美國整編契約法 (第二版) (3)－自強街87號

Chapter 6 Mistake
§ 151. Mistake Defined
A mistake is a belief that is not in accord with the facts.
第六章錯誤
第151條錯誤之定義
錯誤乃指所知與事實不符。

§ 152. When Mistake Of Both Parties Makes A Contract
Voidable
(1) Where a mistake of both parties at the time a contract was made
as to a basic assumption on which the contract was made has a
material effect on the agreed exchange of performances, the
contract is voidable by the adversely affected party unless he
bears the risk of the mistake under the rule stated in § 154.
(2) In determining whether the mistake has a material effect on the
agreed exchange of performances, account is taken of any relief
by way of reformation, restitution, or otherwise.
第152條雙方當事人之錯誤使一契約
得撤銷之時機
(1) 一契約作成時當事人雙方對該契約之
成立所據基本假設之錯誤對所約定履
行之交換有重大影響時，除應依第154
條之規定由受不利影響之當事人一方
負擔錯誤之危險外，該契約對受不利影
響之當事人效力未定。
(2) 於決定錯誤對所約定履行之交換是否
有重要影響時，應考慮藉重新作成時，
回復原狀或其它方式之任何救濟措施。

§ 153. When Mistake Of One Party Makes A Contract
Voidable
Where a mistake of one party at the time a contract was made as to a
basic assumption on which he made the contract has a material
effect on the agreed exchange of performances that is adverse to
him, the contract is voidable by him if he does not bear the risk of
the mistake under the rule stated in § 154
(a) the effect of the mistake is such that enforcement of the
contract would be unconscionable
(b) the other party had reason to know of the mistake or his fault
caused the mistake.
第153條一方當事人之錯誤使一契約
效力未定之時機
一契約作成時當事人一方就其作成該契約
所據基本假設之錯誤，對所約定履行之交
換有重大影響而對其不利時，如該當事人
非應依第154條之規定負擔該錯誤之危險
且有下列情形之一，該契約對其效力未定，
(a) 該錯誤有使該契約之執行為不公平
之效果、或
(b) 他方當事人有理由得知該錯誤，或對
錯誤之造成有過失。

§ 154. When A Party Bears The Risk Of A Mistake
A party bears the risk of a mistake when
(a) the risk is allocated to him by agreement of the parties
(b) he is aware, at the time the contract is made, that he has only
limited knowledge with respect to the facts to which the
mistake relates but treats his limited knowledge as sufficient
(c) the risk is allocated to him by the court on the ground that it is
reasonable in the circumstances to do so.
第154條當事人之一方負擔錯誤危險
之時機
於有下列情形之一時，當事人一方負擔一
錯誤之危險
(a) 經由當事人之協定，將危險分配予該
當事人，或
(b) 契約作成時，該當事人知其對於與錯
誤相關聯之事實僅具有限之知識但
卻視其有限之知識為足夠，或
(c) 法院基於依情勢係合理之理由，將危
險分配予該當事人。
§ 155. When Mistake Of Both Parties As To Written
Expression Justifies Reformation
Where a writing that evidences or embodies an agreement in whole
or in part fails to express the agreement because of a mistake of both
parties as to the contents or effect of the writing, the court may at the
request of a party reform the writing to express the agreement,
except to the extent that rights of third parties such as good faith
purchasers for value will be unfairly affected.
第155條雙方當事人對書面表示有錯誤致使更改有理由之時機
證明或包含協定之全部或一部之書面
因雙方當事人對該書面之內容或效力有錯
誤致不能表達該協定時，除如給付對價之
善意買受人等之第三人之權利將受不公平
之影響外，法院得經當事人一方之請求更
改該書面以表達該協定。

§ 156. Mistake As To Contract Within The Statute Of Frauds
If reformation of a writing is otherwise appropriate, it is not
precluded by the fact that the contract is within the Statute of Frauds.
第156條適用於防止詐欺條例之契約
之錯誤
於一書面之重作係適當時，該重作不因契
約適用防止詐欺條例而被排除。

§ 157. Effect Of Fault Of Party Seeking Relief
A mistaken party's fault in failing to know or discover the facts
before making the contract does not bar him from avoidance or
reformation under the rules stated in this Chapter, unless his fault
amounts to a failure to act in good faith and in accordance with
reasonable standards of fair dealing.
第157條尋求救濟當事人過失之效果
除其過失構成未依善意且公平之標準而行
為外，一犯錯誤之當事人於契約作成前未
能知或發現事實之過失，不阻止其依本章
之規定而為撤銷或重作。

§ 158. Relief Including Restitution
(1) In any case governed by the rules stated in this Chapter, either
party may have a claim for relief including restitution under the
rules stated in §§ 240 and 376.
(2) In any case governed by the rules stated in this Chapter, if those
rules together with the rules stated in Chapter 16 will not avoid
injustice, the court may grant relief on such terms as justice
requires including protection of the parties' reliance interests.
第158條包括回復原狀在內之救濟
(1) 於任何適用本章規定之情形，任一當事
人得主張包括依第240條及第367條所
規定回復原狀在內之救濟。
(2) 於任何適用本章規定之情形，如該等規
定加上第十六章之規定亦無法避免不
公平時，法院得基於公平之需要對於包
括當事人信賴利益之保護在內之條款
給予救濟。

Chapter 7 Misrepresentation, Duress And Undue Influence
Topic 1. Misrepresentation
§ 159. Misrepresentation Defined
A misrepresentation is an assertion that is not in accord with the
facts.
第七章不實陳述、強暴脅迫及不當影響
第一節不實陳述
第159條不實陳述之定義
稱一不實陳述者謂一與事實不符之主張。

§ 160. When Action Is Equivalent To An Assertion
(Concealment)
Action intended or known to be likely to prevent another from
learning a fact is equivalent to an assertion that the fact does not
exist.
第160條行為相當於主張之時機(隱瞞)
意圖或已知可能回阻止他人得知一事實之
行為相當於對陳述事實不存在之主張。

