自始給付障礙與買賣標的物自始瑕疵之損害賠償

Compensation for Initial Impossibility and Initial Defect of Sale Objects

黃松茂(Sung-Mao Huang)

指導教授 ： 溫彼得

共同指導教授 ： 詹森林(Sheng-Lin Jan)

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/博士(2018年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201800315

摘要

「不能之事無債務」（Impossibilium nulla obligatio est）之羅馬法諺，在民法典中賦予如何之法律效果，在德國2002年債法修正前後有根本性之不同。修法前，依舊民法第306條規定，契約以自始不能之給付為標的者，無效；當事人之一方僅得依第307條規定請求賠償因信賴契約有效所受之損害。換言之，修法前僅將該法諺應用於給付自始客觀不能之情形，而其效果為契約無效。修法後雖刪除第306條及第307條規定，卻該法諺廣泛應用於所有給付不能之情形，其效果，依第275條第1項規定，為債務人免給付義務。若舊法第306條之規定—果如修法理由所言—乃立法政策上之錯誤，則將該法諺擴大適用於所有給付不能之情形，正當性何在？另一方面，針對自始不能之情形，第311條a第1項規定，債務人縱因給付陷於不能而免給付義務者，契約不因之而無效，且依同條第2項第1句規定，債權人得請求替代給付之損害賠償。何以契約有效，債務人卻免其給付義務，不免引發疑問。更進一步的問題是，若債務人已因給付陷於不能而免給付義務，則復加以損害賠償責任之制裁之基礎為何？
以上問題，引發德國學者對民法第311條a規範本身之批判及辯護。本文藉由學說理論史及比較法之考察，得出以下結論：
1. 在古典羅馬法中，「不能之事無債務」之法諺僅在「問答契約」（stipulatio）始有完全適用。在買賣契約，其效力採個案認定，並非一律無效。
2. 對給付不能理論之創立著有貢獻之19世紀法學家Friedrich Mommsen，將該法諺之適用侷限於自始客觀不能。
3. 1900年德國民法之立法者採納Mommsen之見解，故給付自始客觀不能者，契約無效。其餘情形（自始主觀不能、嗣後不能），契約效力不受影響，債務人仍負給付之義務，並負損害賠償責任；只有當給付不能不可歸責於債務人時，始免給付義務（舊民法第275條第1項），此即為債之一體性原則。
4. 德國民法施行後，學者對前述規範設計逐漸喪失充分理解，並將給付義務理解為行為義務，而得出「一旦給付陷於不能，債務人即免除給付義務」之結論。
5. 此種理解最終成為現行民法第275條第1項規定，修正理由或學說上有引用歐洲契約法原則（PECL）或國際商事契約通則（UNIDROIT PICC）之類似規定作為依據。然其忽略，PECL及PICC旨在統合歐陸法與英美法之差異，而在相當程度上犧牲學理上之一致性。
6. 本文認為，依德國債法之體系，對第311條a之解釋，仍應回歸前述債之一體性原則。給付自始陷於不能者，給付義務並不消滅；只有當債務人非因過失而於締約時不知給付不能者，債務人始免給付義務，且不負損害賠償責任（第311條a第2項第2句）。換言之，第311條a第2項第2句之規定，如同修法前之第275條第1項，為債務人之免責事由。

