請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/92164
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 詹森林 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.advisor | Sheng-Lin Jan | en |
dc.contributor.author | 王怡蘋 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author | Yi-Ping Wang | en |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-03-07T16:22:53Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2024-03-08 | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2024-03-07 | - |
dc.date.issued | 2024 | - |
dc.date.submitted | 2024-02-16 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | 參考文獻
中文文獻 書籍(按姓氏筆劃) 王伯琦(1997)。民法債編總論。國立編譯館:正中印行。 王澤鑑(2023)。債法原理:基本理論、債之發生、契約、無因管理(增訂四版)。自版。 王澤鑑(2022)。民法總則(修訂新版4刷)。自版。 王澤鑑(2023)。法律思維與案例研習,請求權基礎理論體系(校正二版)。自版。 史尚寬(1983)。債法總論。自版。 何孝元(1966)。誠實信用原則與衡平法。三民。 吳從周(2007)。民事法學與法學方法(二)。自版。 吳從周(2007)。民事法學與法學方法(三)。自版。 吳從周(2010)。民事法學與法學方法(四)。新學林。 沈冠伶(2020)。民事判決之既判力客觀範圍與爭點效—從新民事訴訟法架構下爭點集中審理模式重新省思。載於民事訴訟法研究會第103次研討紀錄,民事訴訟法之研究(十七)(189-244頁)。民事訴訟法研究會。 林秀雄(2019)。附負擔遺贈。載於林秀雄、黃詩純、吳煜宗、戴東雄、劉昭辰著,遺贈與贈與(38-49頁)。元照。 邱聰智(2014)。新訂民法債編通則(下)(新訂二版一刷)。承法。 姚志明(2004)。誠信原則與附隨義務之研究。元照。 姜世明(2006)。民事訴訟中當事人之真實義務。載於氏著,舉證責任與真實義務 (163-168)。新學林。 姜世明(2023)。民事訴訟法上冊(九版)新學林。 姜世明(2022)。民事訴訟法下冊(三版)。新學林。 陳自強(2018)。違約責任與契約解消。元照。 陳自強(2018)。契約成立與生效(增訂四版)元照。 陳聰富(2023)。誠信原則理論與實踐。載於氏著,契約自由與誠信原則(105-168頁)。元照。 陳聰富(2024)。意思表示單方錯誤與雙方錯誤。載於氏著,契約成立與締約過失(297-319頁)。元照。 陳聰富(2020)。遺囑無效之侵權責任。載於氏著,侵權責任主體與客體(171-190頁)。元照。 黃茂榮(2009)。法學方法與現代民法(增訂六版)。自版。 黃國昌(2010)。民事訴訟理論之新開展。元照。 曾世雄(2005)。民法總則之現在與未來(二版)。元照。 詹森林(2007)。民事法理與判決研究(五)。元照。 詹森林(2020)。誠信原則之比較研究。載於民法研究基金會編,民事法理論與實務的新發展—陳志雄律師八秩華誕祝壽論文集(311-359頁)。新學林。 駱永家(2021)。既判力之研究(十三版)。國立台灣大學法學叢書編輯委員會。 譯著 Karl Larenz(2022)。法學方法論(陳愛娥譯,二版)。五南。(原著出版年:1991) 期刊(按姓氏筆劃) 王澤鑑(2004年3月)。民法總則在實務上的最新發展(4)--最高法院90年及91年若干判決的評釋。臺灣本土法學雜誌,56,85-95。 石志泉(1957年10月)。誠信原則在訴訟上之適用。法令月刊,8(10),5-6。 沈冠伶(2009年6月)。判決理由中判斷之拘束力-最高法院九三年度台上字第一五○七號判決、九六年度台上字第二六六號判決及相關下級審裁判之評析。台灣法學雜誌,129,39-69。 林誠二(2001年5月))。再論誠實信用原則與權利濫用禁止原則之機能—最高法院八十八年度臺上字第二八一九號判決評釋。臺灣本土法學雜誌,22,36-61。 張嘉尹(2002年12月)。法律原則、法律體系與法律概念─Robert Alexy法律原則理論初探。輔仁法學,24,1-48。 許士宦(2009年2月)。第二審程序時效抗辯之失權--最高法院有關裁判之檢討。台灣法學雜誌,121,45-80。 陳聰富(2006年1月)。人身侵害之損害概念。國立台灣大學法學論叢,35(1),47-110。 游進發(2013年9月)。信賴損害賠償請求權理論的建構。中研院法學期刊,13,37-109。 蔡章麟(1953年3月)。民事訴訟法是否受誠實信用原則之支配?。法令月刊,4(3),3-4。 蔡章麟(1953年3月)。自由心證與誠實信用原則。軍法專刊,2(4),16-17。 英文文獻 Books and Book Chapters (in alphabetical order) Alces, P. A. (2011). A theory of contract law : empirical insights and moral psychology. Oxford University Press. Andrews, N. (2008). The modern civil process : judicial and alternative forms of dispute resolution in England. Mohr Siebeck. Anson, W. R., & Corbin, A. L. (1924). Principles of the law of contract with a chapter on the law of agency (16th English ed.; 4th American copyright ed., edited with American notes by Arthur L. Corbin). Oxford University Press. Atiyah, P. S. (1979). The rise and fall of freedom of contract. Clarendon Press. Axelrod, R. M. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. Basic Books. Baker, J. Hamilton. (2002). An introduction to English legal history (4th ed.). Butterworths LexisNexis. Barnett, P. R. (2001). Res judicata, estoppel, and foreign judgments : the preclusive effects of foreign judgments in private international law (foreword by KR Handley). Oxford University Press. Bix, Brian. (2012). Contract law : rules, theory, and context. Cambridge University Press. Bower, G. spencer & Turner, A. K. (1977). The Law Relating to Estoppel by Representation (3rd ed., edited by Arthor K. Turner). Butterworths LexisNexis. Buckland, W. W. (1966). A text-book of Roman law from Augustus to Justinian (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. Burton, Steven J. & Andersen, Eric G. (1995). Contractual Good Faith: Formation, Performance, Breach, Enforcement. Little Brown. Carter, J. W., Harland, D. J., & Lindgren, K. E. (1996). Contract law in Australia (3rd ed.). Butterworths. Cartwright, J. (2016). Contract law : an introduction to the English law of contract for the civil lawyer (3rd ed.). Hart Publishing. Clements, R., & Abass, Ademola. (2013). Complete equity & trusts : text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press. Coke, E. (M, DCC, XCIV. [1794]). The first part of the institutes of the laws of England; or, A commentary upon Littleton: not the name of the author only, but of the law itself. Authore Edwardo Coke, milite. The fifteenth edition; revised and corrected, with further additions of notes, references, and proper tables. By Francis Hargrave and Charles Butler, Esquires, of Lincoln's-Inn. Including also the notes of Lord Chief Justice Hale and Lord Chancellor Nottingham: and an analysis of Littleton, written by an unknown hand in 1658-9. Vol. 1. Printed for E. and R. Brocke, Bell-Yard, near Temple Bar. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CB0132215339/ECCO?u=866ntu&sid=bookmark-ECCO&xid=cc393688&pg=1 Cooke, E. (2000). The Modern Law of Estoppel. Oxford University Press. Corbin, A. L. (Arthur L., Perillo, J. M., Bender, H. H., Holmes, E. M., Brown, C. N., Kniffin, M. N., Mc Cauliff, C. M. A., Murray, J. E., Nehf, J. P., & Murray, T. (1993). Corbin on contracts (Rev. ed., by Joseph M. Perillo.). West Publishing Company. Dal Pont, G. E. & Chalmers, Donald R. C. (1996). Equity and Trusts in Australia and New Zealand. North Ryde, N.S.W.: LBC Information Services. Dawson, J. Philip., Harvey, W. B., & Henderson, S. D. (2008). Contracts : cases and comment (9th ed.). Foundation Press. Dawson, John P. (1980). Gifts and Promises: Continental And American Law Compared. New Haven : Yale University Press. Dixon, Martin (2003). Proprietary Estoppel and Formalities in Land Law and the Land Registration Act 2002: A theory of unconscionability. In E Cooke (Ed.), Modern Studies in Property Law (volume 3). Hart publishing. Duddington, John (2011). Equity and Trusts Question & Answer. Pearson Longman. Dworkin, Ronald (1997). Taking Rights Seriously. Harvard University Press. Farnsworth, E. A. (Edward A. (2004). Contracts (4th ed.). Aspen Publishers. Farnsworth, E. A. (Edward A., Young, W. F., & Sanger, C. (2001). Cases and materials on contracts (6th ed.). Foundation Press. Fleming, J. G., Sappideen, C., Vines, P., & Fleming, J. G. (2011). Fleming’s the law of torts (edited by Carolyn Sappideen and Prue Vines, 10th ed.). Thomson Reuters Professional Australia Limited. Fried, Charles (2015). Contract as Promise: A Theory of Contractual Obligation (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190240158.001.0001 Fuller, Lon L. & Eisenberg, M. Aron. (2006). Basic contract law (8th ed.). Thomson West. Furmston, M.P., Brownsword, R., Bradgate, R., Macdonald, E., Clarke, M., Phang, A., Adams, J., Tolhurst, GJ., Carter, JW., & Halson, R. (1999). The Law of Contract. Butterworths. Gandhi, B. M. (2001). Equity, trusts and specific relief (along with a chapter on fiduciary relationships, 3rd ed.) Delhi: Eastern Book. Garner, W. Michael (2014-2015), Franchise and Distribution Law and Practice. Thomson Reuters. Gilmore, Grant., & Collins, R. K. L. (1995). The death of contract (edited and with a foreword by Ronald K.L. Collins). Ohio State University Press. Glister, James., Lee, J., Hanbury, H. G., & Martin, J. E. (2015). Hanbury and Martin modern equity. (20th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell. Gordley, James. (2011). The philosophical origins of modern contract doctrine. Oxford University Press. Greig, D. W. (Donald Westlake) & Davis, J. L. R. (1987). The law of contract. Sydney: Law Book Company. Hall, Stephen (2017). Law of contract in hong kong : cases and commentary (Fifth ed.). LexisNexis. Handley, K. R. (2006). Estoppel by conduct and election. Sweet & Maxwell. Hegel, G. W. F., & Knox, T. M. (1967). Hegel’s Philosophy of right (Translated with notes by T.M. Knox). Oxford University Press. Hesselink, Martijn & Hartkamp, A. & Hondius, Ewoud & E, Perron & Veldman, M. & Joustra, C.. (2004). Towards a European civil code (3rd ed.). The Hague, London, Boston: Kluwer Law International. Holmes, Oliver Wendell, JR. (1991). The Common Law. Dover Publications. Hudson, A.