第三章 承載能量不足的要件規範-以「不實陳述」為中心
第二節 國際統一法律文件契約法錯誤之相關規定
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
的類型，因此當第三人不實陳述的案例便會去適用英國法上錯誤的相關規定。另 外，在契約當事人之間，亦有可能因不實陳述而可主張錯誤的法律效果。一般而 言，法院不太願意將法律效果評價為錯誤而使契約無效，一來是基於英國法對於 契約的認定採取客觀主義，而非基於當事人的主觀意思，因此當事人主觀的瑕疵 原則上不使契約無效。再者是因英國法錯誤的效力太強，不但為無效，且對於善 意第三人得請求返還。也因為如此，英國法院對於錯誤的認定常常過於狹隘，實 務上亦曾有為了救濟而發展得撤銷的衡平權限，但嗣後又引發爭議。有論者認為，
英國法採取風險分配思想的立場以及注重商業關係的確定性，因而不太願意介入 當事人之間的契約，原則上雙方當事人皆應承擔相關事實與其認知相異的風險，
若不願意承擔則應訂入契約。因此，在單方錯誤的案例在英國法向來不受斟酌，
而此時亦會探討有無告知義務等問題，而共通錯誤的案例僅在無法透過契約解釋 時方有主張錯誤的空間202。
第二節 國際統一法律文件契約法錯誤之相關規定
近年來，國際間就契約法開始整合，其中又可區分為全球性及區域性整合，
如聯合國國際商事契約通則、歐洲契約法原則等是，在比較法上亦具參考價值。
觀察國際統一法律文件在相關的條文中，其有別於英國法將他方不實陳述和錯誤 分開處理，其多將二者合併規範。因此，以下藉由介紹國際統一法律文件來比較 各立法例在變數考量的異同。
202 關於英國法錯誤類型及發展的詳細整理，可參閱曾怡華，英國契約法上錯誤之歷史發展，國立 臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2015 年。
‧
203 https：//www.unidroit.org/instruments/commercial-contracts/unidroit-principles-2016 ，最後流覽日：107 年 6 月 27 日。
204 (1) A party is free to negotiate and is not liable for failure to reach an agreement.
(2) However, a party who negotiates or breaks off negotiations in bad faith is liable for the losses caused to the other party.
(3) It is bad faith, in particular, for a party to enter into or continue negotiations when intending not to reach an agreement with the other party.
205 PECL 第 2：301 條 (Negotiations Contrary to Good Faith ) 也有相似的規定。
206 (1) A party may only avoid the contract for mistake if, when the contract was concluded,the mistake was of such importance that a reasonable person in the same situation as the party in error would only have concluded the contract on materially different terms or would not have concluded it at all if the true state of affairs had been known, and
(a) the other party made the same mistake,or caused the mistake, or knew or ought to have known of the mistake and it was contrary to reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing to leave the mistaken party in error； or
(b) the other party had not at the time of avoidance reasonably acted in reliance on the contract.
(2) However, a party may not avoid the contract if
(a) it was grossly negligent in committing the mistake； or
(b) the mistake relates to a matter in regard to which the risk of mistake was assumed or, having regard to the circumstances, should beborne by the mistaken party.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
(b) 其已承擔風險或依情形應由其忍受該錯誤的風險。」
根據條文註釋內容：
本條在規範何種錯誤方得作為撤銷契約的事由以及相關情況，可分為以下三 大部分：
(一) 須為重大錯誤 (Serious mistake)
首先，錯誤必須是重大的，而是否重大可以從主客觀二方面加以衡量。亦即，
應考量從一個理性第三人在知道正確的訊息後，是否會作出不會締結契約的決定 或是在本質不同的條件下方會締結契約時，那麼此時就可以評價為表意人的錯誤 是重大錯誤。
就條文觀之，其就錯誤是採取開放性的態度 (relies on an open─ended formula)
，而並未指明與錯誤相關的契約須具備何種要素(rather than indicating specific essential elements of the contract to which the mistake must relate)，亦即，該錯誤並不 一定要涉及與契約或法律行為的基礎內容相關這麼高的層次，而這種開放靈活性 的規定有助於全面考量當事人的意圖以及案件中的情況。
在一般的商業交易中，某些錯誤通常不被認為是符合這裡的重大錯誤，例如：
商品或服務的價值，預期或動機相關的錯誤以及當事人的身分和資格。
(二) 關於他方的條件 (Conditions concerning the party other than the mistaken party)
他方必須具備條文中說的(a)、(b)所描述的四種情況，表意人方得撤銷。在這 邊的相同錯誤須注意的是，若該相同錯誤涉及標的物根本不存在，則為第 3.1.3 條 自始不能 (initial impossibility) 的問題。
(三) 關於表意人的條件 (Conditions concerning the mistaken party)
所謂：「其已承擔風險或依情形應由其忍受該錯誤的風險」，在具投機性質
‧
fraudulent representation, including language or practices, or fraudulent nondisclosure of circumstances which, according to reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing, the latter party should have disclosed.209 (1) Where fraud, threat, gross disparity or a party’s mistake is imputable to, or is known or ought to be known by, a third person for whose acts the other party is responsible, the contract may be avoided under the same conditions as if the behaviour or knowledge had been that of the party itself.
