Droit des contrats, droit anglais, droit français, erreur, article 1132 du Code civil, vice du consentement, nature de l'erreur, erreur excusable, annulation d'un contrat, équité, affaire Solle v. Butcher, système juridique anglais, recevabilité d'une requête, validité du contrat
Cette présentation orale, rédigée en anglais, porte sur le thème de l'erreur en droit des contrats dans le cadre des systèmes juridiques anglais et français.
Contractual mistake in French and English law:
The English judge proceeds on the assumption that equity may come into play when rigid contractual rules would lead to an inequitable result.
French law starts elsewhere. A judge first checks whether the mistake fits the Civil Code rules on vices of consent, especially Article 1132.
[...] Consequences for the validity of the contract If the French judge accepts the error, the natural consequence is annulment. French courts cannot reshape contracts as the English court did. The agreement is either valid or void. Annulment leads to restitution, and the parties must return to their original position. Although a French judge may soften some effects through damages or restitution, they cannot recreate the contract on new terms. The English decision, by contrast, used equitable rescission to balance fairness and continuity. This is where the two systems diverge most clearly. [...]
[...] In Solle, estoppel could not block the tenant's rights. French law reaches the same outcome through public-order rules. Whatever the parties believed, a mandatory rent ceiling applies automatically. On this point, the logic differs but the effect is the same. The French judge would therefore focus solely on whether the statute applied, without giving weight to the parties' assumptions. 7. A clearer assessment of the two approaches and my preferred view Seen together, the two approaches serve different aims. The English system values flexibility. [...]
[...] How would Article 1132 of the Code civil structure the judge's reasoning in such a scenario? - According to you, to what extent do the different legal outcomes in Solle v Butcher reflect deeper cultural differences between common-law and civil-law jurisdictions? In other words, are these divergent approaches to mistake and contractual remedies merely technical, or do they reveal contrasting legal philosophies and historical traditions in England and France? - Do you think it would be desirable for French contract law to adopt a remedial approach closer to the English model, where judges can adjust the consequences of a mistake rather than simply annul the contract? [...]
[...] For determining whether the contract is valid in the first place, I prefer the French approach. It provides a disciplined and transparent method, which helps parties anticipate risks and encourages better contractual drafting. But when it comes to shaping the consequences of the mistake, I find the English approach more convincing. Equity prevents outcomes that are technically correct yet practically harsh. Ideally, a system would combine both: the French clarity for identifying the error and the English flexibility for dealing with its effects. [...]
[...] L'erreur contractuelle en droit français et en droit anglais Contractual mistake in French and English law 1. The English judge's approach in this case To understand how a French judge would deal with the situation, it helps to start with the English Court of Appeal's reasoning in Solle v Butcher. The English judge proceeds on the assumption that equity may come into play when rigid contractual rules would lead to an inequitable result. Both parties genuinely believed that the statutory rent control no longer applied, and this shared mistake shaped the rent they agreed. [...]
Bibliographie, normes APA
Citez le doc consultéLecture en ligne
et sans publicité !Contenu vérifié
par notre comité de lecture