(2022). Principles of Equity and Trusts (2nd ed.). Routledge. Hunter, H. O. (1999). Modern law of contracts (2nd rev. ed.). West Group. Keeton, Page., & Prosser, W. L. (William L. (1984). Prosser and Keeton on the law of torts (W. Page Keeton, general editor, W. Page Keeton [and others], 5th ed., Student ed.). West Publihing. Company. Kessler, Friedrich, Gilmore, Grant & Kronman, Anthony T. (1986). Contracts: Cases and Materials (3d ed.). Little Brown. Klass, Gregory (2012). Contract law in the United States (2nd ed.). Kluwer Law International. Knapp, C. L., Crystal, N. M., & Prince, H. G. (2012). Problems in contract law : cases and materials (7th ed.). Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. Litvinoff, Saúl. (1975). Obligations. West Publishing Company. Lord, R. A., & Williston, S. (1990). Williston on Contracts (4th ed., edited by Richard A. Lord.). Thomson West. MacQueen, H. (2006). Good Faith. In H. MacQueen, & R. Zimmerman (Eds.), European Contract Law: Scots and South African Perspectives (pp. 43-73). (Edinburgh Studies in Law). Edinburgh University Press. https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9780748624256.003.0002 Malek H. M. & Howard M. N. (2010). Phipson on evidence (17th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell Thomson Reuters. Markesinis, B., Unberath, H., & Johnston, A. Charles. (2006). The German law of contract : a comparative treatise (forewords by Lord Bingham and Günter Hirsch, 2nd ed.). Hart Publishing. Marsh, A. H. (1890). History of the Court of Chancery and of the Rise and Development of the Doctrines of Equity. Carswell. Matthews, P. (2010). The Words Which Are Not There: A Partial History of the Constructive Trust. In C. Mitchell (Ed.), Constructive and resulting trusts (pp. 3-62). Hart. McFarlane, B. (2014). The law of proprietary estoppel. Oxford University Press. McGhee, John (2005). Snell’s Equity (31th ed.). Thomson Sweet & Maxwell. McGregor H. (2003). Mcgregor on damages (17th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell. Mee, John, Proprietary Estoppel, Promises and Mistaken Belief (2011). In Susan Bright (Ed.), Modern Studies In Property Law (Vol. 6, 182-204). Oxford Hart Publishing. Milsom, S. F. C. (Stroud F. C. (1981). Historical foundations of the common law (2nd ed.). Butterworths. Murray, John E. Jr. (1983). Cases and Materials on Contracts (3rd edition). Michie Company. Parkinson, P. (2003). The Principles of Equity (2nd ed.). Lawbook Company. Peel, E., & Treitel, G. H. (2015). The law of contract (14th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell : Thomson Reuters. Plucknett, T. F. T. (2003). A concise history of the common law (5th ed.). Citic Publishing House. Pollock, F., Wald, G. H., & Williston, S. (1988). Principles of contract at law and in equity: A treatise on the general principles concerning the validity of agreements in the law of England and America (3rd American from the 7th English ed., with annotations and additions.). F.B. Rothman. (C1906) Pomeroy, J. N., Symons, S. W. (1941). A Treatise on Equity Jurisprudence as Administered in the United States of America: Adapted for All the States and to the Union of Legal and Equitable Remedies Under the Reformed Procedure (5th ed.). Bancroft-Whitney. Schmidt, J. P. (2018). Good faith and fair dealing. In Jansen N. & Zimmermann R. (Eds). Commentaries on European contract laws (pp. 103–104). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Seddon, N, Bigwood, R., Ellinghaus, M. P., Cheshire, G. C. & Fifoot, C. H. S. (2012). Law of Contract (10th Australian ed.), Butterworths. Snell E. H. T., Baker P. V. & Megarry R. (1973). Snell’s principles of equity (27th ed.). Sweet and Maxwell. Spence, Michael (1999). Protecting Reliance: The Emergent Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel. Hart. Stapleton, J. (1999), Good Faith in Private Law. In M. D. A. Freeman (ed.), Current Legal Problems (Vol. 52, pp. 1-36), Oxford University Press. Summers, R. S., & Hillman, R. A. (2011). Contract and related obligation : theory, doctrine, and practice (6th ed.). Thomson West. Wilson, J. Huhn (2002). The Five Types of Legal Argument. Carolina Academic Press. Wright, C., A., Miller, Arthur R., Kane, Mary Kay, & Cooper, Edward H. (1998). Federal practice and procedure (3rd ed.). Thomson West. Young, Peter W. Croft, Clyde E., & Smith, Megan Louise (2009). On Equity. Pyrmont, N.S.W. : Lawbook Company. Zimmermann, R., & Whittaker, Simon. (2000). Good faith in European contract law (edited by Reinhard Zimmermann and Simon Whittaker). Cambridge University Press. Periodicals (in alphabetical order) Adler, R. S., & Silverstein, E. M. (2000). When David Meets Goliath: Dealing with Power Differentials in Negotiations. Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 5, 1-112. Alden, Eric. (2016). Rethinking promissory estoppel. Nevada Law Journal, 16(2), 659-706. Bamforth, Unconscionalbility as a Vitiating Factor, [1995] Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 538. Bant, E., & Paterson, J. M. (2019). Estoppel, Misleading Conduct and Equitable Fraud, Journal of Equity, 13(2), 183-210 Barnett, R. E. (1984). Contact scholarship and the reemergence of the legal philosophy. Harvard Law Review, 97(5), 1223-1245. Barnett, R. E., & Becker, M. E. (1987). Beyond reliance: promissory estoppel, contract formalities, and misrepresentations. Hofstra Law Review, 15(3), 443-498 Bebchuk, Lucian Arye, & Ben-Shahar, Omri (2001). Precontractual reliance. Journal of Legal Studies, 30(2 Part 1), 423-458. Becker, M. A. (1987). Promissory estoppel damages. Hofstra Law Review, 16(1), 131-164. Ben-Dror, Yoav. (1983). The perennial ambiguity of culpa in contrahendo. American Journal of Legal History, 27(2), 142-198. Birks, Peter. (2000). Rights, wrongs, and remedies. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 20(1), 1-38. Boyer, B. F. (1950). Promissory estoppel: requirements and limitations of the doctrine. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 98(4), 459-498. Boyer, B. F. (1951-1952). Promissory estoppel: principle from precedents. Michigan Law Review 50(5), 639-674. Boyers, R. G. (1985-1986). Precluding inconsistent statements: the doctrine of judicial estoppel. Northwestern University Law Review, 80(5), 1244-1270. Brereton, P. L.G. (2007). Equitable Estoppel in Australia: The Court of Conscience in the Antipodes. Australian Law Journal 81(8), 638. Bridgeman, Curtis, & Goldberg, John C. P. (2012). Do promises distinguish contract from tort. Suffolk University Law Review, 45(3), 873-896. Bright, Susan, & McFarlane, Ben. (2005). Proprietary estoppel and property rights. Cambridge Law Journal, 64(2), 449-480. Burton, S. J. (1980). Breach of contract and the common law duty to perform in good faith. Harvard Law Review 94(2), 369-404. Burton, S. J. (1981). Good faith performance of contract within article of the uniform commercial code. Iowa Law Review, 67(1), 1-30. Butler, Des. (1994). Equitable estoppel: reflections and directions. Corporate & Business Law Journal, 6(2), 249-274. Cartwright, John (2006). Protecting Legitimate Expectations and Estoppel in English Law, European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance 10(3), 1-22. Chroust, Anton-Hermann (1942). Aristotle's conception of equity (epieikeia). Notre Dame Lawyer, 18(2), 119-128. Cleary, E. W. (1948). Res judicata reexamined. Yale Law Journal, 57(3), 339-350. Clermont, Kevin M. (2016). Res Judicata as Requisite for Justice. Rutgers University Law Review, 68(3), 1067-1141. Cooke, Elizabeth. (1997). Estoppel and the protection of expectations. Legal Studies, 17(2), 258-285. Craswell, Richard. (1989). Performance, reliance, and one-sided information. Journal of Legal Studies, 18(2), 365-402. Craswell, Richard. (1996). Offer, acceptance, and efficient reliance. Stanford Law Review, 48(3), 481-554. Currie, Brainerd. (1957). Mutuality of collateral estoppel: limits of the bernhard doctrine. Stanford Law Review, 9(2), 281-322. Currie, D. P. (1985). The constitution in the supreme court: full faith and the bill of rights, 1889-1910. University of Chicago Law Review, 52(4), 867-902. Deeks, A. S. (1997). Raising the cost of lying: rethinking erie for judicial estoppel. University of Chicago Law Review, 64(3), 873-902. Denning, A. T. (1952). Recent developments in the doctrine of consideration. Modern Law Review, 15(1), 1-10. DiMatteo, L. A. (1995). The norms of contract: the fairness inquiry and the law of satisfaction--a nonunified theory. Hofstra Law Review, 24(2), 349-454. Dixon, Martin. (2010). Confining and defining proprietary estoppel: the