不可抗力之研究

A Study on Force Majeure

宋泓璟(Hung-Ching Sung)

指導教授 ： 陳忠五

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2011年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2011.00872

摘要

本論文係對「不可抗力」此一法律上概念，在民法領域範圍內之全面性研究。民事訴訟案件中，被訴之一方常以系爭損害係由天災或有其他人為因素介入，故屬於不可抗力作為抗辯。此一概念在我國法上，雖於訴訟中常見，並廣泛用於多種契約條款，對此概念之法學研究卻相當缺乏，亦可見法院判決之說理不一。

鑑於我國法上研究資料之欠缺，本文首先在第二章以比較法作為切入點，探討不可抗力相關概念。本文認為，不同的法規範間對於不可抗力雖有差異，然亦有一致之處。在第二章最後一節，本文回歸至我國法，認為成文法上「不可抗力」文字無清楚定義其概念範圍為何，適用上有其模糊之處，仍待學說及實務解釋。惟學說上對不可抗力之定義，亦存差異！主要問題在於，人為因素是否亦能構成不可抗力事由？

第三章中，本文將視角集中在契約法。作者選擇以我國最高法院判決為觀察對象，研究結果認為，我國裁判在不可抗力之構成要件上，與比較法上諸觀點若合符節。法律效果上有爭議者為，具備不可抗力事由時，是否得以解除或終止契約？另尚有不可抗力事由發生時的危險負擔問題。例如不可抗力所導致工期延長的費用負擔，應如何分配，甚值思考。另外在契約實務上，亦多見「不可抗力約款」，以改變原有之風險分配狀態。一般情形，此屬私法自治、契約自由之範疇，惟定型化契約中之「不可抗力條款」，則應予適度管制。本章最後則分析關於主張不可抗力時之其它程序事項，如通知義務及舉證責任等。

本文第四章則將論述重點轉向侵權責任。首先透過對於我國最高法院裁判之觀察，發現與契約責任上之相關分析亦有其相同之處。侵權責任中，若法條未明定時，由於當事人間通常未具有事先約定之可能性，故以過失責任為原則。本文認為，在過失責任原則下，不可抗力概念之功能存疑。另外，就商品責任，透過本文論證更可得出，若認為確實成立不可抗力時，即相當於肯定商品之安全性！概念重疊時，不可抗力之概念由於範圍較小，應無獨立存在之必要性！

第五章中，本論文綜合上述各章之分析後，對不可抗力此一概念在民法上之爭議問題，提出作者之見解。首先係關於不可抗力之概念範圍與定義問題。本文認為，與其一開始就排除人為因素作為不可抗力事由，不如在個別情形為細膩分析，將責任歸屬作較為清楚的釐清。

此外，本文接續探討者為，不可抗力之概念與既有民事責任構成要件間之關係。一般皆認為，若將責任型態提升為僅有不可抗力始能免責者，其責任較一般之過失責任為嚴格。透過本文論證，真正之關鍵根本不是預見與否，而是對於障礙能否避免或克服！我國法上之契約責任及侵權責任，若未有特別約定或法律規定，在一般採過失原則之情形下，儘管當事人以不可抗力為抗辯，法院若以相關模式審查，顯然過苛且易生混淆之虞！

如此一來，有意義者似限於契約約定或法律規定僅以不可抗力作為免責事由之情形。然而，若將不可抗力與因果關係相連結，兩概念上是否有其重疊之處，而導致不可抗力概念無法獨立於既有之民事責任體系？就因果關係一般審查之方式看來，看似有其障礙。特別是，在因不可抗力事由之影響，而使行為人沒有選擇作為或不作為之可能性時，例如因不可抗力發生而使給付必須延後時，採取傳統的「若無，則不」分析法，即會得到有因果關係之結論，而使不可抗力與因果關係間看來未必重合。然而除了此種分析方式本身有其極限外，若回歸檢驗因果關係之目的觀察，如果沒有選擇可能性，又如何透過因果關係之要求，釋放出人其實可以做不一樣的選擇以改變結果之訊息？

結論上，經本文分析後對不可抗力之概念所採取之立場是，不可抗力是否構成，應由純粹客觀面向處理為宜。抽離主觀因素後，無法抗拒其發生之損害，與被指摘的行為間，應認不具有因果關係。準此，所謂不可抗力之相關要件僅係檢驗因果關係之輔助方法，並無法學分析上獨立之功能！

關鍵字

不可抗力 ； 因果關係 ； 過失 ； 契約法 ； 侵權責任 ； 自然災害 ； 人為因素

並列摘要

This thesis is a comprehensive research on the legal concept “force majeure” in the field of civil law. In civil litigation cases, the defendants often protest that damages were caused by natural disaster or intervened by other human factors, which constitute force majeure defense. In Taiwan law, although the concept is common in litigation, and also widely used in a lot kinds of contract clauses, the legal research on it is quite rare, and the reasoning of decisions of the court are inconsistent.

