英、德对形式瑕疵合同效力之救济比较

Comparison of relieving effect between Britain flawed contract and Germany flawed contractt

选取大陆法系和英美法系中的典型国家:德国和英国,比较其在立法和司法中如何救济在法定形式上存在瑕疵的合同效力。德国的效力设计是在一个原则性的强制性条款之下,在实务中充分运用履行治愈规则和诚信原则进行个案的公平性校正。英美法则很宽松,法官往往根据个案的不同情况,灵活地运用部分履行和禁反言原则进行衡量和判决。通过对比提出,德国模式较为适合我国的实际。因此,中国立法中应当重新构建履行治愈原则,司法中应谨慎运用诚实信用原则。

The article chooses one typical country from Continental and Anglo-American legal systems respectively： Germany and the Great Britain. The two countries are compared in their ways to relieve the effect of contracts that have flaws in legal forms. The German＇s efficacy design is under principled mandatory term, and makes full use of the discharge cure rule and good faith doctrine in practice, and conducts fairness correction to the individual cases. The British and American laws are much loose. The judge, according to the different situations of the individual cases most of the time, measures and adjudicates flexibly by The Doctrine Of Part Performance and Proprietaty Estoppel. We can conclude by contrast that the German model suits our country＇s reality, so we should rebuild discharge cure rule in legislation and apply the good faith doctrine cautiously in justice.