role of unconscionability. Legal Studies, 30(3), 408-420. Eisenberg, Melvin Aron. (1979). Donative promises. University of Chicago Law Review, 47(1), 1-33. Eisenberg, Melvin Aron. (1997). The world of contract and the world of gift. California Law Review, 85(4), 821-866. Eisenberg, R. A. (1971). Good faith under the uniform commercial code a new look at an old problem. Commercial Law Journal, 76(9), 296-304. Emmerglick, L. J. (1945). A Century of the new equity. Texas Law Review, 23(3), 244-256. Etherton, Terence (2009). Constructive trusts and proprietary estoppel: the search for clarity and principle. Conveyancer and Property Lawyer, 104-126. Farnsworth, E. Allan. (1963). Good faith performance and commercial reasonableness under the uniform commercial code. University of Chicago Law Review, 30(4), 666-679. Farnsworth, E. Allan. (1987). Precontractual liability and preliminary agreements: fair dealing and failed negotiations. Columbia Law Review, 87(2), 217-294. Feinman, J. M. (1984). Promissory estoppel and judicial method. Harvard Law Review, 97(3), 678-718. Feinman, J. M. (1992). The last promissory estoppel article. Fordham Law Review, 61(2), 303-316. Fuller, L.L. (1941). Consideration and Form. Columbia Law Review, 41(5), 799-824. Fuller, L.L. & Perdue, William R. (1936). The Reliance Interest in Contract Damages 1. Yale Law Journal, 46(1), 52-96. Fuller, L. L., & Perdue, William R. Jr. (1937). The reliance interest in contract damages: 2. Yale Law Journal, 46(3), 373-420. Gardner, S. (1999). The Remedial Discretion in Proprietary Estoppel. Law Quarterly Review, 115 (July), 438-468. Gardner, S (2006), The Remedial Discretion in Proprietary Estoppel – Again. Law Quarterly Review, 122 (July), 492-512. Goetz, C. J., & Scott, R. E. (1980). Enforcing promises: an examination of the basis of contract. Yale Law Journal, 89(7), 1261-1322. Green, M. D. (1984). The inability of offensive collateral estoppel to fulfill its promise: an examination of estoppel in asbestos litigation. Iowa Law Review, 70(1), 141-236. Hadjiyannakis, Helen. (1985). The parol evidence rule and implied terms: the sounds of silence. Fordham Law Review, 54(1), 35-82. Hage, Jaap, & Peczenik, Aleksander. (2000). Law, morals and defeasibility. Ratio Juris, 13(3), 305-325. Hamilton, W. H. (1931). Ancient maxim caveat emptor, the. Yale Law Journal, 40(8), 1133-1187. Hankin, Gregory. (1923-1924). Alternative and hypothetical pleadings. Yale Law Journal, 33(4), 365-382. Hazard, Geoffrey C.,Jr. (1981). The Lawyer’s Obligation to be Trustworthy When Dealing with Opposing Parties. South Carolina Law Review, 33(2), 181-196. Henderson, S. D. (1969). Promissory estoppel and traditional contract doctrine. Yale Law Journal 78(3), 343-387. Hillman, R. A. (1979). Policing contract modifications under the ucc: good faith and the doctrine of economic duress. Iowa Law Review, 64(4), 849-902. Hillman, R. A. (1998). Questioning the new consensus on promissory estoppel: an empirical and theoretical study. Columbia Law Review, 98(3), 580-619. Hird, N. J. (2005). Utmost Good Faith: Forward to the Past, Journal of Business Law, 2005(Mar), 257-264. Holmes, Eric Mills. (1996). Restatement of promissory estoppel. Willamette Law Review, 32(2), 263-516. Holmes, Eric Mills. (1996). The four phases of promissory estoppel. Seattle University Law Review, 20(1), 45-80. Husak, D. N. (1989). Principles of law: normative analysis. Law and Philosophy, 8(3), 405-411. Ibbetson, David. (1982). Assumpsit and debt in the early sixteenth century: the origins of the indebitatus count. Cambridge Law Journal, 41(1), 142-161. Ingersoll, Henry. (1911). Confusion of Law and Equity. Yale law journal, 21(1), 58-71. Jimenez, M. J. (2010). The many faces of promissory estoppel: an empirical analysis under the restatement (second) of contracts. University of California Law Review, 57(3), 669-724. Kessler, Friedrich, & Fine, Edith (1964). Culpa in Contrahendo, bargaining in good faith, and freedom of contract: comparative study. Harvard Law Review 77(3), 401-449 Key, Paul. (1995). Excising estoppel by representation as defense to restitution. Cambridge Law Journal, 54(3), 525-535. Kirk, Linda. (1991). Confronting the forms of action: the emergence of substantive estoppel. Adelaide Law Review, 13(2), 225-288 Knapp, C. L. (1969). Enforcing the contract to bargain. New York University Law Review, 44(4), 673-728. Knapp, C. L. (1998). Rescuing reliance: the perils of promissory estoppel. Hastings Law Journal, 49(Issues & 6), 1191-1336. Kostritsky, J. P. (1987). New theory of assent-based liability emerging under the guise of promissory estoppel: an explanation and defense. Wayne Law Review, 33(3), 895-964. Lake, R. B. (1984). Letter of intent: comparative examination under English, U.S., French and West German law. George Washington Journal of International Law and Economics, 18(2), 331-354. Leeming, Mark (2018). Receipt Clauses: From Estoppel by Deed to Contractual Estoppel Revisited. Law Quarterly Review, 134(April), 171-176. Liew, Ying Khai. (2019). The prima facie expectation relief approach in the Australian law of proprietary estoppel. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 39(1), 183-208. LOW, Kelvin Fatt Kin. (2012) Nonfeasance in Equity. Law Quarterly Review, 128(July), 63-87. Lucke, H. K. (1991). Non-contractual arrangement for the modification of performance: forbearance, waiver and equitable estoppel. University of Western Australia Law Review, 21(1), 149-182. Lunney, Mark (1992). Towards a Unified Estoppel-The Long and Winding Road. Conveyancer and Property Lawyer, 1992(4), 239-251. Malone, T. H. (1922). The tennessee law of judicial estoppel. Tennessee Law Review, 1(1), 1-29. Marsden, G. J., & Siedel, G. J. (2017). The Duty to Negotiate in Good Faith: Are BATNA Strategies Legal. Berkeley Business Law Journal, 14, 127-156. Mason, Sir Anthony (1994), The Place of Equity and Equitable Remedies in the Contemporary Common Law World. Law Quarterly Review, 110(April), 238-259. Mattar, Mohamed Yehia (1988). Promissory Estoppel: Common Law Wine in Civil Law Bottles. Tulane European and Civil Law Forum Forum, 4(1988), 71-149. McFarlane, B. & Robertson, A. (2008). The death of proprietary estoppel (Yeoman's Row v Cobbe). Lloyd's Maritime & Commercial Law Quarterly, 2008(4), pp. 449-460. Mee, John (2009), The Limits of Proprietary Estoppel: Thorner v Major. Child and Family Law Quarterly 21(3), 367-383. Metzger, M. B., & Phillips, M. J. (1983). Emergence of promissory estoppel as an independent theory of recovery. Rutgers Law Review, 35(3), 472-558. Mirmina, S. A. (1992). comparative survey of culpa in contrahendo, focusing on its origins in roman, german, and french law as well as its application in american law. Connecticut Journal of International Law, 8(1), 77-108 Morgan, S. M. (1985). comparative analysis of the doctrine of promissory estoppel in australia, great britain and the united states. Melbourne University Law Review, 15(1), 134-154. Neuberger. (2010). Thoughts on the law of equitable estoppel. Australian Law Journal, 84(4), 225–238. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/agispt.20102046 Novoa, Rodrigo (2005). Culpa in Contrahendo: A Comparative Law Study: Chilean Law and the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sales of Goods (CISG), Arizona Journal of inernational & Comparative Law, 22(3), 583-612. Palmieri, N. W. (1993). Good faith disclosures required during precontractual negotiations. Seton Hall Law Review, 24(1), 70-213. Patterson, D. M. (1988). Wittgenstein and the code: theory of good faith performance and enforcement under article nine. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 137(2), 335-430. Patterson, E. W. (1958). An Apology for Consideration. Columbia Law Review, 58(7), 929–963. https://doi.org/10.2307/1120291 Pham, P. N. (1993-1994). Waning of promissory estoppel. Cornell Law Review, 79(5), 1263-[iv]. Punch, Peter. (1976). Promissory estoppel in New South Wales. