耶鲁大学美国合同法笔记第7周.docx
- 文档编号:29852456
- 上传时间:2023-07-27
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:19
- 大小:35.32KB
耶鲁大学美国合同法笔记第7周.docx
《耶鲁大学美国合同法笔记第7周.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《耶鲁大学美国合同法笔记第7周.docx(19页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
耶鲁大学美国合同法笔记第7周
Drennanv.StarPaving-MistakenBid
Irrevocableoffer不可撤销要约
Aswe'vediscussedinpreviousclasses,anoffermaytypicallyberevokedatanytimebeforetheoffereeacceptstheoffer.要约通常在承诺前撤销。
Today,wediscussanexceptiontothatrulebylookingata1958Californiacase,DrennanvsStarPaving.本案是上述规则的例外。
Drennan,ageneralcontractorpreparedabidforaconstructioncontract.BeforesubmittinghisbidDrennanhadsolicited征求otherbidsfromseveralsubcontractorsandthedefendant,StarPaving,submittedthelowestbidforthepavingsubcontract.DrennanusedStarPavingsbidtocalculatehisoverallbidontheconstructioncontract.DrennanwasawardedtheconstructioncontractandafterDrennanwonthebid,butbeforehewasabletonotifyStarPaving,StarPavingdiscoveredthatitsbidof$7,131.60wasanerrorandinformedDrennanthatitwouldnotperformforlessthan$15,000.
Drennanendedupengaginganotherpavingsubcontractorfor$10,948andsuedStarPavingforthedifferenceof$3,187.Thisisthedifferencebetweenthedefendant'sbidandthecostthatDrennanactuallyhadtopayareplacementpavingsubcontractor.Thetrialcourtfoundfortheplaintiff,Drennan,andtheincidentcourtaffirmed.
So,thecentralissueinthecaseisthis,didtheplaintiff'sreliancemakethedefendant'sofferirrevocable?
Thecourtherefoundyes,thereliancedidmaketheofferirrevocable.信赖利益使要约不可撤销
StarPavingarguedthattherewasnoenforceablecontractbetweenthepartiesonthegroundthatitmadearevocableoffer,andrevokeditbeforeplaintiffcommunicatedhisacceptance.However,thecourtinanopinionwrittenbyoneofthemostfamousstatecourtjusticesinournation'shistory,JusticeTraynor,托雷诺法官,作为一名在受人尊敬的法学家,托雷诺以其自由主义和行动主义的思想而闻名,在他30年的加州大法官生涯中,托雷诺见证了加州以及全美国的人口激增、社会进步以及政府改革。
他的信念之一(依据他的传记作家爱德华·怀特)就是“政府存在感的增加在当时美国人民的生活中是必需的也是有益的。
”disagreed.JusticeTraynorpointedtoapromissoryestoppelprovisionoftherestatement,thefamousSection90whichsays,"UndertheFirstRestatementthatapromisewhichthepromisorshouldreasonablyexpecttoinduceactionorforbearanceofadefiniteandsubstantialcharacteronthepartofthepromiseeandwhichdoesinducesuchactionorforbearanceisbindingifinjusticecanbeavoidedonlybyenforcementofthepromise."SincethedefendantreasonablyreliedonStarPaving'sbidtocommititselftotheconstructioncontractatapriceincorporatingStarPaving'sbid,StarPaving'soffercouldnotberevokedbecauseinjusticewouldotherwiseresult.So,inDrennan,thecourtreliedonSection90oftheRestatement.YoumayrecallSection90oftheRestatementfromourearlierdiscussionsofpromissoryestoppelinearlierclasses.
Canyourememberwhatispromissoryestoppel?
Underthedoctrineofpromissoryestoppelifapromiseereasonablyreliesonapromiseandchangesherpositionaccordingly,thepromisemaybebindingevenwithoutconsiderationifjusticesorequires.Remember,RickettsversusScothorn,wheregrandfatherpromisedtopayhisgranddaughter$2,000andinresponsethegranddaughterquitherjob?
EventhoughJusticeTraynorusedSection90toholdthatStarPaving'sofferwasirrevocable,thefactsinDrennandon'tquitefit.
Promissoryestoppelapplieswhenapromiseereliesonanunconditionalpromise.ButinDrennan,StarPavingonlymadeanoffertoenterintoabilateralcontractbutneverpromisedtokeepthatofferopen.有点不太适用,因为允诺的禁反言适用于无条件允诺,但本案中,建筑公司的目的是为了成立一个双边合同。
Anofferisakindofconditionalpromisewhichisconditionedontheothersidesreturnpromise.ItcanbearguedthatitwasunreasonableforDrennantorelyontheconditionalpromiseespeciallywhenDrennancouldhavemadeitunconditionalbyaccepting.Toresolvethisdilemma,JusticeTraynorheldthat,"Reasonablerelianceresultinginaforeseeableprejudicialchangeinpositionaffordsacompellingbasisalsoforimplyingasubsidiarypromisenottorevokeanofferforabilateralcontract.合理信赖导致可预见的变更同样包含了一个副随允诺"Inotherwords,asubcontractor'sbidcreatesanimplicitsubsidiarypromisenottorevoketheofferifitbecomespartofthewinningbid.也就是说,分包商的默示副随允诺在其中标后成为了不可撤销的要约。
类似于合同订立前的先合同义务,信赖利益损失。
Traynor'sreasoningisnowenshrinedinaseparatesectionoftheRestatement,Section87
(2)whichreads,anofferwhichtheofferorshouldreasonablyexpecttoinduceactionorforbearanceofasubstantialcharacterbytheoffereebeforeacceptanceandwhichdoesinducesuchactionorforbearanceisbindingasanoptioncontracttotheextentnecessarytoavoidinjustice.