§ 161. When Non-Disclosure Is Equivalent To An
Assertion
A person's non-disclosure of a fact known to him is equivalent to an
assertion that the fact does not exist in the following cases only
(a) where he knows that disclosure of the fact is necessary to
prevent some previous assertion from being a
misrepresentation or from being fraudulent or material.
(b) where he knows that disclosure of the fact would correct a
mistake of the other party as to a basic assumption on which
that party is making the contract and if non-disclosure of the
fact amounts to a failure to act in good faith and in accordance
with reasonable standards of fair dealing.
(c) where he knows that disclosure of the fact would correct a
mistake of the other party as to the contents or effect of a
writing, evidencing or embodying an agreement in whole or in
part.
(d) where the other person is entitled to know the fact because of
a relation of trust and confidence between them.
第161條不公開相當於主張之時機
僅於下列情形，一人就其已知事實之不公
開始相當於陳述事實不存在之主張：
(a) 該人知該事實之公開對於防止一些
前所為之主張成為一不實陳述或防
止其成為詐欺或重要事項之所必要
者。
(b) 該人知該事實之公開將更正他方當
事人對於作成契約所依據之基本假
設之錯誤，且該事實之不公開亦相當
於不依善意及依公平交易之合理標
準而為行為。
(c) 該人知該事實之公開將更正他方當
事人對於證明或構成一協定全部或
一部之書面在內容或效力之錯誤。
(d) 因彼此間信託或信任之關係他方當
事人有權得知該事實。

§ 162. When A Misrepresentation Is Fraudulent Or
Material
(1) A misrepresentation is fraudulent if the maker intends his
assertion to induce a party to manifest his assent and the maker
(a) knows or believes that the assertion is not in accord with
the facts
(b) does not have the confidence that he states or implies in the
truth of the assertion
(c) knows that he does not have the basis that he states or
implies for the assertion.
(2) A misrepresentation is material if it would be likely to induce a
reasonable person to manifest his assent, or if the maker knows
that it would be likely to induce the recipient to do so.
第162條不實陳述為詐欺或重大之時
機
(1) 陳述人意圖使其主張誘引一當事人表
示同意且該陳述人有下列情形之一
時，其之不實陳述係詐欺性：
(a) 該陳述人明知或相信該主張與事
實不符，或
(b) 該陳述人於其之主張之屬實一
事，必無所陳述或所暗示之信心。
(c) 該陳述人知其就主張之事項並無
所陳述或所暗示之根據。
(2) 一不實陳述將可能誘引一合理之人表
示其同意或陳述人不知不實陳述將可
能誘引受陳述人表示其同意時，該不實
陳述係重大者。

§ 163. When A Misrepresentation Prevents Formation Of
A Contract
If a misrepresentation as to the character or essential terms of a
proposed contract induces conduct that appears to be a manifestation
of assent by one who neither knows nor has reasonable opportunity
to know of the character or essential terms of the proposed contract,
his conduct is not effective as a manifestation of assent.
第163條不實陳述阻止契約形成之時
機
一對擬議契約之性質或必要條款所為之不
實陳述誘引一不知且不合理機會得知該擬
議契約之性質或必要條款之人為表明同意
表示之行為時，該人所為之行為不生同意
表示之效力。

§ 164. When A Misrepresentation Makes A Contract Voidable
(1) If a party's manifestation of assent is induced by either a
fraudulent or a material misrepresentation by the other party
upon which the recipient is justified in relying, the contract is
voidable by the recipient.
(2) If a party's manifestation of assent is induced by either a
fraudulent or a material misrepresentation by one who is not a
party to the transaction upon which the recipient is justified in
relying, the contract is voidable by the recipient, unless the other
party to the transaction in good faith and without reason to know
of the misrepresentation either gives value or relies materially on
the transaction.
第164條不實陳述使契約的撤銷之時機
(1) 當事人之一方之同意表示係由他方當
事人以一受陳述人有正當理由信賴之
詐欺或重大之不實陳述所誘引時，受陳
述人得撤銷該契約。
(2) 除交易之他方當事人基於善意且無理
由得知不實陳述，而對該交易有給付對
價或重大依賴外，當事人一方之同意表
示係由交易當事人以外之人以一受陳
述人有正當理由信賴之詐欺或重大之
不實陳述所誘時，受陳述人得撤銷該契約。

§ 165. Cure By Change Of Circumstances
If a contract is voidable because of a misrepresentation and, before
notice of an intention to avoid the contract, the facts come into
accord with the assertion, the contract is no longer voidable unless
the recipient has been harmed by relying on the misrepresentation.
第165條情勢變更造成之印證
除受陳述人已因信賴不實陳述而受損害
外，一契約因一不實陳述而得撤銷且於意
圖撤銷該契約之通知到達前，事實與其主
張成為一致時，該契約不再得撤銷。

§ 166. When A Misrepresentation As To A Writing
Justifies Reformation
If a party's manifestation of assent is induced by the other party's
fraudulent misrepresentation as to the contents or effect of a writing
evidencing or embodying in whole or in part an agreement, the court
at the request of the recipient may reform the writing to express the
terms of the agreement as asserted,
(a) if the recipient was justified in relying on the
misrepresentation
(b) except to the extent that rights of third parties such as good
faith purchasers for value will be unfairly affected.
第166條對一書面之不實陳述致使重
作有理由
(a) 如受陳述人有正當理由信賴該不實
陳述，且
(b) 除如給付對價之善意買受人般之第
三人之權利將受不公平影響外，
當事人之一方所為之同意表示係由他方當
事人對於證明或構成一協定全部或一部之
書面的內容或效力而所為之詐欺性不實陳
述所誘引時，法院得依受陳述人之請求，
重作該書面以表達一如所主張之協定的條款。

§ 167. When A Misrepresentation Is An Inducing Cause
A misrepresentation induces a party's manifestation of assent if it
substantially contributes to his decision to manifest his assent.
第167條一不實陳述成為誘引原因之時機
一不實陳述就一當事人為同意表示之決定
有實質之助益時，該不實陳述即係誘引當
事人之同意表示。

