|
国际贸易中，违反诚实信用（Good faith）原则的后果 在国际贸易中，一般来讲，诚实信用原则就是如实的提供相关信息，不存在欺诈。如果一方违反诚实信用原则，守约方可以主张所遭受的损失，包括利润损失。 案例（与上期同一案例） 2009年5月12日，原告YAM SENG与被告ITC签署合约，被告独家授权原告在中东，亚洲、非洲、澳大利亚等地销售品牌为“Manchester United”的相关产品。合约约定，原告在新加坡销售（特定区域）价格为最低的价格，但是被告并没有告知原告，其在新加坡有其他分销商，其价格比原告的价格低。合约签署后，原告进行了大量的市场宣传、推广，付出了巨大的成本。在得知被告在新加坡有其他分销商，且价格比原告的价格低时，原告与被告协商此事，被告告知其已经要求其他分销商提高价格，但是实际上其他分销商并未提高价格。最后双方协商无果后，原告将被告诉至法院，要求赔偿其损失，最后法院确认被告违反诚实信用原则，支持了原告的诉讼请求。 法院的理由如下： The traditional English hostility towards a doctrine of good faith in the performance of contracts,to the extent that it still persisted,was misplaced,although the concept of good faith had been gaining ground in common law jurisdictions The modern case law on the construction of contracts emphasised that contracts were against a background of unstated shared understandings which informed their meaning...... Parties entering into a commercial contract will assume the honesty and good faith of the other;absent such an assumption they would not deal.in the absence of words which expressly refer to dishonesty,it goes without saying that underlying the contractual arrangements of the parties there will be common assumption that the persons involved will behave honestly. There was an implied term that ITC would not knowingly give false information,because such conduct would plainly infringe the core expectation of honesty.that duty was broken ,as ITC had left YAM SENG with the impression that the domestic price in Singapore had been increased when ITC knew that that was untrue...... 上述大意为： 尽管善意的概念在普通法管辖范围内得到了普及，但是英国传统上对履行合同中的诚实信用原则敌视的态度仍然存在，但该敌视态度却是错误的。 现在法律对合同的解释强调，合同订立时，必须告知相关含义的背景...... 签约双方应该诚实信用，在没有说明不诚实的情况下，合同各方假定为是诚实信用的。 有一个默示条款，ITC不会故意提供虚假信息，因为这样的行为会明显侵犯诚实信用的基本预期。当 ITC告知YAM SENG 在新加坡国内的价格提高了的事实是不真实的时候，ITC就违反了诚实信用的义务...... 需要注意的问题，在国际贸易中，尤其是在适用英国法的时候，越来越多的判例表明，违反诚信原则会被判为毁约，赔偿守约方巨额损失。 |
|
|
