國際商法 第4版 課件 導論 第四節(jié) 英美法系

英美法系

（CommonLawSystem）又稱普通法系，以英國和美國為代表。形成于英國，以英國中世紀的普通法為基礎而發(fā)展起來的法律制度體系。英美法系的概念1066年，諾曼底公爵威廉，率軍征服不列顛群島，建立了統(tǒng)一的英吉利王國保留原來的地方法院，繼續(xù)適用地方習慣法，但是需要申請國王的“令狀”設立皇家法院，法官巡回審理案件各地習慣法逐漸統(tǒng)一，成為全國普遍適用的共同法律普通法的形成美國法律屬于普通法系。19世紀后期開始獨立發(fā)展，對世界的法律產生很大影響。英美法分為英國法和美國法兩個支系。屬于英美法系的主要國家加拿大澳大利亞新西蘭愛爾蘭印度巴基斯坦馬來西亞新加坡現在香港實行法律包括：《基本法》原有法律（包括普通法、衡平法、條例、附屬立法、習慣法）香港特別行政區(qū)立法機關制定的法律屬大陸法與英美法的混合物南非菲律賓斯里蘭卡例

外聯(lián)合王國的蘇格蘭加拿大的魁北克省美國的路易斯安那洲不屬英美法系而屬大陸法系“先例約束力原則”

（ruleofprecedent）法院在判決中所包括的判決理由必須得到遵循，即對作出判例的法院本身和對下級法院日后處理同類案件均具有約束力。判例法（caselaw）

英美法主要法律淵源

ComplainantsinstitutedthissuittohavespecificperformanceofacontractbywhichitwasallegedthedefendantshadsoldtoW.O.Lucyfor$50,000atractoflandknownastheFergusonfarmownedbydefendantA.H.Zehmer.J.C.Lucy,theothercomplainant,isabrotherofW.O.Lucy,towhomW.O.Lucytransferredahaftinterestinhisallegedpurchase.TheinstrumentsoughttobeenforcedwaswrittenbyA.H.ZehmeronDecember20,1952,inthesewords:"WeherebytoselltoW.O.LucytheFergusonfarmfor$50,000,titlesatisfactorytobuyer,"signedbybothdefendants.

Lucyetal.v.Zehmeretal.

84S.E.(2d)516,196Va.493(1954)

TheanswerofA.H.ZehmeradmittedthatatthetimementionedW.O.Lucyofferedhim$50,000cashforthefarmbutthathe(Zehmer)consideredthattheofferwasmadeinjest;thatsothinking,andbothheandLucyhavinghadseveraldrinks,hewroteoutthea‘memorandum’quotedaboveandinducedhiswifetosignit;thathedidnotdeliverthememorandumtoLucy,butLucypickeditup,readit,putitinhispocket,andattempttoofferhim$5.00tobindthebargain;thatherefusedtoaccept,and,realizingforthefirsttimethatLucywasserious,assuredhimthathehadnointentionofsellingthefarm,andthatthewholematterwasajoke.Lucyleftthepremisesinsistingthathehadpurchasedthefarm.

OnMonday,December22nd,Lucyengagedanattorneytoexaminethetitle.TheattorneyreportedfavorablyonDecember31st,andonJanuary2ndLucywrotetoZehmerstatingthatthetitlewassatisfactoryandthathewasreadytopaythepurchasepriceincash,andaskingwhenZehmerwouldbereadytoclosethedeal.Zehmerrepliedbyletterassertingthathehadneveragreedorintendedtosellthefarm.Thereuponcomplainantsbroughtthissuit.Theissueiswhethertheagreementwasenteredintowithcontractualintentorwasmerelyajoke.

Buchanan,J.InhistestimonyZehmerclaimedthathe"washighasaGeorgiapine,"andthatthetransactionwasjustabunchoftwodoggoneddrunksbluffingtoseewhocouldtalkthebiggestandsaythemost."Thatclaimisinconsistentwithhisattempttotestifyingreatdetailastowhatwassaidandwhatwasdone...TherecordisconvincingthatZehmerwasnotintoxicatedtotheextentofbeingunabletocomprehendthenatureandconsequenceoftheinstrumentbeexecuted,andhencethatinstrumentisnottobeinvalidatedonthatground.