(2) Where fraud, threat or gross disparity is imputable to a third person for whose acts the other party is not responsible, the contract may be avoided if that party knew or ought to have known of the fraud, threat or disparity, or has not at the time of avoidance reasonably acted in reliance on the contract.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
(2) 反之，若該第三人的行為非應由他方負責時，則就詐欺、脅迫及重大失衡 的情事，他方明知或可得而知，或是在表意人撤銷契約時尚未依契約為合理的行 為時，表意人得撤銷契約210。」
根據條文註釋內容說明如下：
本條規定實務中第三人涉及或干涉契約的情形是很常見的，而當撤銷契約的 原因可歸責於第三人時，並規定該如何處理的問題。
(一) 第三人的行為應由他方負責
在許多情形下，他方要為第三人的行為負責，例如：第三人為他方之代理人，
或是該第三人為了他方利益而基於自己意思行事。此時，不管他方是否知悉第三 人的行為，將第三人的行為或所知歸咎於他方負責都是公平的。
(二) 第三人的行為不須由他方負責
當一方當事人受到第三人的詐欺、脅迫或重大失衡的情事，而第三人行為不 須由他方負責時，除非他方當事人明知或可得而知，否則原則是不受保護的。然 而須注意的是，即使他方不知情，但當撤銷契約前，他方尚未依契約為合理的行 為時，則此時他方無保護的必要，此時仍得撤銷契約。
PICC 第 3.2.10 條規定撤銷權的喪失 ( Loss of right to avoid )211 ：
210 由文義觀之，他方當事人是否為第三人的行為負責，二者最大的差異在於「錯誤」此一要件。
當他方當事人不須為第三人的行為負責，而卻又知悉或可得而知表意人的錯誤時，表意人是否仍 不得撤銷契約？是否知悉表意人的錯誤而仍為契約上的行為仍可被評價為合理？但若從從保護 程度層層遞減的觀點來看，又似乎有所依據。
211 (1) If a party is entitled to avoid the contract for mistake but the other party declares itself willing to perform or performs the contract as it was understood by the party entitled to avoidance, the contract is considered to have been concluded as the latter party understood it. The other party must make such a declaration or render such performance promptly after having been informed of the manner in which the party entitled to avoidance had understood the contract and before that party has reasonably acted in reliance on a notice of avoidance.
(2) After such a declaration or performance the right to avoidance is lost and any earlier notice of avoidance is ineffective.
‧
212 Irrespective of whether or not the contract has been avoided, the party who knew or ought to have known of the ground for avoidance is liable for damages so as to put the other party in the same position in which it would have been if it had not concluded the contract.
213 http：//www.jus.uio.no/lm/eu.contract.principles.parts.1.to.3.2002/，最後流覽日：107 年 6 月 27 日。
214 (1) A party may avoid a contract for mistake of fact or law existing when the contract was concluded if：
(a) (i) the mistake was caused by information given by the other party； or
(ii) the other party knew or ought to have known of the mistake and it was contrary to good faith and fair dealing to leave the mistaken party in error； or
(iii) the other party made the same mistake, and
(b) the other party knew or ought to have known that the mistaken party, had it known the truth, would not have entered the contract or would have done so only on fundamentally different terms.