Due to the deficiency of literature in Taiwan law, the paper starts from comparative law perspective in the second chapter. Although there are differences in different regulations, there are some common grounds. In the last section of this chapter, this paper returns to Taiwan law. The author thinks that it lacks clear definition to the word “force majeure” in our written law, therefore causes obscurity whether the law is applied, and it needs academic theories and court decisions to interpret. However, there are still differences when scholars try to define the definition of force majeure. The main question is, whether human factors also constitute force majeure event?

In the third chapter, this thesis focuses on the contract law. The author chooses decisions of Taiwanese Supreme Court as objects of observation. The result of research indicates that the constitutive requirements of force majeure in Taiwanese court decision are in some extent in accordance with those in comparative law. A dispute in effect of force majeure is, whether one can withdraw or terminate the contract when force majeure events happen? Another question is the risk-taking. For example, how do contract parties allocate the cost arising from extension of project time limit owing to force majeure? In general situation, it falls within the scope of private law autonomy and freedom of contract; however, the force majeure clauses in standardized contract should be under regulatory. In the last part of this chapter, the author analyzes other procedural matters when claiming force majeure, such as duty to inform and burden of proof.

The fourth chapter turns discussion to tort liability. First, through observation to Taiwanese Supreme Court decisions, the paper discovers that there are some similarities between contract liability and tort liability. In tort liability, if the written law does not stipulate, because the parties often do not have the possibility to agree upon a contrary intention in advance, the fault principle is applied. The author thinks, the function of force majeure concept is questionable under fault principle. Besides, in product liability, the paper states that if force majeure defense is established, it is equal to affirm the safety of product. When the concepts are over- lapping, because the scope of force majeure concept is narrower, it does not have to independently exist!

In the fifth chapter, this paper integrates the analysis in above chapters, and proposes the author’s own viewpoints toward the questions of force majeure concept in civil law. First are the scope and definition of force majeure. The paper argues that, instead of excluding human factors as force majeure events at the first beginning, it would be better to exquisitely analyze in individual situations, and clarify the responsibility more clearly.

In addition, the paper goes on to investigate the relationship between force majeure concept and preexisting constitutive requirements on civil liability. In general point of view, if the liability is raised to that only force majeure can be exemption, it is stricter than fault liability. Through the reasoning of this paper, the key point is not whether the obstacle is foreseeable, but whether it is preventable or be overcome! The contract liability and tort liability in Taiwan law, if not arrange by contract or regulated by written law, the fault principle is generally applied. Although the defendant uses force majeure as a defense, if the court reviews the case by force majeure-related pattern, it is apparently too strict, and will easily be confused!

In this way, it seems that the force majeure concept is meaningful only when the contract agreement or statue regulatory states that force majeure is the only way to exclude the liability. However, if we make a connection between force majeure and causation, are these two concepts overlapping, therefore make the force majeure concept cannot exist outside preexisting civil liability system? From the general method of causation examination, it seems that there is some obstacle. In particularly, when force majeure event causes no possibility of choosing to do or not to do, for example, the performance is delayed because of force majeure events, if the traditional “but-for” method is adopted, a conclusion that there is causation will be made, and it seems that force majeure and causation are not always overlapping. However, in spite of the limit of this “but-for” analyzing method, if we return to the purpose of examining causation, if there is not an opportunity to make a choice, how can we through the requirement of causation to release the message that people can make another choice to alter the result?

In conclusion, after analyzing force majeure concept in this thesis, the author holds that, whether force majeure is established, should be dealt form purely objective way. After eliminating subjective elements, the damage that is not preventable does not have causation with the accused behavior. Therefore, the so-called requirements of force majeure are only assisting method to examine causation, and it does not have independent function in legal analysis!

並列關鍵字

force majeure ； causation ； fault ； contract law ； tort liability ； natural disaster ； human factor

參考文獻

9. 張永健(2003)，〈論給付不能之分類與歸責問題〉，《法令月刊》54卷6期，頁89-108。

13. 陳忠五(2006)，〈新世紀法國侵權責任法的挑戰─以交通事故損害賠償責任的發展為例〉，《臺大法學論叢》第35卷第2期，頁113-161。

14. 陳忠五(2007)，〈論法國交通事故損害賠償責任的成立要件──損害、牽連關係與歸責關係之研究〉，《政大法學評論》第98期，頁1-78。

15. 陳忠五(2007)，〈論契約責任與侵權責任之保護客體：「權利」與「利益」區別正當性的再反省〉，《台大法學論叢》第36卷第3期，頁51-254。

17. 陳聰富(2000)，〈侵權行為法上之因果關係〉，《臺大法學論叢》第29卷第2期，頁175-307。