§ 168. Reliance On Assertions Of Opinion
(1) An assertion is one of opinion if it expresses only a belief,
without certainty, as to the existence of a fact or expresses only a
judgment as to quality, value, authenticity, or similar matters.
(2) If it is reasonable to do so, the recipient of an assertion of a
person's opinion as to facts not disclosed and not otherwise
known to the recipient may properly interpret it as an assertion
(a) that the facts known to that person are not incompatible
with his opinion
(b) that he knows facts sufficient to justify him in forming it.
第168條對意見之主張的信賴
(1) 稱一主張者，若僅在於對事實之存在，
表達並不確定之信念，或僅在於對品
質、價值、真實性或類似事物表達判斷
時，則僅為意見之一種。
(2) 由一人對於未公開且受陳述人亦不知
之事實而所為之意見上主張的受陳述
人，於合理時其在下列情形下得適當解
釋該意見：
(a) 意見主張人聲稱所知之事實與其
意見並不抵觸，或
(b) 意見主張人聲稱依事實知有正當
理由足使其作成該意見。

§ 169. When Reliance On An Assertion Of Opinion Is Not
Justified
To the extent that an assertion is one of opinion only, the recipient is
not justified in relying on it unless the recipient
(a) stands in such a relation of trust and confidence to the person
whose opinion is asserted that the recipient is reasonable in
relying on it
(b) reasonably believes that, as compared with himself, the person
whose opinion is asserted has special skill, judgment or
objectivity with respect to the subject matter
(c) is for some other special reason particularly susceptible to a
misrepresentation of the type involved.
第169條對一意見之主張所為之信賴
非有正當理由之時機
於主張僅係意見之一種之情況下，受陳述
人就該主張之信賴，非可謂正當之理由，
但其符合下述條件之一者，非在此限：
(a) 受陳述人與意見被主張之人係立於
信託或信賴之關係，致使受陳述人對
該主張之信賴為合理，或
(b) 受陳述人與自己比較後合理地相
信，該意見被主張之人就標的實有特
殊之技術，判斷或客觀性，或
(c) 受陳述人基於一些其他之特別理由
對於涉案類型之不實陳述特別容易
接受。

§ 170. Reliance On Assertions As To Matters Of Law
If an assertion is one as to a matter of law, the same rules that apply
in the case of other assertions determine whether the recipient is
justified in relying on it.
第170條就法律事項所為主張之信賴
一主張係對法律事項所為時，由適用於其
他主張情形之相同規定決定受陳述人對主
張之信賴是否具有正當理由。

§ 171. When Reliance On An Assertion Of Intention Is Not
Justified
(1) To the extent that an assertion is one of intention only, the
recipient is not justified in relying on it if in the circumstances a
misrepresentation of intention is consistent with reasonable
standards of dealing.
(2) If it is reasonable to do so, the promisee may properly interpret a
promise as an assertion that the promisor intends to perform the
promise.
第171條對意圖之主張所為信賴非有
正當理由之時機
(1) 在一主張僅係意圖之主張之限度內，如
依其情勢一意圖之不實陳述與合理之
交易標準一致時，受陳述人對該主張之
信賴非謂有正當理由。
(2) 在合理情況下，受約定人得將一約定適
當解釋為一約定人意圖履行該約定之
主張。

§ 172. When Fault Makes Reliance Unjustified
A recipient's fault in not knowing or discovering the facts before
making the contract does not make his reliance unjustified unless it
amounts to a failure to act in good faith and in accordance with
reasonable standards of fair dealing.
第172條過失使信賴非有正當理由之時機
除其構成一未使善意及公平交易之合理標
準而為行為外，一受陳述人於契約作成前
對事實不知或未發現之過失，不使該受陳
述人之信賴成為非有正當理由。

§ 173. When Abuse Of A Fiduciary Relation Makes A
Contract Voidable
If a fiduciary makes a contract with his beneficiary relating to
matters within the scope of the fiduciary relation, the contract is
voidable by the beneficiary, unless
(a) it is on fair terms
(b) (b) all parties beneficially interested manifest assent with full
understanding of their legal rights and of all relevant facts that
the fiduciary knows or should know.
第173條信託關係之濫用使契約得撤
銷之時機
除下列情形外，一受託人就信託關係範圍
內之事項與其信託受益人訂立一契約時，
該受益人得撤銷該契約。
(a) 該契約之條款公平，且
(b) 全部受信託利益之當事人基於對其
法律上權利及一切受託人知或應知
之相關事實之完全瞭解而表示同意。

Topic 2. Duress And Undue Influence
§ 174. When Duress By Physical Compulsion Prevents
Formation Of A Contract
If conduct that appears to be a manifestation of assent by a party
who does not intend to engage in that conduct is physically
compelled by duress, the conduct is not effective as a manifestation
of assent.
第二節強暴脅迫及不當影響
第174條以物理強制所為之強暴脅
迫，阻止一契約之成立的時機
一未意圖為該行為之當事人所為之同意表
現行為如係因強暴脅迫而受物理上之強制
時，該行為不生同意表示之效力。

§ 175. When Duress By Threat Makes A Contract
Voidable
(1) If a party's manifestation of assent is induced by an improper
threat by the other party that leaves the victim no reasonable
alternative, the contract is voidable by the victim.
(2) If a party's manifestation of assent is induced by one who is not a
party to the transaction, the contract is voidable by the victim
unless the other party to the transaction in good faith and without
reason to know of the duress either gives value or relies
materially on the transaction.
第175條以威脅而脅迫訂立一得撤銷
之契約
(1) 當事人之一方之同意表示係受他方當
事人不正當威脅之誘引所致，而使受害
人無合理之選擇時，受害人得撤銷該契約。
(2) 除交易之他方當事人係善意且無理由
得知該強暴脅迫而給付對價或對該交
易為重大之依賴外，當事人同意之表示
係受一非交易當事人之人誘引所致
時，受害人得撤銷契約。