關鍵字

給付不能 ； 義務違反 ； 可歸責 ； 損害賠償 ； 違約責任 ； 請求原定之給付

並列摘要

The Roman legal maxim Impossibilium nulla obligatio est (the impossibility of performance discharges one’s obligation) has fundamentally different legal effects in German Civil Code (hereinafter referred to as the “BGB”) before and after the reform of the German law of obligations in 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “Amendment”).
Before the Amendment, according to Section 306 BGB (old version), a contract is void when the object is initially impossible to be performed; one party may claim compensation from the other party according to Section 307 BGB (old version) for any damages sustained by relying upon the validity of such contract.
In other words, the above-mentioned Roman legal maxim was only applicable to initial impossibility before the Amendment, which leads to a void contract. Section 306 and 307 BGB have been deleted in the Amendment; provide, however, such Roman legal maxim had been comprehensively used on all impossibilities of performance, with the effect that the party shall not be obligated to perform such duty, according to Paragraph 1 of Section 275 BGB.
In the event that Section 306 BGB (old version) is a political mistake of the legislature- as stated in the cause of the reform of the German Obligation Law- how should we legitimate the expanded application of the said legal maxim to all kinds of impossibilities of performance?
As to initial impossibility, a contract is valid in the event that the impossibility of performance has existed upon the execution of the contract, and the obligee is released from performance, according to Paragraph 1 of Section 311a BGB. Moreover, according to Paragraph 2 of the same Section, the obligor may demand damages instead of performance or reimbursement from the obligee in such case.
How can the obligee be discharged from the duty of contract while such contract is valid? Moreover, why should the obligee compensate the obligor, when his/her obligation of performance is being discharged due to the impossibility of performance?
The questions as mentioned above have led to the critics and defends to Section 311a BGB among civil law scholars in Germany. This dissertation has concluded as the follows from the view of the legal dogmatic history and the comparative law:
1. The legal maxim, the impossibility of performance discharges one’s obligation, is only wholly applicable to stipulatio contract in classic Roman law, while the effect of such maxim in sales contract must be determined case by case.
2. The 19th-century legal scholar Friedrich Mommsen, who has an excellent contribution to the establishment of the theory of impossibility of performance, restricted the application of such legal maxim in initial objective impossibility.
3. Civil law legislators in Germany have adopted Mommsen’s opinion in 1900 into BGB. It was stipulated in BGB that a contract is invalid in the event of initial objective impossibility; while under other circumstances (initial subjective impossibility or supervening impossibility), the contract is still valid and the obligee shall perform the duty and compensate the obligor for any injury arising therefrom. The obligee may only be released from his/her obligation to perform when such impossibility is not imputed by the obligee. This is the so-called Principle of the Integrity of Obligation (Einheit der Obligation).
4. After the enforcement of the reformed BGB, civil law scholars have gradually lost comprehensive understandings about the above-mentioned normative constructions and interpreted the duty of performance into a duty of action, and have incorrectly concluded that in the event of the impossibility of performance, the obligee is released from the obligation of performance, even if such impossibility is imputed by the obligee.
5. Such understanding is shown in Section 275, Paragraph 1 BGB. Similar regulations to the impossibility of performance in PECL or UNIDROIT PICC have been cited or quoted in the revision explanation of BGB and the legal theories by civil law scholars as references to Section 275, Paragraph 1 BGB. But they seem to ignore that PECL and PICC are promulgated to mitigate and integrate the discrepancies between continental law and Anglo-American law, and have, to a certain extent, sacrificed the dogmatic integrity in the legal system.
6. This dissertation contents, according to the German Obligation Law system, the interpretation of Section 311a BGB shall be traced back to the Principle of the Integrity of Obligation, as mentioned above. The impossibility of performance shall not discharge the obligation of performance of the obligee; the obligee shall only be released from the obligation of performance and duty of compensation when the obligee does not know the existence of the obstacle to performance upon execution, without negligence (the second sentence of Section 311a, Paragraph 2). In other words, the second sentence of Section 311a, Paragraph 2 BGB, as the old version of Section 275, Paragraph 1 BGB, is the disclaimer of the obligee.

並列關鍵字

impossibility of performance ； breach of duty ； imputation ； damages ； breach of contract ； specific performance

參考文獻

Ackermann, Thomas: Der Schutz des negativen Interesses: Zur Verknüpfung von Selbstbindung und Sanktion im Privatrecht, Tübingen, 2007.

Apathy, Peter: Sachgerechtigkeit und Systemdenken am Beispiel der Entwicklung von Sachmängelhaftung und Irrtum beim Kauf im klassischen römischen Recht, SZ Rom 111 (1994), 95 ff.

Bamberger, Heinz Georg/Roth, Herbert (Hrsg.): Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, 3 Bände, 3. Aufl., München, 2012(zit.: Bamberger/Roth/Bearbeiter).

Bork, Reinhard: Allgemeiner Teil des Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuchs, 4. Aufl., Tübingen, 2016.

Brehm, Wolfgang: Der Anspruch auf die Primärleistung bei nachträglich zu vertretender Unmöglichkeit, JZ 1974, 573 ff.