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 1(4), 355-364. Rakoff, T. D. (1991). Fuller and perdue's the reliance interest as work of legal scholarship. Wisconsin Law Review, 1991(2), 203-246. Robertson, A. (1996). Satsifying the minimum equity: equitable estoppel remedies after verwayen. Melbourne University Law Review, 20(3), 805-847. Robertson, A. (1998). Knowledge and unconscionability in unified estoppel. Monash University Law Review, 24(1), 115-144. Robertson, A. (1998). Reliance and expectation in estoppel remedies. Legal Studies, 18(3), 360-368 Robertson, A. (2008). The reliance basis of proprietary estoppel remedies. Conveyancer and Property Lawyer, 72 (4), pp.295-321. Salacuse, J. W. (2001). Renegotiating international project agreements. Fordham International Law Journal, 24(4), 1319-1370. Scott, R. E. (2007). Hoffman v. red owl stores and the myth of precontractual reliance. Ohio State Law Journal, 68(1), 71-102. Seavey, W. A. (1951). Reliance upon gratuitous promises or other conduct. Harvard Law Review, 64(6), 913-928. Seddon, Nicholas. (1975). Is equitable estoppel dead or alive in australia. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 24(3), 438-459. Shavell, Steven (1980). Damage Measures for Breach of Contract. The Bell Journal of Economics, 11(2) 466-490. https://doi.org/10.2307/3003374 Slawson, W. David (1990-1991). The Role of reliance in contract damages. Cornell Law Review, 76(1), 197-237. Snyder, David V. (1998). Comparative Law in Action: Promissory Estoppel, the Civil Law and the Mixed Jurisdiction. Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law 15(3), 695-751. Snyder, O. C. (1949). Promissory estoppel as tort. Iowa Law Review, 35(1), 28-48. Sombra, Thiago Luis. (2016). The duty of good faith taken to new level: an analysis of disloyal behavior. Journal of Civil Law Studies, 9(1), 27-56. Summers, R. S. (1968). Good faith in general contract law and the sales provisions of the uniform commercial code. Virginia Law Review, 54(2), 195-267. Summers, R. S. (1981-82). General duty of good faith-its recognition and conceptualization. Cornell Law Review, 67(4), 810-840. Taniguchi, Yasuhei. (2000). Good Faith and Abuse of Procedural Rights in Japanese Civil Procedure. Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law, 8, 167-188. Teeven, K. M. (2004). Origins of promissory estoppel: justifiable reliance and commercial uncertainty before williston's restatement. University of Memphis Law Review, 34(3), 499-606. Teubner, Gunther. (1998). Legal irritants: good faith in British law or how unifying law ends up in new divergences. Modern Law Review, 61(1), 11-32. Tolhurst, G. J., Carter, J. W., & Peden, Elisabeth. (2011). Masters cameron again. Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, 42(1), 49-64. Trukhtanov, Alexander (2014). Receipt Clauses: From Estoppel by Deed to Contractual Estoppel. Law Quarterly Review,130(Janurary), 131-159. Walker, Robert. (2008). Which side ought to win discretion and certainty in property law. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 2008(2), 229-240. Yorio, Edward, & Thel, Steve. (1991). The promissory basis of section 90. Yale Law Journal, 101(1), 111-168. Doctoral Dissertations and Master’s Thesis Spence, M. (1995). Australian estoppel and the protection of reliance [unpublished PhD thesis]. University of Oxford. Cases (in alphabetical order) Agricultural and Rural Finance Pty Ltd v Gardiner, (2008) 238 CLR 570; 251 ALR 322; [2008] HCA 57; BC200810883 Aikens LJ in Springwell Navigation Corp v JP Morgan Chase, [2010] EWCA Civ 1221 Ajayi v RT Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd., [1964] 1 WLR 1326 (PC) Alaska Bussell Electric Co. v. Vern Hickel Construction Co., 688 P.2d 576 (Alaska 1984). Allee v. Kirk, 602 S.W.2d 922 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980) Allegheny College v. National Chautauqua County Bank, 246 N.Y. 369, 159 N.E. 173 (1927) Allen v. Allen, 550 P.2d 1137 (Wyo. 1976) Allen v. Zurich Ins. Co., 667 F.2d 1162 (4th Cir. 1982) Amalgmated Investment & Property Co. Ltd. v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd. [1982] 1 QB 84 Arcadian Phosphates, Inc. v. Arcadian Corp., 884 F.2d 69 (1989). Arden LJ. in Ahmad v. Secret Garden (Cheshire) Ltd. (2013) EWCA Civ 1005 White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v. McGregor (1961) UKHL 5 Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 2 AC 91 Associated Electric & Gas Insurance Services Ltd v. European Reinsurance Company of Zurich, [2003] UKPC 11, [2003] 1 W.L.R. 1041, 14 (U.K. P.C.) (Eng.) Attorney-General (Hong Kong) v Humphreys Estate (Queens Gardens) Ltd, [1987] AC 114; [1987] 2 All ER 387; [1987] 2 WLR 343 Autofocus Ltd v Accident Exchange Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 788 Avon C.C. v Howlett [1983] 1 WLR 605 Avon County Council v Howlett, [I983] 1 All ER 1073 Baker v Baker , (1993) 25 HLR 408 Balcombe LJ in Roche v Church, CA 15 Feb 1993 Barger v. City of Cartersville, Ga., 348 F.3d 1289, 1294 (11th Cir. 2003) Barrow v. Bankside Members Agency Ltd [1996] 1 W.L.R. 257, 260 (Nov. 6-7, 1995) (C.A.) (Eng.) Baulkham Hills Private Hospital Pty Ltd v GR Securities Pty Ltd., (1986) 40 NSWLR 622 Bennett v. Charles Corporation, 226 S.E.2d 559 (W. Va. 1976). Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool Borough Council, [1990] 1 WLR 1195 Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Ill. Found., 402 U.S. 313 (1971) Boland v. Morrill, 275 Minn. 496, 148 N.W.2d 143 (1967) Bonkowski v. Allstate Ins. Co., 544 F.App’x 597 (2013) Boucher v. Boyer, 484 A.2d 630 (Md. 1984) BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt (No 2), [1979] 1 WLR 783 Bradbury v Taylor [2012] EWCA Civ 1208 Brian Constr. & Dev. Co. v. Brighenti, 405 A.2d 72 (Conn. 1978) Brikom Investments Ltd v Carr [I979] 2 All ER 753 (CA) Brooks v Kackney, 404 S.E.2d 854 (N.C. 1991) Brunsden v Humphrey (1884) 14 QBD 141 Buckland v Palmer [1984] 1 WLR 1109 Burkey v. Baker, 492 P.2d 563 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971) Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 291 F.3d 1282, 1285-86 (11th Cir. 2002) Burns v. Wood, 427 S.W.2d 353 (Tex. Civ. App. Tyler 1968) Burrows and Burrows v Sharp, (1989) 23 HLR 82 (CA) Burrows v Sharp (1991) 23 HLR 82 (CA) Butt v McDonald, (1896) 7 QLJ 68 Cahoon v Franks (1968) 63 DLR (2d) 274, Talbot v Berkshire CC [1994] QB 290 (CA). Call Carl, Inc. V. Bp Oil Corp., 554 F.2d 623 (4th Cir.) (1977) Campbell v Griffin, [2001] EWCA Civ 990 Cason v. Gibson, 61 S.E.2d 58 (S.C. 1950) Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd. [1947] 1 King’s Bench (K.B.) 130 Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine v George A Fuller Co 776 F (2d )198 (1985) Cobbe v Yeoman′s Row Management Ltd [2008] UKHL 55, [2008] 1 WLR 1752 Coggs v. Bernard, 92 Eng. Rep. 107 (K.B. 1703) Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd., [2007] EWCA Civ 1329, [2008] 1 WLR 243 Combe v Combe, [1951] 2 K.B. 215, 219; l All E R. 767 Commonwealth v Clark, [1994] 2 VR 333 (1993) Commonwealth v Verwagen (1990) 95 ALR 321 (HCA), 170 CLR 394 Conquer v Boot [1928] 2 KB 336 (Sankey LJ, CA) Construction Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Doueihi [2014] NSWSC 1717 Contrast Yaxley v Gotts [2000] Ch 162 Co-operative Insurance v. Argyll Stores Ltd., [1998] AC 1 Crabb v Arun District Council [1976] 1 Ch. 179, CA. Craine v Colonial Mutual Fire Insurance Co Ltd, (1920) 28 CLR 305 Creasey v Sole [2013] EWHC 1410 Curry v. Estate of Thompson, 481 A.2d 658 (1984) Cyberchron Corp. v. Calldata Systems Development, Inc., 47 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 1995). David Steel J in Titan Steel Wheels Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland plc, [2010] EWHC 211 (Comm), [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 92 Davilla v. Jones, 418 So.2d 724 (La. Ct. App. 4 Cir. 1982) Davis v. Davis, 855 P.2d 342 (Wyo. 1993). De Tchiatchef v The Salerni Coupling Ltd [1932] 1 Ch 330 Delaforce v Simpson-Cook, (2010) 78 NSWLR 483; [2010] NSWCA 84; BC201004997 Denning J in Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd., [1947] 1 KB 130 Department of Transp. v. Coe, 112 Ill. App. 3d 506, 510, 445 N.E.2d 506 (1983) DeRosa v. Nat’l Envelope Corp., 595 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2010) Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337 Dexter v Vlieland-Boddy [2003] EWCA Civ 14 DHJPM Pty Ltd v Blackthorn Resources Ltd., (2011) 285 ALR 311; [2011] NSWCA 348; BC201109695 Dixon & Anor v. Blindley Heath Investments Ltd. & Anor (2015) EWCA Civ 102 Dodsworth v Dodsworth (1973) 228 EG 1115 Donis v Donis (2007) 19 VR 577 Doyle v. Holy Cross Hospital, 682 N.E.2d 68 