承诺方式制度比较研究——以我国《合同法》与《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》为例

Comparative Study on Modes of Acceptance:Focusing on Chinese Contract Law and CISG

在有关国际货物贸易的判决与仲裁中,应尽量保持《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》的自身独立性,原则上不能引用《合同法》的规定。就承诺方式而言,结合《最高人民法院关于贯彻执行〈中华人民共和国民法通则〉若干问题的意见(试行)》第66条的规定,可将默示承诺(《合同法》第22条后半句)划分为"积极作为的默示"和"不作为的默示";后者亦可被认定为一种特殊的意思表示,以"不作为"的方式完成承诺意思的"到达"。《公约》要求承诺须以积极作为的方式完成,且能够"到达"并适用"到达主义",限制了非履行行为作出承诺的方式。在解释《公约》时,可将非履行行为适用于《公约》第18条第3款而非第1款,以放宽须对特定行为予以通知的要求。

The CISG shall be applied independently for international sales of goods in judicial application or arbitration.The judicial interpretation of the CLC can learn from that of the CISG;however,the later,in principle,can't learn from the former.On one hand,with reference of Article 66 of the Judicial Interpretation of GPCL issued by the Chinese Supreme People's Court,the ImpHcation of Act(Article 22 CLC) embraces two modes of acceptance:one is the Implication of Action displaying to offeror that offeree has accepted the request;and the other is the Implication of Nonfeasance.Both of the two modes can be qualified as Declaration of Will and shall meet the requirement of arrival of notice.What the pattern of arrival of notice by the latter mode is concerned,an inactive or silent implication by means of nonfeasance can be regarded as a special one.On the other hand,the provisions of the CISG pertinent to the modes of acceptance strictly stipulate that the notice of conduct shall reach offeror as the notice does not belong as the act of performance.Therefore,the acceptance by conduct shall be ruled under Paragraph 3 of Article 18 CISG instead of Paragraph 1 of this article so as to mitigate the requirement for arrival of notice.