Considerthefollowinghypothetical,OilLeaseOwnerofferedtoenterafarmoutagreementwithOilDriller.Theofferstatedthatitwasirrevocableforaperiodof120days,plusa30dayextension.Driller,whowastoaccepttheofferbydrillingonadesignatedparcel,paidnothingfortheoption.Beforeacceptance,Drillerinrelianceontheoptiondrilledatestwellonanotherparcel.Thedatafromthistestdrillingwouldhelptoevaluatewhethertoaccepttheoffer.Beforeacceptance,however,Ownerattemptedtochangethetermsoftheoffer.BasedontheholdinginDrennanvsStarPaving,canOwnerchangethetermsoftheofferatthisstage?
No.TheDriller'srelianceuponthewrittenoption,promise,madetheofferirrevocableandDrillercouldcreateacontractontheoriginaltermsoftheoffer.Thisexampleisbasedonarealcase,StrataProductionversusMercuryExploration.Anotherwaytothinkaboutthiscaseisbyaskingwhoshouldbeartheriskofasubcontractorerror?
Theholdinginthiscaseputstheriskoferroronthesubcontractor.Thisseemsreasonable,itforcesthesubcontractortointernalize内在化thecostofitsownmistakeswhichcreatesanincentiveforthesubcontractortobemorecareful.Thegeneralcontractorontheotherhanddoesn'thavemuchcontroloverwhethersubcontractorsmakemistakesintheirbids.Ifthecostofmistakewasshoulderedbythegeneralcontractor,itmighthavetoaddapremiumtoitsbidtocompensateitselffortheoccasionalmistakebyasubcontractor.Thisinturnwouldincreasethecostofconstructioncontracts.Inotherwords,thesubcontractorisprobablytheleastcostavoiderinthiscaseandsoshouldbeartherisk.Thecourtseemstorecognizethisprinciplewhenitsays,"
Asbetweenthesubcontractorwhomadethebidandthegeneralcontractorwhoreasonablyreliedonit,thelossresultingfromthemistakeshouldfallonthepartywhocausedit."Nowtherearecircumstances,however,whenthegeneralcontractormightbetheleastcostavoider.Forexample,ifthere'salargemistakeintheofferedbidssuchasleavingoffazerocreatingabid10timessmallerthanthenextlowestbid,thegeneralcontractorshouldeasilyrecognizethatthisisamistakeandmaybepointitout.IfthishadhappenedinDrennanitmayhavechangedtheoutcome.Thecourtspecificallyconsideredthispointbutfoundthatthegeneralcontractor,"Hadnoreasontoknowthatthedefendanthadmadeamistakeinsubmittingitsbid."UnderDrennan,asubcontractor'sbidbecomesanirrevocableofferwhenthegeneralcontractorreliesonitinawinningbid.However,thegeneralcontractorisstillnotacceptedthesubcontractorsbid,andmightsolicitanewroundofsubcontractorbidssomethingthatiscalledbidshopping.JusticeTraynorwascarefultopointout,"Ageneralcontractorisnotfreetodelayacceptanceafterhehasbeenawardedthegeneralcontractedinthehopeofgettingabetterpricenorcanhereopenbargainingwiththesubcontractorandthesametimeclaimacontinuingrighttoaccepttheoriginaloffer."
So,thesubcontractor'sofferisonlyirrevocablyifthegeneralcontractordoesnotmisuseitsoptionpower.Sincetheoverallprojectcontracthasalreadybeenawardedatthispoint,onlythegeneralcontractor,nottheprojectowner,willprofitfromthisbidshopping.Recognizingthispotentialforabuse,in1963theCalifornialegislatureadoptedasubletting分包andsub-contractingFairPracticesAct.TheStatuteprovidesthatageneralcontractorbiddingon"Anypublicworkorimprovementmustdiscloseinitsbidthenameofanysubcontractor公共工程必须披露分包商的名称whosebidisincorporatedintoandexceedsonepercentofthepriceofthegeneralcontractor'sbid."
Thestatutefurtherprovidesthatageneralcontractorwhosebidonapublicprojectisacceptedshallnotreplaceasubcontractorlistedinhisbidwithanothersubcontractorexceptundercertainconditions除非特定条件下,不得令其他分包商替代该分包商andwiththeawardingauthoritiesconsent.
该项立法的意义
So,whataretheconsequencesofthestatute?
Sinceageneralcontractorcannotbargainwithsubcontractorsafterwinningthebid,itmustmakeanallornothingchoicebeforehandanditwouldinduceallcompetitionbeforehandtobettersolicitanumberofbids.Giventhatex-postcompetitionmaynotredoundtothepublicbuyersbenefit,thestatutesmakesomesenseifitleadstomoreex-antecompetitionforsubcontracts.Butinsomecircumstances,generalsmaynothavetimeforpre-bidcompetitionandthestatutemaynotallowsubstoexercisesomemarketpower.It'sdifficulttoassesswhetherthismerelyprotectsubsorcreatesomeinappropriatemarketpowerforsubcontractors.Theasymmetry不对称createdbytheholdinginDrennancouldalsobemodifiedbycontract.Forstartersthecourtstates,"HadStarPaving'sbidexpresslystatedorclearlyimpliedthatitwasrevocableatanytimebeforeacceptance,wewouldtreatitaccordingly."
Inotherwords,theholdinginDrennanthatasubcontractor'sbidbecomesanirrevocableofferifitbecomespartofthewinningbid,ismerelyadefaultruleandmaybecontractedaroundbythesubcontractorsintheirinitialoffer.分包商的投标成为了不可撤销要约,如果中标;这仅仅是默认规则并且可以通过最初与分包商协商。
应对策略:
1.该规则属于默认规则,可以
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- 耶鲁大学 美国 合同法 笔记