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997). DPP v Humpbreys [1977] AC 1 Drennan V. Star Paving Co., 51 Cal. 2d 409, 333 P.2d 757 (1958). Duke of Beaufort v Patrick, (1853) 17 Beav 60; 51 ER 954 Duplan Corp. v. Deering Milliken, Inc., 397 F. Supp. 1146 (D.S.C. 1975). Durkee v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 676 F. Supp. 189 (W.D. Wis. 1987) E Co v Q (No 4) [2019] NSWSC 429 Edwards v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 690 F.2d 595 (6th Cir. 1982) EK Nominees Pty Ltd v Woolworths Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1172; BC200609401 Emmanuel Ajayi v. Briscoe, [1964] 3 All E.R.556 Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976] QB 801. Federated Dep’t Stores v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394 (1981) Finley v. Kesling, 105 Ill. App. 3d 1, 433 N.E.2d 1112 (1982) Fisher v Brooker [2009] 1 UKHL 41, [2009] 1 WLR 1764 Flex-E-Vouchers Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2016] EWHC 2604 (Ch) Franklins Pty Ltd v Metcash Trading Pty Ltd (2009) 76 NSWLR 603; 264 ALR 15; [2009] NSWCA 407; BC200911627 Fraser v HLMAD Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 736; [2007] 1 All ER 383 (CA) Freeman v Cooke, (1848) 2 Ex 654; 154 ER 652 Gardner v. Commissioner of Probate Duties, W.A.R. 106 (1957) Gillett v Holt [2000] 2 All ER 289 (CA), [2001] 1 Ch 210 (CA); [2000] 3 WLR 815. Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101 (HCA) Goodman v. Dicker, 169 F.2d 684 (D.C. Cir. 1948) GR Securities Pty Ltd v Baulkham Hills Private Hospital Pty Ltd (1986) 40 NSWLR 631 Greenwood v Martin's Bank Ltd [I933] AC 5 1 Greiner v. Greiner, 293 P. 759 (Kan. 1930) Grundt v Great Boulder Gold Mines Pty Ltd (1937) 59 CLR 641 Hadley v Baxendale [1854] EWHC J70 Habberfield v Habberfield [2019] EWCA Civ 890 Haines v. Minnock Constr. Co., 433 A-2d 30 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981). Hamilton v. Zimmerman, 37 Tenn. (5 Sneed) 39 (1857). Harrison v Harrison [2013] VSCA 170 Hayes v. Plantations Steel Co. 438 A.2d 1091 (R.I. 1982). Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944) Hellbaum v. Burwell & Morford, 1 Wash. App. 694, 463 P.2d 225 (1969) Henderson v. Henderson, [1843] 3 Hare 100, 114-15 (Court of Chancery) (Eng.) Henry v Henry, [2010] All ER (D) 288 (Feb); [2010] UKPC 3; [2010] 1 All ER 988 Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 133 N.W.2d 267 (Wis. 1965) Hoftman v S.V. Company, 628 P.2d 218 (Idaho 1981) Holland v. Spear & Co., 193 Misc. 524, 83 N.Y.S.2d 21 (Mun. Ct. 1948) Hopgood v Brown [1955] EWCA Civ 7 Horn v. Cole 5l N.H. 287 (1868) Hossaini v. W. Mo. Med. Ctr., 140 F.3d 1140 (8th Cir. 1998) Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co., 2 App Cas 439 (1877) Hunter v. Chief Constable of West Midland Police, [1982] A.C. 529 (H.L.) (Eng.) Hurd v. Hutnik, 419 F. Supp. 630 (D.N.J. 1976) In re Coastal Plains, Inc., 179 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1999) Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1997] UKHL 28, [1998] 1 WLR 896 Inwards v Baker [1965] 2 QB 29 Isabella Shipowner SA v. Shagang Shipping Co. Ltd. (The Aquafaith) (2012) 1 CLC 899 Itek Corp. v. Chicago Aerial Industries, Inc., 248 A.2d 625 (Del. 1968) James Baird Co. v. Gimbel Brothers, 64 F.2d 344 (2d Cir. 1933) James v. Heim Calley (London) Ltd.,256 Estate Gazette 819 (1980) Je Mainriendrai v. Quaglia (1981) 26 S.A.S.R. 101 Jennings v Rice [2002] All ER (D) 324 (Feb); [2003] 1 FCR (UK) 501; [2003] 1 P & CR 100; [2002] EWCA Civ 159 John Bailey Constr. v. State, Dept. of Transp. Dev., 439 So.2d 1055 (La. 1983) Johnson v. Gore Wood & Co., [2002] 2 A.C. 1 (H.L.) (Eng.) Johnson Matthey Ltd v AC Rochester Overseas Corp (1990) 23 NSWLR 19 Jones v. Beavers, 269 S.E.2d 775 (Va. 1980) Jordan CJ in Franklin v Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Ltd, (1935) 36 SR (NSW) 76 Jordan v Money (1854) 5 HL Cas 185 Jungmann v. St. Regis Paper Co., 682 F.2d 195 (8th Cir. 1982) Kanstantinidis v Chen, 626 F 2d. 933(D.C. Cir 1980) Karnrnins Ballroom Co Ltd v Zenith Investments (Torquay) Ltd., [I970] 2 All ER 371 Keil v. Glacier Park, Inc., 614 P.2d 502 (Mont. 1980) Keily v. St. Germain, 670 P.2d 764 (Colo. 1983) Ker LJ in K. Lokumal & Sons (London) Ltd. v Lotte Shipping Co. Pte. Ltd. [1985] 2 Lloyd Rep. 28 CA Kinch v Walcott [1929] AC 482 (PC). King v. Duluth, 63 N.W. 1105 (Minn. 1895) Kirke La Shelle Co. v. Paul Armstrong Co., 263 N.Y. 79, 87, 188 N.E. 163(1933) Konstantinidis v. Chen, 626 F.2d 933 (D.C. Cir. 1980) Koval v Koval, 576 So. 2d 134 (Miss. 1991) Kradoska v. Kipp, 397 A.2d 562 (Me. 1979) Krystal Cadillac-Oldsmobile GMC Truck v. Gen. Motors Corp., 337 F.3d 314 (3d Cir. 2003) Krzewinski v. Eaton Homes, Inc., 161 N.E.2d 88 (Ohio Ct. App. 1958) Law Debenture Trust Corporation v Elektrim Finance NV [2006] EWHC 1305 (Ch) Lawlor v Gray [1984] 3 All ER 345 Legione v Hateley (1983) 152 CLR 406; 57 A.L.J.R., 292; 46 ALR 1 Lim Teng Huan v Ang Swee Chuan [1992] 1 WLR 113, PC Lipkin Gorman v Karpnal Ltd. [1991] 2 AC 548, HL Loomis v. Church, 76 Idaho 87, 277 P.2d 561 (1954) Love v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 677 F.3d 258, 261 (5th Cir. 2012) Malik v Kalyan, [2010] EWCA Civ 113 Market Street Associates Limited Partnership v. Frey (1991, 7th Cir) 941 F. 2d 588 Marsalis v. La Salle, 94 So. 2d 120 (La. Ct. App. 1957) Mason CJ in Commonwealth v Verwayen, (1990) 170 CLR 394, (1990) 170 CLR 394 Masters v Cameron, (1954) 91 CLR 353 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 106 S. Ct. 1348 (1986) McClelland J in Johnson Matthey Ltd v AC Rochester Overseas Corporation (1990) 23 NSWLR 190; BC9003181 McIlkenny v Chief Constable of the West Midlands, [1980] QB 283, CA. 17 Jan 1980. McNab v Graham (2017) 53 VR 311 Meagher JA in Walsh v Walsh, [2012] NSWCA 57 Mellem v. Kalispell Laundry Dry Cleaners (1989), 237 Mont. 439, 774 P.2d 390 Melotte v. Tucci, 66 N.E.2d 357 (Mass. 1946). Meretz Investments NV v ACP Ltd [2007] 1 Ch 197 Merex A.G. v. Fairchild Weston Systems, Inc., 29 F.3d 821, 825 (2d Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 737 (1995) Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 1702 (2017) Mobil Oil Australia Ltd v Lyndel Nominees Pty Ltd, (1998) 153 ALR 198. Moga v. Shorewater Advisors, L.L.C., No. A08-785, 2009 WL 982237, (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2009) Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147 (1979). Moore v Moore [2018] EWCA Civ 2669; [2019] 1 FLR 1277 Moorgate Mercantile Col. Ltd. V. Twitchings [1976] 1QB 225 Morgan J in Kotonou v National Westminster Bank Plc [2011] 1All ER (Comm) 1164 Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 12 (1983) MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA v. Cottonex Anstalt (2016) EWCA Civ 789 Mulkerrins v Pricewaterhouse Coopers [2003] 1 WLR 1937 MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd (Rev 1) [2016] EWCA Civ 553 (21 June 2016) National Westminster Bank v Morgan [1985] 2 WLR 588 Nelson v. Couch (1863), 15 C.B.N.S 99, (Court of Common Pleas) (Eng.). New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) Ottey v Grundy [2003] EWCA Civ 1176 Overstone Ltd v Shipway [1962] 1 WLR 117 (CA) Pascoe v Turner, [1979] 1 WLR 431,436 (CA) Patriot Cinemas, Inc. v. Gen. Cinema Corp., 834 F.2d 208 (1st Cir. 1987) Peek v Gurney, LR 6 HL 377 (1873) Peekay Intermark Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd, [2006] EWCA Civ 386, [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 511 Perlin v. Board Of Educ., 86 Ill. App. 3d 108, 114, 407 N.E.2d 792 (1980) Pewell v Benney, [2007] EWCA Civ 1283 Pickard v Sears (1837) 6 Ad & El 469; 112 ER 179 Pillans v. Van Mierop, 97 Eng. Rep. 1035 (K.B. 1765) Plimmer and Another v The Mayor, Councillors, and Citizens of the City of Wellington (1884) 9 App Cas 699 Plimmer v Wellington Corporation (1884) 9 App Cas 699 (PC) PMZ Oil Company v. Lucroy, 449 So. 2d 201 (Miss. 1984) Powell v Benney [2007] EWCA Civ 1283 Prime Sight Ltd v Lavarello, [2013] UKPC 22, [2014] AC 436 Priestley v Priestley [2017] NSWCA 155 Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Clark, 456 F.2d 932 (5th Cir. 1972) R. v Secretary of State for Environment, [1983] 1 WLR 524 Ramsden v Dyson (1866) LR 1 HL 129 Rauscher v. City of Lincoln, 691 N.W.2d 844 (Neb. 2005) RCM Supply Co. v. Hunter Douglas, Inc., 686 F.2d 1074 (4th Cir. 