|
【範文】
•電子報登載:92/06
 |
| Contracting
parties
often use termination
clauses to reduce
the risks that they assume
by contracting. If a termination clause
is read as giving a party the power
to terminate at any time at
will, without more, the party's
promise
will be held to be illusory.
For example, a license
agreement for the manufacture
of Orange Crush gave the licensee
the exclusive right and the duty to
manufacture the soften drink in a specified
territory, but it provided that
the licensee could at any time terminate
the contract. In a suit by the licensee
against the licensor,
it was held that the licensee's promise
was not consideration
for the licensor's because the licensee
"did not promise to do anything and
could at any time cancel the contract."
Miami Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Orange
Crush Co., 296 Fed. 693 (5th Cir. 1924).
If, however, the provision
is read as requiring the party to give
notice some period of time before the
termination becomes effective,
the promise will not be held to be illusory. |
|
 |
引自: E. ALLAN FARNSWORTH & WILLIAM F. YOUNG, CONTRACTS: CASES AND MATERIALS 135-36 (1995).
【單字及慣用語】
【範文中譯】
契約當事人,時常使用終止條款來降低為契約風險。但如果契約中的終止條款是被解讀為賦予當事人一方在無任何條件下隨時可以任由自己意願去終止契約,此時;該意思表示將被認為係屬虛幻的意思表示。舉例來說,一授權契約授予當事人一方專屬的柳澄汁製造權,但授權契約中約定被授權者可隨時終止授權契約,如日後發生授權人控告被授權人之案件,則在訴訟中,被授權者的意思表示與授權者之意思表示間不能視為存在有約因,因為被授權者並無承諾任何事情,且於任何時候皆可終止契約。不過,如果此一終止條款可以被解釋為要求欲行使終止契約者於一定期間前先予與以通知,此時,此一當事人的意思表示就不再被認為係屬虛幻的意思表示。
【我國相關法律概念】
本案例提及普通法系中獨有的「約因」(consideration),如果契約一方授予他方無條件的終止契約權,而他方並未對此付出任何對價,則此時將被認為雙方的意思表示並不存在有約因。雙方所訂定之契約如果不具備約因,可能導致嚴重的後果,重者整個契約皆會失效。而本案中,當事人以為可以任意終止契約,但實際上該條款卻因為欠缺約因而無效時,對當事人而言也是非常不利的。
至於在大陸法系國家並沒有「約因」的設計,所以在我國,即使在契約中約定另外一方可以隨時終止契約不待通知,此種約定並非無效。甚至民法第五百四十九條第一項即規定,委任契約是得以隨時任意終止的。
|