Analyse of the structure of 'service providing contract', a comparative study of Japanese-French law

这是2006年1月发布的本课题最重要的条款概要。日本民法典第415条规定：“债务人不按照债务的内容和意思履行债务时，债权人可以请求损害赔偿;由于债务人的责任而不能履行的情况也同样适用。在此基础上，传统学说在此找到了“过错原则”，认为“责任=过错”是对所有类型的不履行义务要求损害赔偿的要件。该学说认为，“过错”是指在侵权法上没有尽到合理人所应尽的注意义务，因此不履行义务的义务人应当承担损害赔偿责任。但自20世纪世纪最后十年以来，传统学说受到了新学说的批判。新学说的要点如下。过错原则适用于侵权行为法， ...更多信息 我们假定行为自由，但在合同法中，权利人没有自由，但有义务履行义务。或不履行其承诺，足以使债务人受到损害赔偿的约束。新学说认为，“责任”在于不履行义务本身。它将合同义务分为两种类型。第一个是“中间义务”，第二个是“结果义务”。在第一种情况下，权利人仅须行使合理的谨慎。在第二种类型中，债权人必须实现其承诺的结果，但由于“不可抗力”而不能履行的除外。新的理论不是以潘德克特主义所设想的从合同中抽象出来的义务为基础，而是以合同本身为基础，它从合同的约束性中找到了债务人必须支付损害赔偿的理由。根据新的学说，违约足以证明合同责任的正当性。2看来，传统学说仍然占主导地位的做法，因为新的学说有一些问题。(1)在新学说中，合同解释的操作具有决定性的重要性，但也有人认为这种操作可能具有任意性。(2)新学说尚未明确违约责任与侵权责任的关系。(3)新学说并没有显示出其完整的体系。(4)新学说的政策不够明确。新学说中的契约形象是否与日本民法典中的契约形象相同，也值得怀疑。有些问题将在不久的将来得到解决。同时，新的司法解释原则与日本的法官造法原则相一致，具有传统司法解释原则所不能比拟的优越性。笔者认为，民法基础教科书中应更多地展示和解释这一新的学说。少

This is a summary of the most important article of this project issued in 20061 Art. 415 of the Japanese civil code provides that "If an obligor fails to effect performance in accordance with the tenor and purport of the obligation, the obligee may claim damages ; the same shall apply to cases where performance becomes impossible for any cause for which the obligor is responsible."On the basis of this article, traditional doctrine finds "fault principle" here, and tells that "responsibility=fault" is the requirement to claim damages for all types of non-performance of obligation. According to this doctrine, "fault" which means, as in the law of tort, lack of duty of care required for reasonable person, justifies the obligor who does not perform his obligation shall be bound to pay damages.But since the last decade of the 20th century, traditional doctrine has been criticized by a new doctrine. The point of the new doctrine is as follows. Fault principle is appropriate in tort law where … More we assume the freedom of act, but not in contract law where an obligee is not free but obliged to perform his duty. Or non-performance of his promise is enough to justify the obligor to be bound for damages. New doctrine says that "liability" lies in non-performance of obligation itself. It categorizes into two types the obligations issued from contract. The first is "obligation de moyen", and the second is "obligation de resultat". In the first type, an obligee is only bound to the exercise of reasonable care. In the second type, an obligee is bound to achieve the result which he has promised except the case where non-performance is due to "force majeure".The new doctrine is not based on obligation abstracted from contract as conceived by pandectist, but on contract itself, and it finds in the binding nature of contract the reason why the obligor to be bound to pay damages. According to the new doctrine, breach of contract is enough to justify the contractual liability.2 It seems that the traditional doctrine still dominates the practice, because the new doctrine has some problems.(1) In the new doctrine, the operation of interpretation of contract has a decisive importance, but some people think that this operation might be arbitrary.(2) The new doctrine has not yet clarified the relation between liability for breach of contract and tort liability.(3) The new doctrine has not shown its whole system.(4) The new doctrine is not clear enough in its policy. We can also doubt whether or not the image of the contract in the new theory is the same as that of the Japanese civil code.Despite these problems, the new doctrine is charming. Some of the problems will be solved in near future. And it has to be added that the new doctrine has a great advantage to the traditional doctrine, because the new one is consistent with the judge made law in Japan. My opinion is that the new doctrine should be more displayed and explained in the basic textbooks of civil law. Less