1982) Re Sharpe (A Bankrupt) [1980] 1 WLR 219; 1 AII ER 198 Revenue and Customs Comrs v Total Network SL [2008] UKHL 19 Ricketts v. Scothorn, 57 Neb. 51, 77 N.W. 365 (1898) Rissetto v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 343, 94 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 1996) Robertson v Minister of Pensions [I949] 1 KB 227 Rochdale Canal Company v King (1853) 16 Beav 630; 51 ER 924 Rock Advertising Limited (Respondent) v MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited (Appellant) [2018] UKSC 24 (16 May, 2018) Romanous v Saleh [2009] NSWSC 1166; BC200910450 Rossdale v Denny [1921] 1 Ch 57 Rossow Oil Co. v. Heiman, 72 Wis. 2d 696, 242 N.W.2d 176 (1976) Saleh v Romanous, (2010) 79 NSWLR 453; (2010) 15 BPR 29; [2010] NSWCA 274; BC201008063 Sanders v. United Distributors, Inc., 405 So.2d 536 (La. Cr App. 4th Cir. 1981), writ dcnied,4l0 So.2d 1130 (La. 1982) Sarat Chunder Dey v Gopal Chunder Laha ( 1892) 19 LR Ind App 203 (PC) Schaller v. Marine National Bank of Neenah, 131 Wis.2d 389, 388 N.W.2d 645 (Ct. Apps. Wis. 1986) Secretary of State For Trade And Industry v Bairstow & Ors [2004] EWHC 1730; Conlon v Simms [2008] 1 WLR 484 Secured Income Real Estate (Australia) Ltd v St Martins Investments Pty Ltd, (1979) 144 CLR 596 Shalimar Ass'n v. D.O.C. Enters., 688 P.2d 682 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984) Sidhu v Van Dyke (2014) 251 CLR 505; [2014] HCA 19. Sinclair Scott & Co Ltd v Naughton, (1929) 43 CLR 310 Skycom Corp. v. Telstar Corp., 813 F.2d 810 (7th Cir. 1987) Sledmore v Dalby (1996) 72 P & CR 196 Sons of Thunder, Inc. v. Borden, Inc., 148 N.J. 396 Standard Chartered Bank Aust Ltd v Bank of China (1991) 23 NSWLR 164 Steggles Ltd v Yarrabee Chicken Company Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 91; BC201204721 Stocznia Gdanska SA v. Latvian Shipping Co. (1996) CLC 1410 Stuart v Goldberg [2008] EWCA Civ 2 (Lloyd LJ, CA) Suggitt v Suggitt [2012] EWCA Civ 1140 Sullivan v Sullivan [2006] NSWCA 312 Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Co., [2004] EWCA (Civ) 1660, [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 606 (C.A.) (Eng.) Sutcliffe v Lloyd, [2007] EWCA Civ 153, [2007] 2 EGLR 13 Sutherland v. Barclays American/Mortgage Corp., 61 Cal. Rptr. 2d 614 (Ct. App. 1997). Swinton v. Whitinsville Sav. Bank, 42 N.E. 2d 808 (1942) Syros Shipping Co. S.A v Elaghill Trading Co., [1981]3 All E.R. 189 Tanwar Enterprises Pty Ltd v Cauchi, (2003) 217 CLR 315 (High Court of Australia) Taylor v Dickens [1998] 1 FLR 806 Taylor Fashions Ltd., v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd., [1982] QB 133 (Ch) 156 Taylor Walton v Laing [2007] EWCA Civ 1146 Thoday v Thoday, [1964] P 181(CA) Thompson v Palmer (1933) 49 CLR 507 Thorner v Major [2009] All ER (D) 257 (Mar); [2009] NLJR 514; [2009] UKHL 18; [2009] 1 WLR 776 Tradin, Argy, Development Co., Ltd. v. Lapid Development Ltd., [1977] I W.L.R. 444 Trust (UK) Ltd v Provident Mutual Life Assurance [1995] EGLR 33 (Ch) Tull v. Mister Donut Dev. Corp., 7 Mass. App. Ct. 626, 389 N.E.2d 447 (1979) U.S. v. Apple, Inc., 791 F.3d 290 (2d Cir. 2015) United States v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 498 F. Supp. 353 (D.D.C. 1980) United States v. Mendoza, 104 S. Ct. 568 (1984) United States v. School Dist. Of Ferndale, Mich., 577 F.2d 1339 (6th Cir. 1978) United States v. Stauffer Chem. Co., 104 S. Ct. 575 (1984) United States v. Williams, 489 F.App’x 655 (4th Cir. 2012) United Steel Co. v. Casey, 262 F. 889 (6th Cir. 1920) Unity Joint Stock Banking Corporation v King (1858) 25 Beav 72; 53 ER 563 USLIFE Corp. V. United States Life Ins. Co., 560 F. Supp. 1302 (N.D. Tex. 1983) Vartanian Family Trust No. 1 v. Galstian Family Trust, 724 S.W.2d 126 (Tex. App. Dallas 1987) Vector Gas Ltd v Bay of Plenty Energy Ltd [2010] NZSC 5, [2010] 2 NZLR 444 Venture Assocs. Corp. v. Zenith Data Systems Corp., 987 F.2d 429 (7th Cir. 1993) Vice-Chancellor Bacon in Keate v. Phillips, 18 Ch. D. 560 (1881) Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v. Zodiac Seats UK Ltd (formerly Contour Aerospace Ltd), [2013] UKSC 46, [2013] 3 W.L.R. 299, ¶ 17 (U.K.S.C.) (Eng.) Walford v. Miles [1992] 2 A.C. 128 Walker v. KFC Corp., 515 F. Supp. 612 (S.D. Cal. 1981) Walsh v Walsh, [2012] NSWCA 57 Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher , (1988) 164 CLR 387; 76 ALR 513; [1988] HCA 7; BC8802656 Wayling v Jones, (1993) 69 P & CR 170 (CA) West Farms Estate Co. V. Consolidated Edison Co., 75 A.D.2d 622, 426 N.Y.S.2d 837 (1980) Wheeler v. White, 398 S.W.2d 93 (Tex. 1965) White Cypress Lakes Dev. Corp. v. Hertz, 541 So. 2d 1031 (Miss. 1989) Whorley v. First Westside Bank, 485 N.W.2d 578 (Neb. 1992) Willmott v Barber (1880) 15 Ch D 96(ch) WJ Alan & Co Ltd v El Nasr Export and Import Co [I972] 2 QB 189, 213 (CA) Wojciechowski v. Amoco Oil Co., 483 F. Supp. 109 (E.D. Wis. 1980 Woods v Libby 635 A. 2d 960 (1993) Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon, 222 N.Y. 88, 118 N.E. 214 (1917) Yam Seng Pte Ltd. v. International Trade Corp Ltd. (2013) 1 CLC 662 Yarrabee Chicken Company Pty Ltd v Steggles Ltd., [2010] FCA 394; BC201002462 Yaxley v Gotts, [2000] Ch 162 (CA) Yeoman's Row Management Ltd & Anor v Cobbe [2008] UKHL 55 (30 July 2008) Youell v Bland Welch & Co. Ltd. [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 431 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/92164 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 禁反言(Estoppel),字面上為禁止或排除之意。禁反言原則,一言以蔽之,就是對於前後不一致之言行,在一定情況下為法律所禁止。在英美法系國家,禁反言不論是在民事實體法或是民事程序法,均為一深具廣泛性、重要性及影響力的法則。
綜觀禁反言於英、美、澳洲等國家之發展,禁反言原則共有三條重要脈絡:一、經由正規程序表明之事實,例如書面約據所聲明之事實,過渡到言語行為所表見之外觀,禁反言法則的適用,不再局限於書面約據、正式程序等形式,前後矛盾不一致的口頭陳述、行為亦有其適用。二、將引致信賴之行為從事實或權利狀態之陳述擴及到未來允諾,前者意在使特定事實或法律效果於當事人間發生如同該陳述客觀上可得理解之意義(不論與現實狀態是否相符),作為當事人間權利義務之認定基礎;後者的目的則在於確保正當期待允諾之作為或不作為,不因合理信賴而受有損害。三、從消極防禦,如禁止否認事實、禁止權利人行使法律規定所賦予之權利,躍升為獨立的請求權基礎(訴因),亦即,准許合理信賴一方當事人之陳述或允諾,且嗣後因為與該陳述或允諾矛盾之行為受有損害者,循禁反言法則請求法院准許衡平救濟。 於大陸法系國家,雖然自中世紀時期的羅馬法即有「禁止自相矛盾原則」(即拉丁法諺“Venire Contra Factum Proprium”)存在,但僅適用於既存契約關係中有關於事實或權利的陳述,依誠信原則,從前行為可正當地推導出權利不存在或不予行使之結論者,嗣後之權利行使為不合法。故於德國債法上,自相矛盾行為屬於違反誠信原則的一種特殊類型。 與普通法系自衡平法則導出之禁反言相較,引致信賴之推測或期待事後反悔,有違正當期待(客觀誠信)而予以禁止,某程度在理念上與合理信賴保護之概念相通,兩者皆以追求個案之公平正義為最終價值。惟衡平法上的禁反言法則適用的層面更加廣泛而有彈性。其中又以允諾禁反言與財產禁反言兩大分支最為活躍。而其適用與操作,又於英美澳洲等不同國家各自展現出不同面貌。 禁反言於我國實體法上向來被認為與權利濫用、權利失效同屬民法第148條第2項所揭示之誠信原則所派生。但與普通法系國家所認知之禁反言法則存在若干差異。首先,誠信原則要以存在某種法律關係為前提,而禁反言則不以此為限。於外國立法例或實務操作上,禁反言不僅可用以限制既有權利之行使,甚至得創設一定法律關係或權利義務。其次,誠信原則本身不能作為請求權基礎,但默許基礎或允諾基礎的禁反言則可單獨作為請求權基礎。又,禁反言之適用以否認自己陳述或允諾之矛盾行為為必要之事實門檻要件,惟矛盾行為未必構成誠信義務之違反,反之,違反誠信之權利行使或義務履行,亦未必屬於矛盾行為。 禁反言於我國程序法領域之運用,略可區分兩種不同層面加以觀察。其一,基於司法程序上前後不能相容並存之矛盾行為,使其不生訴訟行為之效力者,亦即「訴訟上矛盾行為之禁止」,此與美國實務所稱之司法禁反言(judicial estoppel)相近;其二,源於確定裁判之作成,禁止後訴就同一案件或相同爭點再為爭執者,於英美國家又稱之為排除效 (preclusion effect)。排除效以前訴中已為充分辯論並經法院審理之事項,於後訴再為爭執者,應禁止提出或排除相反之主張或證據,包含「同一案件再爭執之禁止」與「爭點再爭執之禁止」。此等作用主要考慮的是確定裁判對於後訴可爭執範圍的影響,而非以當事人有矛盾行為存在為必要,故與司法禁反言有別。相較於實體法上之禁反言法則,其相對較不強調合理信賴及因矛盾行為受有損害,而融入更多程序法的元素,如維護司法程序之誠正性、避免裁判矛盾、紛爭一次性解決及促進訴訟經濟等。 觀諸普通法國家之發展經驗,禁反言中以允諾為基礎之個別適用原則,不限於契約關係之視角,於財產關係之運用尤甚。反觀我國,締約前階段所為之協議是否因尚未訂立契約即全然無拘束力?片面中斷磋商是否一概可遁入契約自由而得全身而退?契約關係存續中,債權人口頭同意接受改變履行方式或寬延期限,事後能否再以未依契約約定書面變更無效為由予以否認,並行使終止契約之權利?不動產權利之創設、移轉、變更未完成書面契約或法定程序以前,當事人因信賴允諾或陳述受有損害時,特別是在家庭成員間、長期照護與被照護者間,非屬商業交易往來之信賴,能否透過禁反言法則作更妥善的處理,均深值探討。 隨著法制文化背景及各國司法實務之實際需要,禁反言在不同國家,不同法學領域,其具體射程及作用方式有著不同的演進方向,且與當代民法理論基礎朝向客觀化的誠信原則,強調公平性、合理性等移動軌跡相連動。深入觀察此等發展脈絡,應有助於吾人在正確而充分理解之基礎上,評估如何將禁反言原則轉化為助益我國法學進步之養分。本研究旨趣即在於深入梳理英美法國家禁反言原則之累進成果,俾與我國之學理及實務運用進行觀照,並提出分析及建議。 本文共分八章,第二章就普通法系之禁反言法則發展做鳥瞰式回顧,針對禁反言之衡平本質與論理根據展開梳理,特別是顯失公平、合理信賴、公平正義等不確定法律概念,對於禁反言發揮何等作用及影響加以探討。第三章、第四章分別從契約關係與財產關係切入,觀察各種禁反言與此等領域之適用及操作,及如何與既有之法律規則、規定協調。第五章係有關於禁反言效果所設之專章,聚焦於責任成立以後,法院如何裁量救濟範圍、程度及手段做深入討論。第六章介紹民事程序法上之禁反言法則,俾與實體法作一對照觀察。第七章回歸到我國現況,從法學方法論的角度評估導入禁反言法則之可能路徑,並於第八章提出本文總結。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Estoppel is a doctrine of far-reaching inclusion, significance and great influence in both Civil Law and Civil Procedure Law. From an overview of common law countries, three notable trails are demonstrated. First, the basis which estoppel replies on has moved from formal records to statements or conducts. Second, conducts which reliance is induced are no longer restrained to factual restatements of the past but also promises to be performed in the future. Third, the function which estoppel is referred to has transformed from defensive use as a shield to cause of action as aggressive as a sword.
