Abstract摘要
本文对普通法中的诚信义务进行了研究。整个研究分为五个部分，讨论了近年来普通法下诚信的新趋势，特别是Yam Seng Pte Ltd诉International Trade Corp Ltd，第一部分介绍了普通法体系中诚信义务的传统和新趋势。第二部分分析了诚信的概念、立法规定。第三部分是本文最重要的部分，即Yam Seng Pte Ltd诉International Trade Corp Ltd的案例研究。第五部分在理论基础和案例分析的基础上，提出了诚信未来的前景和发展趋势。最后得出了整个研究的结论。
This essay studies on the duty of good faith in the common law. The whole study was divided into five sections, which have discussed the new trend of good faith in recent cases under the common law, especially Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corp Ltd. The first part introduces the traditions and new trend of the duty of good faith in the common law system. The second part analyzes the concept, and legislative stipulation of good faith. Third part refers case study of Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corp Ltd which is the most important section of this essay. Based on theoretical base and case analyses, fifth part puts forth the prospect and development trend of good faith in the future. Finally it draws conclusion of the whole study.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 3
2. The Duty of Good Faith in the Common Law 4
2.1 Concept of Good Faith 4
2.2 legislative Stipulation of Good Faith 5
3. Case Analysis: Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corp Ltd case 7
3.1 Overview of the case 7
3.2 Good faith as an implied term in the contract 8
4. Prospect of the Duty of Good Faith in the Common Law 9
5. Conclusion 10
Reference 12
1. Introduction介绍
诚信是合同法的重要学说。在英国合同中，到处都可以看到诚信，这造成了一种错觉，即在合同中所谓的“诚信”意味着一方对另一方有义务。在大陆法系中，善意原则被认为是一种“合法法则”的“帝国条款”。在中国，“民法通则”和“合同法”都适用了诚信原则，并进一步明确地将诚信作为民事主体在行使权利和履行义务时必须遵守的原则之一。法官将主动在某些司法案件中适用诚信原则，特别是当某些行为未在合同中明确约定或需要根据诚意履行合同时。但是，在与大陆法系不同的传统英国法律体系下，没有所谓的诚信学说。英国法律长期以来对诚信原则有某种敌意的原因一方面在于契约自由的传统，只要一方不在交易中做歪曲或欺诈，谁将会对另一方不承担所谓的一般诚意义务;另一方面，原因在于业务需求，不太可能要求业务主体以“诚信”行事，因为业务主体的性质是追逐利润，这限制了商业道德。
Good faith is an important doctrine of contract law. In English contract, good faith can be seen everywhere, which creating an illusion that in the contract the so-called “good faith” means a party has an obligation to the other party. In continental law system, the doctrine of good faith is considered as an “empire provision” which reigns for the contract law. In China, both the General Principles of the Civil Law and the Contract Law adapt the doctrine of good faith, and further clearly integrating good faith as one of the principles which must be complied by the civil subject when exercising rights and performing obligations. The judge will take the initiative to apply the doctrine of good faith in some judicial cases, especially when some behaviors have not expressly agreed upon in the contract or when need to perform the contract according to good faith. However, under the traditional English law system, which is different with continental law system, there is not a so-called good faith doctrine. The reason why the English law has certain hostility to the doctrine of good faith for quite a long time, on the one hand lies in the tradition of contract freedom, as long as one party is not do misrepresentation or fraud in the deal, who will not bear any obligation of the so-called general good faith to the other party; on the other hand, the reason lies in the business requirements, it is less likely to require the business subject acting in “good faith”, because the nature of business subject is chasing profits, which have limited the business morality.
In the case Walford v.Miles [1992] 2 AC 128, Lord Ackner has said, “[H]ow can a court be expected to decidewhether, subjectively, a proper reason existed for the termination ofnegotiations? The answer suggested depends upon whether the negotiations havebeen determined ‘in good faith’. However, the concept of a duty to carry on negotiations in good faith isinherently repugnant to the adversarial position of the parties when involvedin negotiations. Eachparty to the negotiations is entitled to pursue his (or her) own interest, solong as he avoids making misrepresentations. To advance that interest hemust be entit
