Judicial Interpretation of Commercial Contracts in English and French Law: A Comparative Perspective

Q2 Social Sciences European Business Law Review Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI:10.54648/eulr2021040
Catherine Pédamon
{"title":"Judicial Interpretation of Commercial Contracts in English and French Law: A Comparative Perspective","authors":"Catherine Pédamon","doi":"10.54648/eulr2021040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I consider whether the recent overhaul of French contract law via ordonnance No 2016-131 of 10 February 2016 has changed the principles of judicial interpretation of commercial contracts, and how these compare with the principles in English law. One of the questions I ask is whether the traditional dichotomy between the French subjective approach and the English objective one has been altered now that the objective principle of interpretation has been incorporated in the Code civil. I explore how both jurisdictions deal with the main aspects of judicial interpretation, such as the nature of the interpretative question and the purpose and scope of contractual interpretation. Similarities emerge that show a rapprochement between these judicial approaches. Naturally, differences persist, which reflect distinct contract law values embedded in each legal order. Even if the ordonnance No 2016-131 has only introduced in appearance small changes to the provisions relating to interpretation, French courts now have the interpretative tools to follow in the footsteps of English courts when interpreting professionally drafted commercial contracts. An emerging coalescence around an objective literal interpretation in a sophisticated business setting is to be welcomed as it enhances commercial certainty across borders.\nContractual interpretation, commercial contracts, principles of interpretation, subjective interpretation, objective interpretation, contextualism, textualism, English contract law, French contract law","PeriodicalId":53431,"journal":{"name":"European Business Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Business Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2021040","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this paper, I consider whether the recent overhaul of French contract law via ordonnance No 2016-131 of 10 February 2016 has changed the principles of judicial interpretation of commercial contracts, and how these compare with the principles in English law. One of the questions I ask is whether the traditional dichotomy between the French subjective approach and the English objective one has been altered now that the objective principle of interpretation has been incorporated in the Code civil. I explore how both jurisdictions deal with the main aspects of judicial interpretation, such as the nature of the interpretative question and the purpose and scope of contractual interpretation. Similarities emerge that show a rapprochement between these judicial approaches. Naturally, differences persist, which reflect distinct contract law values embedded in each legal order. Even if the ordonnance No 2016-131 has only introduced in appearance small changes to the provisions relating to interpretation, French courts now have the interpretative tools to follow in the footsteps of English courts when interpreting professionally drafted commercial contracts. An emerging coalescence around an objective literal interpretation in a sophisticated business setting is to be welcomed as it enhances commercial certainty across borders. Contractual interpretation, commercial contracts, principles of interpretation, subjective interpretation, objective interpretation, contextualism, textualism, English contract law, French contract law
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
英法商事合同的司法解释:比较视角
在本文中,我考虑最近通过2016年2月10日第2016-131号法令对法国合同法进行的全面改革是否改变了商业合同的司法解释原则,以及这些原则与英国法律中的原则如何比较。我要问的一个问题是,法国主观方法和英国客观方法之间的传统二分法是否已经改变,因为解释的客观原则已被纳入民法。我将探讨这两个司法管辖区如何处理司法解释的主要方面,例如解释问题的性质以及合同解释的目的和范围。相似之处的出现显示了这些司法方法之间的和解。当然,差异仍然存在,这反映了每个法律秩序中嵌入的不同的合同法价值。即使第2016-131号法令只是在表面上对与解释有关的条款进行了微小的修改,法国法院在解释专业起草的商业合同时,现在也有了解释工具,可以跟随英国法院的脚步。在复杂的商业环境中,围绕客观字面解释的新兴融合将受到欢迎,因为它提高了跨境商业的确定性。合同解释,商业合同,解释原则,主观解释,客观解释,语境主义,文本主义,英国合同法,法国合同法
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Business Law Review
European Business Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: The mission of the European Business Law Review is to provide a forum for analysis and discussion of business law, including European Union law and the laws of the Member States and other European countries, as well as legal frameworks and issues in international and comparative contexts. The Review moves freely over the boundaries that divide the law, and covers business law, broadly defined, in public or private law, domestic, European or international law. Our topics of interest include commercial, financial, corporate, private and regulatory laws with a broadly business dimension. The Review offers current, authoritative scholarship on a wide range of issues and developments, featuring contributors providing an international as well as a European perspective. The Review is an invaluable source of current scholarship, information, practical analysis, and expert guidance for all practising lawyers, advisers, and scholars dealing with European business law on a regular basis. The Review has over 25 years established the highest scholarly standards. It distinguishes itself as open-minded, embracing interests that appeal to the scholarly, practitioner and policy-making spheres. It practices strict routines of peer review. The Review imposes no word limit on submissions, subject to the appropriateness of the word length to the subject under discussion.
期刊最新文献
Article: Legislation Comment: Considerations on the Digital Markets Act, the Way to a Fair and Open Digital Environment Article: Open-Price Contracts Under the CISG: The Law in Action Article: EU Law and the Member States’ Competence to Regulate the Operation of Collaborative Economy Platforms – Where Do We Stand after the Digital Services Act Article: The Systemic Importance of Asset Managers: A Case Study for the Future of SIFI Regulation Article: Codes of Conduct in German Employment Relationships – A Measure to Adequately Implementing Compliance and Data Protection?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1