§ 176. When A Threat Is Improper
(1) A threat is improper if
(a) what is threatened is a crime or a tort, or the threat itself
would be a crime or a tort if it resulted in obtaining property
(b) what is threatened is a criminal prosecution
(c) what is threatened is the use of civil process and the threat
is made in bad faith
(d) the threat is a breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing under a contract with the recipient
(2) A threat is improper if the resulting exchange is not on fair terms
(a) the threatened act would harm the recipient and would not
significantly benefit the party making the threat
(b) the effectiveness of the threat in inducing the manifestation
of assent is significantly increased by prior unfair dealing
by the party making the threat
(c) what is threatened is otherwise a use of power for
illegitimate ends.
第176條當威脅係不正當之時
(1) 有下列情形之一，一威脅係不正當：
(a) 所受之威脅係一犯罪或一侵權行
為，或該威脅本身如造成取得財產
時，將構成犯罪或侵權行為。
(b) 所受之威脅係一刑事上之訴追行為。
(c) 所受之威脅係民事訴訟程序之採
行且該威脅係以惡意為之者。或
(d) 依一與受陳述人訂立之契約規
定，該威脅係對善意及公平交易義
務之違反。
(2) 如造成之交換非基於公平條款，且有下
列情形之一時，一威脅為不正當：
(a) 受威脅之行為將損害受陳述人，且
非重大裨益於為該威脅之當事人
(b) 導致對方為同意表示之威脅效
果，由於為威脅行為人先前之不公
平交易而顯著增加時，或
(c) 所受之威脅係為非法目的而為之權力行使。

§ 177. When Undue Influence Makes A Contract Voidable
(1) Undue influence is unfair persuasion of a party who is under the
domination of the person exercising the persuasion or who by
virtue of the relation between them is justified in assuming that
that person will not act in a manner inconsistent with his welfare.
(2) If a party's manifestation of assent is induced by undue influence
by the other party, the contract is voidable by the victim.
(3) (3) If a party's manifestation of assent is induced by one who is
not a party to the transaction, the contract is voidable by the
victim unless the other party to the transaction in good faith and
without reason to know of the undue influence either gives value
or relies materially on the transaction.
第177條因不正影響而訂立得撤銷契約之時
(1) 不正當影響係指對一居於實施勸說人
支配下之當事人或對一因彼此間之關
係致有正當理由可假設該勸說人之行
為方式將不會與自己之利益不一致之
當事人所為之不公平勸說。
(2) 當事人一方所為之同意表是係受他方
當事人之不正當影響所致者時，受害人
得撤銷該契約。
(3) 除交易之他方當事人係善意且無理由
得知該不正當影響而給付對價或對該
交易為重大依賴外，當事人一方之同意
表示係受一非交易當事人之人誘引所
致時，受害人得撤銷契約。

Chapter 8 Unenforceability On Grounds Of Public Policy
Topic 1. Unenforceability In General
§ 178. When A Term Is Unenforceable On Grounds Of
Public Policy
(1) A promise or other term of an agreement is unenforceable on
grounds of public policy if legislation provides that it is
unenforceable or the interest in its enforcement is clearly
outweighed in the circumstances by a public policy against the
enforcement of such terms.
(2) In weighing the interest in the enforcement of a term, account is
taken of
(a) the parties' justified expectations
(b) any forfeiture that would result if enforcement were denied
(c) any special public interest in the enforcement of the
particular term.
(3) In weighing a public policy against enforcement of a term,
account is taken of
(a) the strength of that policy as manifested by legislation or
judicial decisions
(b) the likelihood that a refusal to enforce the term will further
that policy
(c) the seriousness of any misconduct involved and the extent
to which it was deliberate
(d) the directness of the connection between that misconduct and the term.
第八章因公共政策之理由而不可執行
第一節不可執行之通則
第178條一條款因公共政策之理由而
不可執行之時
(1) 於立法規定其不可執行或依一反對其
執行之公共政策之價值依情況係明顯
的超越因執行而所得之利益時，一約定
或一協定中之其他條款基於公共政策
之理由乃為不可執行。
(2) 於衡量一條款之執行利益時，依：
(a) 當事人之正當預期。
(b) 執行被拒絕時，任何將導致之權利
喪失。及
(c) 執行特定條款時之任何特別公共
利益。
(3) 於衡量反對執行一條款之一公共政策
時，應考列下列因素：
(a) 由立法或司法判決所示之該政策
之強度。
(b) 對該條款執行之拒絕將促進該政
策之可能。
(c) 任何法案不當行為之嚴重性及該
行為之蓄意程度。
(d) 不當行為與該條款間關聯之直接性。

§ 179. Bases Of Public Policies Against Enforcement
A public policy against the enforcement of promises or other terms
may be derived by the court from
(a) legislation relevant to such a policy
(b) the need to protect some aspect of the public welfare, as is the
case for the judicial policies against, for example
(i) restraint of trade (§§ 186-188)
(ii) impairment of family relations (§§ 189-191)
(iii) interference with other protected interests (§§ 192-196,
356).
第179條反對執行之公共政策之基礎
反對約定或其他條款之執行之公共政策，
得由法院自下列來源推得：
(a) 與該政策有關之立法，或
(b) 因保護某些方面公共福祉之需要，如
同司法政策反對下列事項之情況。
(i)限制貿易之行為(第168條至第188
條)
(ii)家庭關係之損害(第189條至第191
條)
(iii)其他受保護利益之妨礙(第192 條
至第196 條、第356 條)
§ 180. Effect Of Excusable Ignorance
If a promisee is excusably ignorant of facts or of legislation of a
minor character, of which the promisor is not excusably ignorant and
in the absence of which the promise would be enforceable, the
promisee has a claim for damages for its breach but cannot recover
damages for anything that he has done after he learns of the facts or
legislation.

第180條得寬恕之不知的效果：
受約定人對於不具重要性之事實或立法上
不知係可寬恕，而約定人之不知係不可寬
恕，且無該不知則約定應為可執行者時，
受約定人有權請求違約之損害賠償，但不
得就任何於其得知該事實或立法之後所為
之損害主張賠償。

§ 181. Effect Of Failure To Comply With Licensing Or
Similar Requirement
If a party is prohibited from doing an act because of his failure to
comply with a licensing, registration or similar requirement, a
promise in consideration of his doing that act or of his promise to do
it is unenforceable on grounds of public policy if
(a) the requirement has a regulatory purpose,
(b) the interest in the enforcement of the promise is clearly
outweighed by the public policy behind the requirement.
第181條未能符合執照或類似註冊登
記之效果
當事人之一方因未能符合執照或類似規定
之要求而按禁止為一切行為時，一與其為
該行為或約定為該行為成對價之約定，如
有下列情形，則基於公共政策之理由應不
得執行：
(a) 該規定具有一規範之目的，且
(b) 該規定背後之公共政策之價值明顯
地高於執行該約所得之利益。

