論英國法上之外部契約解釋

Abstract

有鑑於英國法之契約解釋方法在歷史發展過程上，由於有著口頭證據法則之影響，因而呈現出一種別具特色之規範模式，是以本文遂對於英國契約法之外部契約解釋方法進行了詳細之考察與整理爬梳，分析了外部解釋從傳統走向現代化之進程。申言之，本文首先說明了十九世紀時之傳統方法對於內部解釋之強調，於此時期中，外部解釋模式尚未獲法院重視，僅於符合一定之前提要件（文字存有（潛在）疑義）時，方得參酌外來證據以改變契約條款或文字之自然或一般性意義。此外於此部分中，亦就學說上對於客觀說與主觀說之二元論爭進行探討並提出建議。其次，本文對於二十世紀七零年代開始轉而著重外部解釋方法之緣由與過程進行探究。此時期之現代方法之基本立場與作法係，解釋者無法於「真空」之環境中去脈絡化地進行解釋活動，他們將希望被告知得以構成契約脈絡、背景、語境或目的之內容，以對契約文字做出符合商業常識之解釋。最後，本文亦就口頭證據法則做出內涵之說明，並就法則在傳統方法與現代方法下之地位進行了比較。此外，亦分析了除外規則（包含締約前談判及締約後行為之除外規則）之內容與談判除外規則被上議院維持之理由，並探討了自由化之可能性。

Given that the methods of contractual construction of English law present a specific model in the historical development process due to the influence of the parol evidence rule, this thesis carries out a detailed examination of external construction of contracts of English contract law and a complete analysis of the course of external construction from tradition to modernization. To put it explicitly, this thesis firstly explains the emphasis on internal construction in the traditional approach in the 19th century. During this period, the model of external construction was not yet valued by the courts, and only when a certain precondition was met (the words of the contract had to be demonstrated to be ambiguous) could interpreters consider extrinsic evidence to alter or vary the natural or ordinary meaning of contractual terms or words. Moreover, in this part, the dualism between the objective theory and the subjective theory is discussed and suggestions are made. Secondly, this thesis discusses the reasons and the process of the shift to the emphasis on external construction from the 1970s. The basic position and practice of the modern approach to construction in this period are that interpreters cannot construe words in a vacuum. They would like to be informed of what the contents of the context, the background, the matrix or the purpose of the contract are in order to construe and interpret contractual words with commercial common sense. Finally, this thesis also provides an explanation of the connotations of the parol evidence rule, and compares the status of the rule under the traditional approach and that under the modern approach. Furthermore, the contents of the exclusionary rule (including prior negotiations and subsequent conduct) and the reasons why the prior negotiations rule was upheld by the House of Lords are also analyzed, and the possibility of liberalization of the exclusionary rule is discussed as well.