制,包括纳入方法、“不利于提供者”的解释规则等。纳入方法适用于格式合同,即格式条款的使用者有义务向相对人明示其欲以格式条款订立合同,同时给予对方合理的机会使之了解格式条款的纳入,经相对人同意的格式条款才能纳入合同中。对于依正常情形,相对人不能预见的“异常条款”不能纳入合同。“不利于提供者”的解释规则指如果格式条款模糊不清导致可能有两种以上的解释结果时,必须做对格式条款的使用者不利的解释。第三章是关于不公平合同条款的直接规制,也是本文研究的重点。先后考察了德国法上的善良风俗原则和“暴利行为规则”、法国法的“合同损害规则”、英国法传统的衡平理论和制定法的“合理性”标准、欧盟“指令”的“公平性”标准、美国《统一商法典》的“显失公平”、PICC、PECL的“诚实信用和公平交易原则”以及显失公平规则。此外,对格式合同中的不公平条款的规制方法进行了详细的探讨。第四章进一步探讨显失公平的构成要件,认为应当采纳主观要件加客观要件的二元说,得出主观要件的构成要素,对客观要件的具体化进行了分析,对由此引出的法律的确定性与灵活性的关系进行了思考。在本章最后,得出具有普适性的判断不公平合同条款的标准。第五章在前文研究的基础上,结合我国立法、司法实践和理论研究的成果,指出我国法律在规制不公平合同条款方面的不足,在借鉴先进经验的基础上,提出以一般条款加类型化的立法模式,拟订出关于“显失公平”的一般规定、格式合同条款以及消费者保护的法律条文,作为立法之镜鉴、断案之参考,亦可供工商行政管理机关处理违法合同行为的参考。在研究方法上,以比较法考察方法为主,辅以历史探究、规范分析、实证研究和法律社会学的研究方法。更多还原

【Abstract】 Regulating unfair contract terms dated back to laesio enormis in Roman Law, which was adopted by Justinean Civil Code. The French Civil Code inherited this rule, but expanded its scope of application from mere land to real estate, entitling the buyer the right of recission of contract when he suffered a loss up to seven twelfths of the immovables’value compared to the objective value of the targeted matter. In comparison, the BGB didn’t take in such a mathematical formula. It utilized the Principle of Good Customs (public policy) and Wuchergeschaefte (sudden huge profits) theory to regulate unfair contract terms. Both Nopolian Code and the BGB had great influence upon the following civil codes. The Swiss Law of Obligations、the Civil Code of Japan and the Civil Code in Chinese Taiwan learned from BGB.Traditionally, the Common Law in Anglo-American legal system didn’t care about the improper price. Only when the bargain was so unbalanced that it greatly affected the conscience of the Chancellor did he decide that the contact be not executed. Yet, confronted with the greatly changed situations, the Anglo-American law cannot tackle the unfair terms deriving from standard adhesion contracts related to consumers effectively. Therefore, UCC was enacted in the United States and Unfair Contract Terms Act was made in England.As to international legal documents, PICC and PECL both make control of unfair contract terms. The EU Directive on Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contract gives special protection to consumers. These three require that transaction comply with the Principle of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. From this, a conclusion can be drawn that the above principle has been accepted by the most countries.As for the elements of unfair contract terms, the subjective general element and objective element are required in relative article in BGB、UCC、PICC and PECL, though their subjective elements are not entirely the same. As to objective element, these legislations don’t adopt the definite formula but an abstract standard. Therefore, judges have to evaluate whether the terms are seriously disproportionate according to specific circumstances.In respect of standard contract, Articles 305-310 of BGB utilizes good faith as the general clause, then gets it concreted by three-layer assessment. The UCTA of England took in the "reasonableness" as the standard to assess contract terms and listed factors for consideration. As for the EU Directive, its mode of general clause plus black list for regulating unfair contract terms has been adopted by all member countries. Based on research on unconscionability and unfair terms in standard contracts, the author summarized the experience and drew a conclusion that provisions for legislation reference have been made by the author.The General Principle of Civil Law and the Contract Law put the German Wucher rule into two rules, namely "Taking advantage of other person’desperate situation" and "severely disproportionate". This mode is contrary to rationale and the common rule in most countries and international legal documents. The former should be the subjective element of the latter just like the German law.This dissertation falls into five Chapters.The first chapter is about the history and the theoretical basis on the regulation on Unfair contract terms. Starting from the pursuit of the origin of this problem, this paper studied the Roman Law and the viewpoints of Roman Jurists. Then, from the pointview of philosophy, the author examined the relationship between the freedom of contract and the justice of contract. The conclusion is that the fromer is the prerequisite of the latter, while the latter need to be corrected by the former.The second chapter is about the indirect regulation on unfair contract terms, including incorporation、contra proferentem rule and disclosure of information.The third chapter deals with the direct control on unfair contract terms. The author examined Good Customs(Public Policy) and Wucher(sudden huge profits) rule in German BGB, the lesion in French Law, the Equity theory in British traditional law and the Reasonableness in Unfair Contract Terms Act, the Fairness in EU Directive, the Unconscionability in UCC 2-302, the Principle of Good Faith and Fair Dealing and the substantial imbalance in PICC and PECL.The fourth chapter made further research on the general elements of unfair contract terms, thinking that the general elements constitute the subjective element and the objective element.Then this dissertation discussed the factors of the subjective element and how to make objective element concrete. Meanwhile, the certainty and flexibility of law was discussed.Based on the above research, in combination with the legislation judicial practice and the theoretical outcome, the last chapter examined the shortcomings of the relative Chinese laws and put forward the standard of judgement of unfair contract terms. The mode is that a combination of general clause with a grey list which has been adopted by most countries.As for the methods of research, comparison of laws is the leading method, together with historic research analysis of legal norms and the sociological method. In this way, this dissertation drew a convincing conclusion based on clear argument and valid reasons.更多还原