商人確認信之研究-以德國、美國及國際契約法統一文件為中心

Abstract

商人確認信是目前國際上從事商事貿易者經常使用的商業文件，其目的在於藉 由此種書面文件的寄發，向貿易之他方確認雙方先前就某個特定交易所作的口頭協商內容，或藉此表達對於雙方之間已經締結的契約變更之意思。商人確認信此一概念並非立法者所創設，而係透過商事貿易實務領域的廣泛使用，不斷發展並形成較為具體的內涵；然而，隨著跨國商事活動的與日俱增，商人確認信的使用也形成了許多具有理論與實務討論價值的法律問題。就契約之成立而言，商事貿易之一方當事人可否藉由商人確認信的寄發，單方面促使契約締結？收信人於收受商人確認信後，若單純沉默未為任何回應，是否仍可能受到契約締結效果之拘束？又發信人若於商人確認信中變更先前協商之內容，或添加先前協商所未有之條款，契約是否仍有成立之可能？要解決這些問題，除了自一般民法法律行為論有關意思表示的規定與理論出發外，應亦有從商事契約觀點切入，嘗試建立獨立的理論依據之必要。而就契約之內容而言，若商事貿易雙方各自利用商人確認信提出有利於自己的條款，即形成契約衝突條款，如何決定其效力之優劣，亦為各國學說實務近來爭論不斷之重要議題，有待深入研究。 對此，德國學說實務以聯邦最高法院為首，以案例類型歸納分析之方式，建立 所謂「商人確認信創設效果理論」，使符合一定適用條件的商人確認信，能夠產生契約成立或契約內容變更的創設效果，拘束雙方當事人；此外，其更採用「最後一槍理論」，以解決契約衝突條款的問題。在美國，其統一商法典嘗試突破傳統普通法下「鏡像原則」對於要約與承諾的束縛，趨向寬認契約成立之發展；而諸多國際契約法統一文件，例如聯合國國際商品買賣公約、聯合國國際商事契約通則、歐洲契約法通則及歐洲民法架構草案等，亦針對上開問題作出密度不一之規範，其中，除就商事貿易者透過商人確認信締結契約的部分，以「內容是否重大偏離先前協商內容」作為認定創設效果有無之主要判准外，在契約衝突條款問題之解決上，則偏向採取「淘汰理論」或留待司法實務於個案中決斷。就此而言，可謂商人確認信所包含的各項法律問題，有已形成相當程度國際共識者，亦有尚待各種多元觀點協調統合者。我國從事國際性商事貿易者，不在少數，其於貿易實務中接觸商人確認信之機會亦多，故前開法律問題於我國，並非不會發生。我國法律學說與實務工作者，如何跳脫以往以民事法律概念與規定解釋適用於商事貿易行為之習慣，並針對商人確認信之問題，提出符合我國需要並能與國際共識接軌之立論，甚為重要，此等課題之未來發展，亦值得吾人持續關注。

The commercial letter of confirmation is a conduct often used by commercial traders. By sending this kind of letter, one side of parties can confirm content of prior negotiations with the other side, or can express his intention of changing the content of the concluded contract. The conception of the commercial letter of confirmation wasn't created by legislators, but was formed by businessmen in commercial trade fields and still persistently be developed nowadays. However, with the increase of multinational commercial trade, using the commercial letter of confirmation also brings some legal problems, which may be valuable for study of theory and practice. For example, can one side of parties conclude a contract by barely sending a commercial letter of confirmation? What is the legal effect of pure silence of addressee? If both sides of parties just append their standard terms on ' their ' commercial letters of confirmation, which term will gains the upper hand? Obviously, such as these problems are necessary to be in-depth studied. In Germany, the Federal Supreme Court（der Bundesgerichtshof, BGH） had tried to build “ the theory of decisive effect of the commercial letter of confirmation ”. According to it, the commercial letters of confirmation which totally fulfill the conditions given by BGH, will have decisive effect, which means both sides of parties, especially the silent one, may be bounded by the effect of conclusion or alteration of contracts. Besides, BGH has always adopted “ the last shot theory ” to solve the “ conflicting terms ” problem in cases. Similarly, regulations of the UCC of America and international uniform contract law instruments such as CISG, PICC, PECL, DCFR have already showed the trend of broadening recognition of conclusion of contracts, some international uniform contract law instruments have even often made judgments with the key point that whether the content of a commercial letter of confirmation “ materially alters ” or “ significantly deviates ” the original agreements. When talking to the issue of ' the content of contract ', oppositely, there are different opinions, including the famous “ knock out rule ”. As we know, there are a lot of businessmen who have undertaken national commercial trade in Taiwan and will inevitably face the above-mentioned problems. As the result, both of law scholars and judges in Taiwan must try to find a new consideration of commercial trade and commercial contract and, most of all, establish a complete theory, which can be the basis of actual resolutions.