§ 182. Effect Of Performance If Intended Use Is Improper
If the promise has substantially performed, enforcement of a promise
is not precluded on grounds of public policy because of some
improper use that the promisor intends to make of what he obtains
unless the promise
(a) acted for the purpose of furthering the improper use
(b) knew of the use and the use involves grave social harm.
第182條意欲之使用方法不適當時之
履行效果
除受約定人：
(a)基於加深該不當使用之目的而行為，或
(b)知悉該用法且知該用法對社會造成重大
弊害之外，
受約定人已實質為履行時，一約定之執行
並不因約定人就其所提得之物故意所為的
一些不當使用而基於公共政策考慮，致使
受到阻礙。

§ 183. When Agreement Is Enforceable As To Agreed
Equivalents
If the parties' performances can be apportioned into corresponding
pairs of part performances so that the parts of each pair are properly
regarded as agreed equivalents and one pair is not offensive to
public policy, that portion of the agreement is enforceable by a party
who did not engage in serious misconduct.
第183條得對協議中既經同意之相等
部份執行之時機
於當事人雙方之履行得分為數組相對應之
部分履行而使每一組之履行適當地被認係
既經同意之相當部分且其中一組並未牴觸
公共政策時，一未為嚴重不當行為之當事
人得對該組之協定部分執行之。

§ 184. When Rest Of Agreement Is Enforceable
(1) If less than all of an agreement is unenforceable under the rule
stated in § 178, a court may nevertheless enforce the rest of the
agreement in favor of a party who did not engage in serious
misconduct if the performance as to which the agreement is
unenforceable is not an essential part of the agreed exchange.
(2) A court may treat only part of a term an unenforceable under the
rule stated in Subsection (1) if the party who seeks to enforce the
term obtained it in good faith and in accordance with reasonable
standards of fair dealing.
第184條協定剩餘部份得執行之時機
(1) 於一協定依第178條之規定，並非全部
不得執行，而該協定不得執行之履行部
份非約定交換之主要部份時，法院得基
於未為嚴重不當行為之一當事人之利
益執行協定之剩餘。
(2) 協定之當事人其尋求某條款之執行
者，若原係以善意及依據合理的公正交
易標準取得該條款，則法院依照前項規
定得認定該條款中僅有部分為非可執行。

§ 185. Excuse Of A Condition On Grounds Of Public Policy
To the extent that a term requiring the occurrence of a condition is
unenforceable under the rule stated in § 178, a court may excuse the
non-occurrence of the condition unless its occurrence was an
essential part of the agreed exchange.
第185條以公共政策為理由之條件免除
依第187條之規範，一項約定需視某些條件
之成就，在此程度內，不具拘束力；法院
可免除此類條件之成就；除非，此等條件
之發生為約定交換條件中之基本部份。

Topic 2. Restraint Of Trade
§ 186. Promise In Restraint Of Trade
(1) A promise is unenforceable on grounds of public policy if it is
unreasonably in restraint of trade.
(2) A promise is in restraint of trade if its performance would limit
competition in any business or restrict the promisor in the
exercise of a gainful occupation.
第二節商業行為之限制
第186條妨害貿易之意思表示
(1) 一意思表示不合理地妨害貿易者，基於
公共政策之理由，不具拘束力。
(2) 一意思表示之履行限制任一行業之競
爭或限制表意人利益之取得者，視為妨害貿易。

§ 187. Non-Ancillary Restraints On Competition
A promise to refrain from competition that imposes a restraint that is
not ancillary to an otherwise valid transaction or relationship is
unreasonably in restraint of trade.
第187條於競爭上之非輔助性妨害
一意思表示為了避免競爭而將一非輔助性
妨害加諸於另一有效之交易或關係上者，
為不合理地妨害貿易。

§ 188. Ancillary Restraints On Competition
(1) A promise to refrain from competition that imposes a restraint
that is ancillary to an otherwise valid transaction or relationship
is unreasonably in restraint of trade if
(a) the restraint is greater than is needed to protect the
promise's legitimate interest
(b) the promise's need is outweighed by the hardship to the
promisor and the likely injury to the public.
(2) Promises imposing restraints that are ancillary to a valid
transaction or relationship include the following
(a) a promise by the seller of a business not to compete with
the buyer in such a way as to injure the value of the
business sold
(b) a promise by an employee or other agent not to compete
with his employer or other principal
(c) a promise by a partner not to compete with the partnership.
第188條於競爭上之輔助性妨害
(1) 一意思表示為了避免競爭而將一輔助
性妨害加諸於另一有效之交易或關係
上者，為不合理地妨害貿易，如下列兩
項：
(a) 該妨害較受意思表示人所應被保
護之法律利益為大，或
(b) 當受意思表示人之要求對表意人
而言過於困難及對大眾亦有類似
之傷害時。
(2) 意思表示將輔助性妨害加諸於一有效
之交易或關係上，包括下列三點：
(a) 一行業中之賣方所為之意思表示
不與買方為之而因此損害此行業
之售價。
(b) 一受僱人或代理人之意思表示不
與其雇用人或本人為之者；
(c) 一合夥人之意思表示不與以合夥
關係為之。

Topic 3. Impairment Of Family Relations
§ 189. Promise In Restraint Of Marriage
A promise is unenforceable on grounds of public policy if it is
unreasonably in restraint of marriage.
第三節家庭關係之損害
第189條妨害婚姻之意思表示
當一意思表示不合理地妨害婚姻者，基於
公共政策之理由，不具拘束力。