In Taiwan, estoppel is treated in the same way of abuse of right or laches as a subsidiary to the good faith principle revealed in section 2 of Article 148 in Civil Law, although much subtle differences should be recognized. In field of Civil Procedural Law, two relevant observations can be inducted: for one is the bar effect applied to inconsistent procedural behaviors and the other, is the preclusion effect on those re-litigated issues. It deserves our attention that estoppel has come alongside and served reactively with the trend of modern law, emphasizing fairness, reasonableness, towards the objectification of good faith. The main purpose of this research is to figure out what estoppel really do from a perspective view and try to evaluate how that can benefit our legal system. After an introduction over the developments of estoppel doctrine in England, United States and Australia, a couple of key topics will be discussed in turn. In Chapter 2, the nature of estoppel oriented to equity upon several rationale concepts, including unconscionability, reasonable reliance, fairness and justice, will be examined further. In Chapter 3 and 4, the application of estoppel, focused on its correlation with contract and property, is analyzed with real cases respectively. The remedy for estoppel is detailed in Chapter 5 by its methodology, namely, the equitable discretion on the scale, extent as well as proper measures needed to put it right. In Chapter 6, estoppel (exchangeable for the word “preclusion”) in Civil Procedure Law is displayed in comparison with estoppels in private law system. In Chapter 7, based on current legal system in Taiwan, the way to incorporate estoppel doctrines is evaluated and provided according to legal methodologies. And finally, the key findings of this research are outlined in Chapter 8. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2024-03-07T16:22:53Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2024-03-07T16:22:53Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 目次
口試委員會審定書 I 中文摘要 II 英文摘要 V 目次 VII 圖次 XXVI 表次 XXVII 第一章 研究緣起與問題提出 1 第一節 禁反言於我國法之發展 1 壹、民事實體法之運用 1 貳、民事程序法之運用 3 第二節 問題提出與研究方法 6 壹、問題提出 6 貳、研究目的 8 叁、研究方法 8 一、範圍及限制 8 二、方法及路徑 8 (一)教義分析 8 (二)比較分析 8 (三)功能分析 9 第二章 概論 10 第一節 禁反言於普通法系之發展 10 壹、禁反言法則之演變 10 一、從正規程序到矛盾行為 10 (一)以正式書面為據之形式禁反言 10 (二)以言語行為為據之形式禁反言 10 二、從既存事實到未來允諾 11 (一)陳述基礎的禁反言 11 (二)允諾基礎的禁反言 12 1.允諾禁反言 12 2.財產禁反言 13 3.允諾基礎禁反言之定性 13 三、從消極防禦到積極請求 14 (一)交易對價之意義 15 (二)交易對價之定性及作用 15 (三)允諾禁反言作為交易對價之替代或補充 16 貳、禁反言之分類 18 一、從正當性基礎觀察 18 (一)形式禁反言(Fornal Estoppel) 18 (二)衡平禁反言(Equitable Estoppel) 18 二、從作用方式觀察 19 (一)消極防禦 19 1.禁止否認事實 19 2.限制權利行使 20 (二)積極請求 20 叁、小結 21 第二節 「禁止自相矛盾」原則 23 壹、意義及目的 23 貳、與誠信原則之派生關係 23 叁、禁止自相矛盾原則之適用基礎 24 肆、與禁反言之重疊關係 25 伍、禁反言的邊界問題 26 一、中斷磋商 26 二、口頭改變契約約定 26 三、合理信賴陳述 27 四、不當得利返還 28 第三節 一般適用原則 30 壹、衡平法則 30 一、禁反言的衡平本質 30 (一)衡平的意義及目的 30 (二)衡平權利與衡平義務 31 (三)禁反言法則之衡平性質 32 二、以信賴保護為核心 34 (一)英國 34 (二)澳洲 34 (三)美國 35 貳、顯失公平法則 36 一、顯失公平之意義及功能 36 (一)從方法論觀察 36 1.原則基礎(principle-based) 37 2.規則基礎(rule-based) 37 3.原則基礎與規則基礎之關係 37 (二)從實質內涵觀察 39 1.狹義的顯失公平 39 2.廣義的顯失公平 39 3. 廣、狹義顯失公平之並用 40 (三)顯失公平法則之審查結構 41 1.責任要件 41 2.責任效果 43 二、顯失公平法則之具體化 44 (一)行為要件 44 1.衡平法的傳統操作 44 2.普通法之公平正義概念 45 (二)信賴要件 49 1.信賴之意義 49 2.信賴要件之要素 51 3.信賴要件之作用 53 4.信賴要件之證明 54 (三)損害要件 54 第四節 個別化適用原則 57 壹、廣義的衡平禁反言 57 一、默許基礎的禁反言 57 二、陳述基礎的禁反言 58 (一)陳述禁反言 58 (二)協議禁反言 59 三、允諾基礎的禁反言 60 (一)減縮給付義務之允諾 60 (二)不行使權利之允諾 61 (三)報價要約(bid offer)之默示允諾 61 (四)負擔權利義務之允諾 61 1.無償允諾(gratuitous promises) 61 2.互惠合作之允諾 63 (五)移轉或授予財產權利之允諾 63 貳、狹義的衡平禁反言 63 一、美國 63 二、澳洲 63 第五節 禁反言的作用及限制 66 壹、消極防禦 66 一、排除相反於陳述之事實 66 二、限制既有權利之行使 66 貳、積極請求 68 一、獨立請求權基礎之意義 68 二、允諾基礎禁反言受到限制的理由 69 (一)限制性觀點 69 (二)開放性觀點 70 第三章 禁反言於契約關係之適用 72 第一節 允諾基礎禁反言之發展背景 72 第二節 禁反言與契約法則之交錯 75 壹、締約前階段之陳述及允諾 75 一、個別義務 75 (一)誠信與公平交易原則 75 1.誠信原則的意義 75 2.普通法背景下誠信原則的發展 76 3.誠信義務之具體化方法 77 4.誠信磋商義務 79 5.誠信與公平交易原則於締約前階段之適用空間 81 (二)不實陳述 82 1.允諾的不實陳述 82 2.消極不作為 83 二、一般義務 84 (一)理論基礎 84 (二)先契約義務之內涵 85 1.未注意保護他人之固有法益 86 2.對於契約之成立生效或維持要件未盡注意義務 87 3.不實陳述或隱匿與契約締結有關之重大資訊 87 4.無締約意願之磋商或無故中斷磋商 87 (三)法律效果 88 三、禁反言法則 88 (一)英國法、澳洲法的取徑 89 (二)美國法的取徑 90 1.非正式允諾與交易對價之允諾 90 2.締約前階段之允諾 91 3.允諾禁反言之效果 91 4.責任建構基礎的選擇 93 貳、權利義務關係之確認及變動 94 一、契約權利義務之確認 94 (一)口頭證據之排除 94 1.口頭證據規則之意義 94 2.口頭證據規則之政策考量與局限性 94 3.破除口頭證據規則之容許性 95 4.禁反言與口頭證據規則之交錯 96 (二)契約禁反言 97 1.契約禁反言之意義 97 2.契約禁反言之定性 98 3.契約禁反言之限制 99 (三)協議禁反言 100 1.協議禁反言之意義 100 2.協議禁反言之限制 100 (四)允諾禁反言 101 (五)小結 104 二、契約權利義務之變動 105 (一)既存義務變動之限制 105 1.既存義務規則之意義 105 2.單方義務變動的容許性 106 (二)實際利益法則 107 (三)口頭變更排除條款 108 1.口頭變更排除條款 108 2.英國MWB案 108 (四)允諾禁反言之操作 110 1.既有法律關係下單方義務之變動 110 2.不嚴格主張契約上權利之允諾 111 3.對允諾之信賴 111 4.暫時性地改變權利義務關係 111 (五)小結 112 第二節 允諾基礎禁反言之理論根據 114 壹、信賴保護 114 一、信賴保護之意義 115 二、信賴保護之作用 116 (一)責任定性之爭論 116 1.類契約責任(contract-like liability) 117 2.類侵權責任(tort-like Liability) 117 (二)責任基礎之爭論 118 1.允諾基礎理論 118 2.信賴基礎理論 119 貳、信賴保護對於禁反言之影響 121 一、Fuller & Perdue信賴利益理論之提出 121 二、對允諾禁反言之影響 122 (一)無償允諾之差別對待 122 (二)貫徹完全損害填補原則 123 第三節 允諾基礎禁反言之類型化分析 125 壹、締約前階段之陳述 125 一、案例類型 125 二、分析 126 貳、締約前階段之允諾 128 一、中斷磋商 128 二、違反初步協議之允諾 132 (一)傳統契約法則的侷限 132 1.交易對價 132 2.相互同意之意思合致表示 132 (二)初步協議 133 1.初步協議之意義及特殊性 133 2.初步協議之意涵 133 3.違反誠信義務的效果 134 叁、寬延給付條件之允諾 136 肆、勞動條件變更或退休條件之允諾 138 伍、無償允諾 139 陸、互助行為之允諾 140 第四節 禁反言於契約關係之適用界線 141 壹、與契約責任之分界 141 一、事實門檻要件 141 (一)允諾 141 1.認定標準 141 2.不以對履行力之信賴為必要 143 (二)信賴 145 (三)損害 147 二、法律裁量要件 148 (一)公平正義要件之衡平性質 148 (二)法院裁量權限之行使範圍 148 (三)衡平裁量權限之限制 149 貳、與契約保留協議之分界 149 一、契約保留效力之強度 149 二、契約保留對衡平責任之影響 150 (一)狹義觀點 150 (二)廣義觀點 150 (三)對禁反言操作基準之影響 151 第四章 禁反言與財產關係之適用 152 第一節 財產禁反言之類型意義 152 壹、個別適用法則之區辨 152 一、「單方錯誤」(Unilateral mistake) 152 (一) Willmott案列舉的待證事實要件 153 (二) Ramsden案對於明知沉默的闡釋 153 二、「共同期待」(Common expectation) 153 三、瑕疵允諾(Imperfect promise) 154 貳、財產禁反言之特殊性 155 一、廣泛的裁量彈性 155 二、和允諾禁反言區別對待的理由 156 (一)交易對價 156 (二)信賴關係 157 第二節 財產禁反言之論理分析—英國法之發展 159 壹、錯誤理論與期待理論之消長 159 一、Ramsden v Dyson案 159 (一)錯誤理論分支 159 (二)「期待理論分支」 160 二、Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row案 160 (一)事實誤認理論 161 (二)權利誤認理論 162 (三) Cobbe案對財產禁反言之影響 162 三、Thorner v Mayer案 163 (一)明確無疑標準 164 (二)足夠明確標準 164 (三) Thorner案對財產禁反言之影響 165 貳、財產禁反言之現代樣貌 166 一、事實情境對財產禁反言的影響 166 (一) Cobby及Thorner兩案事實情境之差異 166 (二)情境因素之作用 167 1.要件差異論 167 2.