(2) However a party may not avoid the contract if：
(a) in the circumstances its mistake was inexcusable, or
(b) the risk of the mistake was assumed, or in the circumstances should be borne, by it.
‧
216 (1) If a party is entitled to avoid the contract for mistake but the other party indicates that it is willing to perform, or actually does perform, the contract as it was understood by the party entitled to avoid it, the contract is to be treated as if it had been concluded as the that party understood it. The other party must indicate its willingness to perform, or render such performance, promptly after being informed of the manner in which the party entitled to avoid it understood the contract and before that party acts in reliance on any notice of avoidance.
(2) After such indication or performance the right to avoid is lost and any earlier notice of avoidance is ineffective.
(3) Where both parties have made the same mistake, the court may at the request of either party bring the contract into accordance with what might reasonably have been agreed had the mistake not occurred.
217 A party who has concluded a contract relying on incorrect information given it by the other party may recover damages in accordance with Article 4：117(2) and (3) even if the information does not give rise to a right to avoid the contract on the ground of mistake under Article 4：103, unless the party who gave the information had reason to believe that the information was correct.
‧
representation, whether by words or conduct, or fraudulent non-disclosure of any information which in accordance with good faith and fair dealing it should have disclosed.(2) A party's representation or non-disclosure is fraudulent if it was intended to deceive.
(3) In determining whether good faith and fair dealing required that a party disclose particular information, regard should be had to all the circumstances, including：
(a) whether the party had special expertise；
(b) the cost to it of acquiring the relevant information；
(c) whether the other party could reasonably acquire the information for itself； and (d) the apparent importance of the information to the other party.
219 https：//www.law.kuleuven.be/personal/mstorme/2009_02_DCFR_OutlineEdition.pdf ，最後流覽日：
107 年 6 月 27 日。
220 DCFR 規定得較為詳細，如明確規定：「只要陳述人明知或可合理預見表意人會根據該資訊締 結契約，其即應負責，不管是否有將此資訊訂入契約條款之一部。」，原文： ( (b) knew or could
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
PCEL 第 4：107 條類似，並在其第 2 項說明了作為詐欺和不作為詐欺221；第 II. – 7：208 為當涉及第三人時的規定，和 PICC 第 3.2.8 條及 PCEL 第 4：111 條類似。
第四項 小結
由上述的規定可以就國際統一法律文件的發展歸納出幾個方向：(一) 國際 錯誤法則之發展，一方面限制錯誤的救濟，他方面將英美法系不實陳述法則及 大陸法系違反先契約告知義務納入規範對象，開疆闢土擴張其勢力範圍，近年 來意思瑕疵之研究常將錯誤、不實陳述及告知義務違反三者合併觀察，其來有 自222。(二) 就錯誤的適格性而言，不區分是否為動機錯誤，只要一般理性第三 人在同樣的情形下不會締約或僅會在本質不同的條件下方會締約，那麼該錯誤 就會被評價為得撤銷的重大錯誤。(三)關於錯誤相關規定，均有相對人事由之 斟酌，側重之點在於相對人信賴是否值得保護。(四) 就他方的信賴保護而言，
如錯誤是由他方引起或是有共同錯誤，或是評價上負有提醒告知義務卻違反 時，那麼信賴不值得被保護。另外，聯合國國際商事契約通則特別重視在撤銷 前他方是否已因信賴契約而為合理的行為，此不惟在錯誤的情形，在表意人受 第三人影響的場合亦有類似規定。(五) 在契約中已為風險分配時，無從依錯誤
如錯誤是由他方引起或是有共同錯誤，或是評價上負有提醒告知義務卻違反 時，那麼信賴不值得被保護。另外，聯合國國際商事契約通則特別重視在撤銷 前他方是否已因信賴契約而為合理的行為，此不惟在錯誤的情形，在表意人受 第三人影響的場合亦有類似規定。(五) 在契約中已為風險分配時，無從依錯誤