§ 190. Promise Detrimental To Marital Relationship
(1) A promise by a person contemplating marriage or by a married
person, other than as part of an enforceable separation
agreement, is unenforceable on grounds of public policy if it
would change some essential incident of the marital relationship
in a way detrimental to the public interest in the marriage
relationship. A separation agreement is unenforceable on
grounds of public policy unless it is made after separation or in
contemplation of an immediate separation and is fair in the
circumstances.
(2) A promise that tends unreasonably to encourage divorce or
separation is unenforceable on grounds of public policy.
第190條意思表示危害婚姻關係
(1) 一意思表示由欲結婚者或已結婚者所
為，且為一具有拘束力之分居協議之一
部者，如該意思表示於婚姻關係存續中
以危害公眾利益之方式變更某些婚姻
關係之基本要件時，基於公共政策之理
由，分居協議不具拘束力，除非，該訂
定是於分居之後或在公平之情狀下為
一即時分居之訂定考慮。
(2) 一意思有不合理地鼓勵離婚或分居之
虞者，其於公共政策之理由，不具拘束力。

§ 191. Promise Affecting Custody
A promise affecting the right of custody of a minor child is
unenforceable on grounds of public policy unless the disposition as
to custody is consistent with the best interest of the child.
第191條意思表示影響監護權
意思表示影響未成年人之監護權者，基於
公共政策為理由，不具拘束力；但有關該
監護權之轉讓符合未成年人之最大利益
者，不在此限。

Topic 4. Interference With Other Protected Interests
§ 192. Promise Involving Commission Of A Tort
A promise to commit a tort or to induce the commission of a tort is
unenforceable on grounds of public policy.
第四節對其他的保護利益之干涉
第192條有關侵權行為作為之意思表
示意思表示為一侵權行為或引致一侵權行為
之作為者，基於公共政策之理由，不具拘
束力。

§ 193. Promise Inducing Violation Of Fiduciary Duty
A promise by a fiduciary to violate his fiduciary duty or a promise
that tends to induce such a violation is unenforceable on grounds of
public policy.
第193條引致違反信託義務之意思表示
基於信託關係所為之意思表示違反其信託
義務或一意思表示有引致該種類違反之虞
者，基於公共政策之理由，不具拘束力。

§ 194. Promise Interfering With Contract With Another
A promise that tortiously interferes with performance of a contract
with a third person or a tortiously induced promise to commit a
breach of contract is unenforceable on grounds of public policy.
第194條意思表示妨礙與第三人契約
一意思表示妨害第三人對於契約之履行或
以一得引致損害之意思表示而為違反契約
者，基於公共政策之理由，不具拘束力。

§ 195. Term Exempting From Liability For Harm Caused
Intentionally, Recklessly Or Negligently
(1) A term exempting a party from tort liability for harm caused
intentionally or recklessly is unenforceable on grounds of public
policy.
(2) A term exempting a party from tort liability for harm caused
negligently is unenforceable on grounds of public policy if
(a) the term exempts an employer from liability to an employee
for injury in the course of his employment
(b) the term exempts one charged with a duty of public service
from liability to one to whom that duty is owed for
compensation for breach of that duty
(c) the other party is similarly a member of a class protected
against the class to which the first party belongs.
(3) A term exempting a seller of a product from his special tort
liability for physical harm to a user or consumer is unenforceable
on grounds of public policy unless the term is fairly bargained
for and is consistent with the policy underlying that liability.
第195條因故意，重大過失或過失引起
傷害得免除責任之條款
(1) 一條款以一方因故意或重大過失引起
傷害而得免除侵權責任者，基於公共政
策之理由，不具拘束力。
(2) 一條款以一方因過失引起傷害而得免
除侵權責任者，基於公共政策之理由，
不具拘束力，如下列三點：
(a) 一條款免除雇用人對受僱人於執
行職務期間受傷害之責任者；
(b) 一條款免除一人對另一人因公共
事業職務所生之責任之違反而得
為之金錢賠償請求權，或
(c) 同樣地，他方屬於被保護，他方當
事人同樣地為被保護的同纇人；且
與第一方當事人為同類人。
(3) 一條款免除一產品之出賣人對於使用
者或買受人所受之身體傷害之特殊侵
權責任，基於公共政策之理由，不具拘
束力，除非，該條款經公平協議及於此
責任下之政策相符合。

§ 196. Term Exempting From Consequences Of
Misrepresentation
A term unreasonably exempting a party from the legal consequences
of a misrepresentation is unenforceable on grounds of public policy.
第196條虛偽意思表示免除責任之條
款；條款不合理地免除
一方因虛偽意思表示所應負之法律責任者，基於公共政策之理
由，不具拘束力。

Topic 5. Restitution
§ 197. Restitution Generally Unavailable
Except as stated in §§ 198 and 199, a party has no claim in
restitution for performance that he has rendered under or in return
for a promise that is unenforceable on grounds of public policy
unless denial of restitution would cause disproportionate forfeiture.
第五節回復原狀
第197條通常不適用賠償者
除了已述之198條及199條外，如一方所為
或所受之意思表示基於公共政策之理由不
具拘束者，不得請求履行之賠償；除非，
不賠償會導致不均衡之權利喪失。

§ 198. Restitution In Favor Of Party Who Is Excusably
Ignorant Or Is Not Equally In The Wrong
A party has a claim in restitution for performance that he has
rendered under or in return for a promise that is unenforceable on
grounds of public policy if
(a) he was excusably ignorant of the facts or of legislation of a
minor character, in the absence of which the promise would
be enforceable
(b) he was not equally in the wrong with the promisor.
第198條一方當事人有可宥恕之不知
情或錯誤不相等時得請求賠償
一方當事人所為或所受之意思表示基於公
共政策之理由不具拘束力而得請求履行之
賠償者，如：
(a) 他因對事實有可宥恕之不知情或為
法律上之未成年人而可宥恕其不知
情，因而意思表示欠缺拘束力者，或
(b) 他與表意人之錯誤不相等時。

§ 199. Restitution Where Party Withdraws Or Situation Is
Contrary To Public Interest
A party has a claim in restitution for performance that he has
rendered under or in return for a promise that is unenforceable on
grounds of public policy if he did not engage in serious misconduct
and
(a) he withdraws from the transaction before the improper
purpose has been achieved
(b) allowance of the claim would put an end to a continuing
situation that is contrary to the public interest.
第199條一方當事人撤回或情況與公
共利益違反之賠償
一方當事人對其所為或所受之意思表示基
於公共政策之理由不具拘束力而得請求履
行之賠償，因其未從事嚴重之錯誤處置，
以及
(a) 他於不適當目的之交易未成就前即
撤回，或
(b) 該請求權之准許得停止一違反公共
利益情況之繼續。