TheevidenceisconvincingalsothatZehmerwrotetwoagreements,thefirstonebeginning'Iherebyagreetosell';thatLucytoldhimthathewantedZehmer'swifetosignthememorandum;andthatZehmertoreupthefirstagreementandthenmadeasecondonewhichread"Weherebyagreetosell."Bothheandhiswifesignedthesecondmemorandum.

Theappearanceofthecontract;thefactdiscussionforfortyminutesormorebeforeitwassigned;Lucy'sobjectiontothefirstdraftbecauseitwaswritteninthesingularandhewantedMrs.Zehmertosignitalso;therewritingtomeetthatobjectionandthesigningbyMrs.Zehmer;thediscussionofwhatwastobeincludedinthesale;theprovisionforexaminationofthetitle;thecompletenessoftheinstrumentthatwasexecuted;thetakingpossessionofitbyLucywithnorequestorsuggestionbyeitherofthedefendantsthathegiveitback,arefactswhichfurnishpersuasiveevidencethattheexecutionofthecontractwasaseriousbusinesstransactionratherthanacasual,jestingmatter,asdefendantsnowcontend.FirstNat.ExchangeBankofRoanokev.RoanokeOilCo.,169Va.99,192S.E.764.

Inthefieldofcontracts,asgenerallyelsewhere,“Wemustlooktotheoutwardexpressionofapersonasmanifestinghisintentionratherthanhissecretorunexpressedintention.Thelawimputestoapersonanintentioncorrespondingtothereasonablemeaningofhiswordsandacts.”

Thementalassentofthepartiesisnotrequisiteforaformationofacontract.Ifthewordsorotheractsofoneofthepartieshavebutonereasonablemeaning,hisundisclosedintentionisimmaterialexceptwhereanunreasonablemeaningwhichheattachestohismanifestationsisknowntotheotherparty.Anagreementormutualassentisofcourseessentialtoavalidcontractbutthelawimputestoapersonanintentioncorrespondingtothereasonablemeaningofhiswordsandacts.Soapersoncannotsetupthathewasmerelyjestingwhenhisconductandwordswouldwarrantareasonablepersoninbelievingthatheintendedarealagreement.Reversed.成文法英國的成文法，包括由立法機關議會制定的法律和由行政機關依據法律制定的條例。美國的成文法，分為聯(lián)邦的成文法和州的成文法。美國最高法院認為，憲法是一切法律之源，凡是違反憲法的法律或判例，美國各法院均有權不予執(zhí)行。成文法一般都要通過判例法才能起作用。習慣法習慣法曾經是普通法的重要淵源，但是，目前，習慣在英美國法律中所起的作用極小。根據法律規(guī)定，只有那些在1189年就已經存在的地方習慣，才有約束力。在法律淵源上，判例法占有重要地位判例法最大的特點就是新案判決依據于舊案。這一特點有助于國家法律的穩(wěn)定，減少隨意性。英美法系的特點1892年6月7日，具有八分之一黑人血統(tǒng)的普萊西故意登上路易斯安那州的一輛專為白人服務的列車，根據路易斯安那州當時的法律，白人和有色種族必須乘坐隔離的車廂。根據該條法律，普萊西被認定為“有色種族”，遭到逮捕和關押。于是他將路易斯安那州政府告上法庭，指責其侵犯了自己根據美國憲法而享有的權利。但是法官裁決，普萊西敗訴，并且，以違反隔離法為名被判處罰金300美元。案

例在法律分類方面，以實用為主美國一般采用兩種分類：實體法與程序法實體法，是指規(guī)定權利與義務的法律程序法，是指法律上的行政管理英美法系的特點在審判方式上，采用對抗制法官地位中立，起訴