情境解釋論 168 二、不以既存法律關係為必要 168 第三節 財產禁反言之論理分析—美國法之發展 170 壹、口頭允諾之履行力 170 一、所有權移轉之口頭允諾 170 (一)以相關書面文件為輔助之允諾 171 (二)根據言語或行為推論之允諾 171 二、地用途性質之口頭允諾 171 (一)官方登記文件 172 (二)官方登記以外之文件 173 三、創設地役權之口頭允諾 173 (一)衡平裁量之目的及正當性 174 (二)衡平救濟之要件 174 貳、使他人信賴之言語或行為 174 一、默許不動產增益或改良行為 175 二、默示的地役權 175 (一)適用禁反言之目的及正當性 176 (二)禁反言法則之適用要件 177 第四節 財產禁反言之類型化分析 178 壹、不動產交易之允諾 178 一、初步協議 178 二、待完成簽訂書面契約之允諾 179 貳、通行權之允諾 181 一、明示的允諾 182 二、默示的允諾 183 三、暫時性的許諾 183 四、消極的默許 183 叁、越界建築 184 一、土地邊界之錯誤陳述 184 二、錯誤的修繕指示 185 三、實體圍籬與權利範圍不符 186 肆、遺產繼承之允諾 187 伍、權利施惠之允諾 191 一、鼓勵相對履行之允諾 191 二、施惠行為之允諾 193 三、情誼關係之允諾 194 第五節 禁反言於財產關係之適用邊界 196 壹、不動產權利之口頭允諾效力 196 一、允諾之意義 196 (一)狹義的允諾 196 (二)較廣義的允諾 196 (三)最廣義的允諾 196 二、允諾之認真性 197 貳、要式規定對信賴要件之影響 198 第五章 禁反言的救濟 200 第一節 前言 200 第二節 衡平救濟之目的論 202 壹、責任屬性之區辨 202 一、嚴格法律責任 202 二、衡平責任 203 貳、目的分析理論 204 一、導正顯失公平理論 204 二、防免損害理論 205 叁、衡平救濟之裁量彈性及限制 207 一、與個別適用法則之一貫性 207 (一)默許基礎的禁反言 207 (二)陳述基礎的禁反言 207 (三)允諾基礎的禁反言 207 二、裁量方法之結構化 208 (一)衡平權利(義務)之定性 208 (二)衡平權利(義務)之定量 209 第三節 衡平救濟之裁量基準 210 壹、期待基礎 210 一、期待基礎之意義 210 二、期待基礎之操作原則 211 (一)最小衡平原則 211 1.可譴責性(the 'reprehensibility' approach) 212 2.可歸責性(the 'extent of responsibility' approach) 212 3.全面性觀察(the 'in the round' approach) 213 4.顯失公平要件對救濟範圍之影響 214 (二)比例原則 215 1.約當於期待利益 216 2.低於期待利益 218 貳、信賴基礎 220 一、信賴基礎之意義 220 二、信賴基礎之操作原則 222 (一)最小衡平原則 222 1.損害之定義 222 2.因果關係之認定 224 3.不利益信賴要件對衡平救濟範圍之影響 225 (二)比例原則 227 1.以信賴損失為起點 227 2.以廣義損害為起點 227 叁、執行方法之裁量 229 一、區辯之意義 229 二、考量因素 229 (一)授予不動產權利之允諾 230 (二)隱含不確定條件的允諾 230 肆、美國法之實踐 230 一、履行利益說 231 二、信賴損失說 232 第四節 衡平救濟之審查結構 234 壹、英國之操作基準 234 一、衡平權利之範圍 234 二、衡平權利之程度 234 三、實現權利的方法 234 貳、澳洲操作基準 234 一、衡平權利之範圍 234 二、衡平權利之程度 235 三、實現權利的方法 235 第六章 禁反言於民事程序法之適用 238 第一節 矛盾主張之禁止 239 壹、訴訟上矛盾行為禁止之法則 239 一、衡平禁反言(Equitable Estoppel) 239 二、司法禁反言(Judicial Estoppel) 240 (一)定義 240 (二)與其他訴訟上禁反言之異同 240 貳、司法禁反言之目的及正當性 241 一、司法宣誓之神聖性 242 二、司法誠正性 242 三、確保訴訟當事人間之公平 243 叁、司法禁反言之射程範圍 244 一、矛盾之事實主張 244 二、司法或準司法程序 244 (一)同一訴訟之前後階段程序 244 1.訴答自由性 244 2.解決不一致性之程序機制 244 (二)不同訴訟案件之程序 245 肆、司法禁反言之操作 246 第二節 再爭執之禁止 248 壹、終局判決之效力 248 一、既判力與判決效力 248 二、終局性法則與排除效 248 貳、排除效之射程範圍及正當性基礎 250 一、英國法 250 (一)排除效之射程範圍 250 (二)排除效之正當性基礎 251 二、美國法 252 (一)排除效之射程範圍 252 1.訴訟排除效(claim preclusion) 252 2.爭點排除效(issue preclusion) 253 (二)排除效之正當性基礎 254 叁、排除效之操作 255 一、英國模式 255 (一)作為確保終局性之手段 255 1.於後訴中就前訴已為認定之事實提出相牴觸之主張 255 2.後訴之請求係前訴中可得提出且應予提出 255 (二)結合程序濫用抑制措施為用 256 1.前訴應提出而未提出 256 2.後訴攻擊前訴 257 二、美國 257 (一)訴訟排除效 258 (二)爭點排除效 258 1.相同之對立當事人 258 2.爭點同一性 259 2.當事人於前訴中曾為實質爭執並經法院判斷 260 3.前訴實際爭執且經判斷之事項 260 4.為前訴判決之必要前提 260 肆、排除效之相對性 262 一、相對性原則 262 二、相對性原則之例外 262 (一)防禦性禁反言 262 (二)攻擊性禁反言 263 三、去相對性之限度 263 伍、小結 264 第七章 禁反言於我國之發展及評估 268 第一節 我國民事實體法上之禁反言 268 壹、禁反言法則之認識與體現 268 一、直接以禁反言原則作為認事用法之依據 268 (一)行政程序法 268 (二)專利法、商標法上之禁反言原則 268 1.專利法 268 2.商標法 269 二、由誠信原則之具體化或演繹派生而來 269 (一)民法第425條之一第1項規定之推定租賃 269 (二)民法796條、第796條之1規定之越界建築 270 三、正當信賴之保護 271 (一)矛盾行為禁止之信賴要件 271 (二)構成矛盾行為之信賴要件 274 貳、禁反言於司法實務之實踐 275 一、權利失效 276 (一)權利失效之意涵 276 1.本於誠信原則所發展出之法律原則 276 2.適用於非單純沉默之矛盾行為 277 (二)權利失效之操作 277 1.適用之對象 278 2.不行使權利之期間 278 3.客觀上足使他人相信不行使權利 279 二、權利濫用 280 (一)權利濫用之意涵 280 (二)權利濫用之操作 282 三、否認消極不作為之允諾 283 (一)不行使權利之明示允諾 283 (二)不行使權利之默示允諾 283 叁、禁反言之法則分析 285 一、默許基礎 286 (一)明知沉默 286 1.明知要素 286 2.沉默要素 287 (二)信賴之合理性 288 二、陳述基礎 289 (一)錯誤之事實陳述 289 (二)錯誤事實陳述與意思表示錯誤之交錯 290 1.無過失的意思表示錯誤 290 2.有過失的意思表示錯誤 291 3.意思形成錯誤 291 4.共同錯誤 292 三、允諾基礎 293 (一)贈與允諾之拘束力 293 (二)要物、要式規定之緩和 294 1.要物、要式規定嚴苛性 294 2.緩和要物、要式規定之途徑 295 肆、禁反言之功能分析 297 一、排除矛盾事實之作用 297 (一)共同理解之事實行為 297 1.背景事實 297 2.最高法院見解 297 3.更一審見解 298 4.禁反言法則之操作 298 (二)合理信賴之事實 300 二、限定權利行使之範圍 303 (一)存在信賴要件之案例 303 (二)不存在信賴要件之案例 305 三、彌補契約解釋之窮 305 第二節 我國民事訴訟法上之禁反言 307 壹、禁反言法則之認識與體現 307 一、以矛盾主張為基礎之禁反言 307 二、以確定判決為基礎之禁反言 309 (一)既判力 309 (二)判決效力 310 貳、禁反言法則於我國司法實務之實踐 311 一、矛盾主張之禁止 311 (一)以事實主張為限 311 (二)前後主張矛盾 311 (三)前後不同程序 312 (四)前訴採認 313 二、判決理由再爭執之禁止 313 (一)否定說 313 (二)有條件的肯定說 314 叁、禁反言於我國民事訴訟運用方法之再省思 316 一、誠信原則及禁反言不足以推認爭點效 316 二、政策論與行為論之選擇 317 三、以行為論為中心之類型建構 317 (一)矛盾主張之禁止 317 (二)確定判決再爭執之禁止 318 第三節 誠信原則與禁反言之關係 320 壹、誠信原則之意涵與作用 320 一、誠信原則之意義 320 二、誠信原則之具體化 323 三、誠信原則於我國法之體現 324 貳、禁反言與誠信原則之交錯 325 一、性質與目的之差異 325 二、功能與外延之差異 327 三、操作方法之差異 328 (一)禁反言 328 1.對信賴要件之調控 328 2.對效果之裁量 329 (二)誠信原則 329 1.對要件之調控 329 2.對效果之裁量 330 叁、禁反言有別於誠信原則之機能 331 一、排除矛盾事實主張,據以適用法律確認法律關係 331 二、為中間責任類型提供統一解釋或強化之論理基礎 332 (一)締約上過失 332 1.禁反言之適用範疇 333 2.禁反言之操作 334 (二)純粹經濟上損失之救濟 337 1.法律理論之發展概況 337 2.禁反言之操作 338 三、發揮衡平救濟之積極作用,彌補個別規範之不足 341 第四節 禁反言於我國法之作用 342 壹、民事實體法 342 一、禁反言之作用型態 342 (一)既有權利或既存法律關係下之禁反言 342 (二)非既存法律關係下之禁反言 343 二、禁反言之導入方法—從誠信原則出發 344 (一)模式一:依據誠信原則進行法內續造 347 (二)模式二:於無法律規定亦無習慣時,適用禁反言法理進行法續造 348 1.附條件的不作為允諾 348 2.締約前行為 349 3.導致第三方經濟上損失之陳述或允諾 351 4.移轉或授予不動產權利之允諾 352 (三)模式三:以法律明定或限制法院之裁量界線 353 三、小結 353 (一)既有權利或已存在法律關係 354 (二)非既有權利或尚無法律關係 354 貳、民事程序法 355 一、以矛盾行為為建構基礎 356 (一)衡平禁反言 356 (二)司法禁反言 356 二、以終局裁判為建構基礎 356 (一)「原則禁止,例外准許」 357 (二)「原則准許,例外禁止」 357 第捌章 總結 358 參考文獻 365 圖次 圖 1:衡平裁量之結構示意圖 237 圖 2:衡平裁量之操作示意圖 237 圖 3:信賴要件之主客觀要素結構 273 圖 4:消極不作為型態之信賴要件結構 273 圖 5:法律關係與禁反言作用之分析矩陣 346 表次 表 1:禁反言之分類 22 表 2:禁反言之消極作用 68 | - |
dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
dc.title | 禁反言於我國民法及民事訴訟法之作用—從比較法之視野出發 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The Application of Estoppel in Civil Law and Civil Procedure Law—A Comparative Perspective | en |
dc.type | Thesis | - |
dc.date.schoolyear | 112-1 | - |
dc.description.degree | 博士 | - |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 林誠二;姜世明;陳聰富;呂彥彬 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | cheng-er Lin;shih-ming Jiang;tsung-fu Chen;yan- bin Lu | en |
dc.subject.keyword | 自相矛盾行為禁止,允諾禁反言,財產禁反言,衡平禁反言,顯失公平,司法禁反言,爭點禁反言, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | venire contra factum proprium,promissory estoppel,proprietary estoppel,equitable estoppel,unconscionability,judicial estoppel,issue estoppel, | en |
dc.relation.page | 389 | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202400643 | - |
dc.rights.note | 未授權 | - |
dc.date.accepted | 2024-02-17 | - |
dc.contributor.author-college | 法律學院 | - |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 法律學系 | - |
顯示於系所單位: | 法律學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-112-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.54 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。