Chapter 9 The Scope Of Contractual Obligations
Topic 1. The Meaning Of Agreements
§ 200. Interpretation Of Promise Or Agreement
Interpretation of a promise or agreement or a term thereof is the
ascertainment of its meaning.
第九章契約義務之範圍
第一節協定之意義
第200條約定或協定之解釋
稱約定、協定或其中一條款之解釋者謂該
等條款意義之確定。

§ 201. Whose Meaning Prevails
(1) Where the parties have attached the same meaning to a promise
or agreement or a term thereof, it is interpreted in accordance
with that meaning.
(2) Where the parties have attached different meanings to a promise
or agreement or a term thereof, it is interpreted in accordance
with the meaning attached by one of them if at the time the
agreement was made
(a) that party did not know of any different meaning attached
by the other, and the other knew the meaning attached by
the first party
(b) that party had no reason to know of any different meaning
attached by the other, and the other had reason to know the
meaning attached by the first party.
(3) Except as stated in this Section, neither party is bound by the
meaning attached by the other, even though the result may be a
failure of mutual assent.
第201條何方所賦予之意義為優先
(1) 當事人已就一約定或協定或其中一條
款賦予相同之意義時，該等約款應依該
意義解釋之。
(2) 當事人已就一約定或協定或其中一條
款賦予不同之意義時，該等約款應依下
列情形所指之該當事人所賦予之意義
解釋之，即於協定締結時：
(a) 該當事人不知他方當事人賦予不
同之意義，且後者知前者所賦予之
意義。
(b) 該當事人無理由得知他方當事人
所賦予之任何不同意義，且後者有
理由得知前者所賦予之意義。
(3) 除本條有規定外，從或其結果將致合意
之不成立，當事人任一方不受他方所賦
予意義之約束。

§ 202. Rules In Aid Of Interpretation
(1) Words and other conduct are interpreted in the light of all the
circumstances, and if the principal purpose of the parties is
ascertainable it is given great weight.
(2) A writing is interpreted as a whole, and all writings that are part
of the same transaction are interpreted together.
(3) Unless a different intention is manifested
(a) where language has a generally prevailing meaning, it is
interpreted in accordance with that meaning
(b) technical terms and words of art are given their technical
meaning when used in a transaction within their technical
field.
(4) Where an agreement involves repeated occasions for
performance by either party with knowledge of the nature of the
performance and opportunity for objection to it by the other, any
course of performance accepted or acquiesced in without
objection is given great weight in the interpretation of the
agreement.
(5) Wherever reasonable, the manifestations of intention of the
parties to a promise or agreement are interpreted as consistent
with each other and with any relevant course of performance,
course of dealing, or usage of trade.
第202條解釋之輔助規則
(1) 語言及其他行為之解釋應就一切情勢
考量後作成之，且於當事人主要目的得
確定時，應以合乎該確定目的之解釋為準。
(2) 一書面文句之解釋，應整體為之，且一
切屬於相同交易之部分書面文句解釋，亦應整體為之。
(3) 除另有不同意思之表示外，
(a) 語言中有通用佔優勢之意義時，應
依該意義解釋之；
(b) 使用於專門領域內之交易時，其專
門性名詞及技術語言應依其專門
性意義解釋。
(4) 如當事人中任一方知曉履行之性質而
他方當事人亦有表示反對之機會致使
一協定含有反覆不定的履行時機時，則
該協定之解釋應以任何未受反對表示
或未經反對而被默許的履行為準。
(5) 於合理情況下，當事人雙方就一約定或
協定所表示之意思，應以與雙方意思及
與任何相關之履行過程，交易過程及商
業習慣(之解釋)一致者(為準)解釋之。

§ 203. Standards Of Preference In Interpretation
In the interpretation of a promise or agreement or a term thereof, the
following standards of preference are generally applicable:
(a) an interpretation which gives a reasonable, lawful, and
effective meaning to all the terms is preferred to an
interpretation which leaves a part unreasonable, unlawful, or
of no effect
(b) express terms are given greater weight than course of
performance, course of dealing, and usage of trade, course of
performance is given greater weight than course of dealing or
usage of trade, and course of dealing is given greater weight
than usage of trade
(c) specific terms and exact terms are given greater weight than
general language
(d) separately negotiated or added terms are given greater weight
than standardized terms or other terms not separately
negotiated.
第203條解釋之優先標準
解釋一約定或協定其中之條款時，通常適
用下列之優先標準：
(a) 一使所有條款得具合理、合法且有效
意義之解釋，優先於其他之使部份條
款不合理、不合法或無效用之解釋。
(b) 明示之條款優先於履行過程，交易過
程及商業習慣，履行過程優先於交易
過程或商業習慣；且交易過程優先於
商業習慣。
(c) 特定條款及明確條款優先於一般性語言。
(d) 單獨磋商或加註之條款優先於標準
化條款或其他非單獨磋商之條款。

§ 204. Supplying An Omitted Essential Term
When the parties to a bargain sufficiently defined to be a contract
have not agreed with respect to a term which is essential to a
determination of their rights and duties, a term which is reasonable
in the circumstances is supplied by the court.
第204條就省略之必要條款的補充
一交易其已充分定義為契約之當事人雙
方，如就決定雙方權利及義務所必要之條
款尚未同意時，法院得以依其情形為合理
之條款補充之。

Topic 2. Considerations Of Fairness And The Public
Interest
§ 205. Duty Of Good Faith And Fair Dealing
Every contract imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and fair
dealing in its performance and its enforcement.
第二節公平與公共利益之考慮
第205條誠信及公平交易之義務
契約當事人就契約之履行及執行負誠信及
公平交易之義務。

§ 206. Interpretation Against The Draftsman
In choosing among the reasonable meanings of a promise or
agreement or a term thereof, that meaning is generally preferred
which operates against the party who supplies the words or from
whom a writing otherwise proceeds.
第206條對起草人不利之解釋原則
於選定一約定或協定或其中之一條款之合
理意義時，解釋通常應以對制定該語句或
策劃該書面之人不利之解釋優先考慮。

§ 207. Interpretation Favoring The Public
In choosing among the reasonable meanings of a promise or
agreement or a term thereof, a meaning that serves the public interest
is generally preferred.
第207條對公眾有利之解釋原則
於選定一約定或協定或其中之一條款之合
理意義時，通常應以符合公眾利益之解釋
為優先考慮。

§ 208. Unconscionable Contract Or Term
If a contract or term thereof is unconscionable at the time the
contract is made a court may refuse to enforce the contract, or may
enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable
term, or may so limit the application of any unconscionable term as
to avoid any unconscionable result.
第208條非自由意識下所訂立之契約或條款
契約訂定時該契約或其中之一條款係非自
由意識下所訂立者，法院得拒絕執行該契
約，或得僅執行該契約中除去非自由意識
下所訂立條款之所餘部分，或得限制任何
非自由意識下所訂立條款之適用以避免任
何非自由意識之結果。

Topic 3. Effect Of Adoption Of A Writing
§ 209. Integrated Agreements
(1) An integrated agreement is a writing or writings constituting a
final expression of one or more terms of an agreement.
(2) Whether there is an integrated agreement is to be determined by
the court as a question preliminary to determination of a question
of interpretation or to application of the parol evidence rule.
(3) Where the parties reduce an agreement to a writing which in
view of its completeness and specificity reasonably appears to be
a complete agreement, it is taken to be an integrated agreement
unless it is established by other evidence that the writing did not
constitute a final expression.
第三節採用書面之效果
第209條完整之協定
(1) 稱完整協定者謂構成協定中一或多條
款之最終表達的一或多書面。
(2) 完整協定之存否由法院決定，以作為決
定解釋約款或適用口頭證據法則之先
決問題。
(3) 當事人將一協定簡化成一書面，而依其
之完全性及特定性可合理地顯示為一
完全之協定時，除另有其他證據顯示該
書面並未構成一最終之表達外，該書面
應視為一完整協定。

§ 210. Completely And Partially Integrated Agreements
(1) A completely integrated agreement is an integrated agreement
adopted by the parties as a complete and exclusive statement of
the terms of the agreement.
(2) A partially integrated agreement is an integrated agreement other
than a completely integrated agreement.
(3) (3) Whether an agreement is completely or partially integrated is
to be determined by the court as a question preliminary to
determination of a question of interpretation or to application of
the parol evidence rule.
第210條完全及部分之完整協定
(1) 稱完全之完整協定者謂一被當事人採
作為該協定條款之完全且唯一陳述之
完整協定。
(2) 稱部分之完整協定者謂一完全之完整
協定以外之完全協定。
(3) 一協定係屬完全或部分之完整協定與
否之問題由法院決定，以作為決定解釋
約款或適用口頭證據法則之先決問題。

§ 211. Standardized Agreements
(1) Except as stated in Subsection (3), where a party to an agreement
signs or otherwise manifests assent to a writing and has reason to
believe that like writings are regularly used to embody terms of
agreements of the same type, he adopts the writing as an
integrated agreement with respect to the terms included in the
writing.
(2) Such a writing is interpreted wherever reasonable as treating
alike all those similarly situated, without regard to their
knowledge or understanding of the standard terms of the writing.
(3) Where the other party has reason to believe that the party
manifesting such assent would not do so if he knew that the
writing contained a particular term, the term is not part of the
agreement.
第211條定型化協定
(1) 除本條第(3)項另有規定外，一協定之當
事人一方對一書面為簽署或其他之同
意表示行為且有理由相信與之相似之
書面通常係用以包含同類協定中之條
款時，則該當事人就包含於書面中之這
些條款而言，係將該書面採之為完整協定。
(2) 前項之書面對於一切相似之情況均給
予相同之對待即可解釋為合理，而得不
考慮當事人對該書面之標準化條款是
否知悉或瞭解。
(3) 他方當事人有理由相信表示同意之當
事人如知該書面包含一特定條款即將
不為如此同意時，該條款非該協定之部分。
§ 212. Interpretation Of Integrated Agreement
(1) The interpretation of an integrated agreement is directed to the
meaning of the terms of the writing or writings in the light of the
circumstances, in accordance with the rules stated in this Chapter.
(2) A question of interpretation of an integrated agreement is to be
determined by the trier of fact if it depends on the credibility of
extrinsic evidence or on a choice among reasonable inferences to
be drawn from extrinsic evidence. Otherwise a question of
interpretation of an integrated agreement is to be determined as a
question of law.
第212條完整協定之解釋
(1) 一完整協定之解釋應針對書面中條款
之意義，並考慮其情況，依本章所訂立
規則為之。
(2) 一完整協定之解釋問題，如其須依外部
證據之可信度或自外部證據合理之推
論中選擇時，應由事實之裁判者決定，
除本項前段情形外，一完整協定之解釋
問題應以法律問題之方法決定。

§ 213. Effect Of Integrated Agreement On Prior
Agreements (Parol Evidence Rule)
(1) A binding integrated agreement discharges prior agreements to
the extent that it is inconsistent with them.
(2) A binding completely integrated agreement discharges prior
agreements to the extent that they are within its scope.
(3) An integrated agreement that is not binding or that is voidable
and avoided does not discharge a prior agreement. But an
integrated agreement, even though not binding, may be effective
to render inoperative a term which would have been part of the
agreement if it had not been integrated.
第213條完整協定對前協定之效果(口
頭證據法則)
(1) 一有拘束力之完整協定使前協定與其
不一致之部分失其效力。
(2) 一有拘束力之完全完整協定使前協定
與其同範圍部分，失其效力。
(3) 無拘束力或已撤銷之一完整協定，不使
前協定失其效力。但一從無拘束力之完
整協定得使一如未被包括將成為協定
一部分之條款，不生效力。

§ 214. Evidence Of Prior Or Contemporaneous
Agreements And Negotiations
Agreements and negotiations prior to or contemporaneous with the
adoption of a writing are admissible in evidence to establish
(a) that the writing is or is not an integrated agreement
(b) that the integrated agreement, if any, is completely or partially
integrated
(c) the meaning of the writing, whether or not integrated
(d) illegality, fraud, duress, mistake, lack of consideration, or
other invalidating cause
(e) ground for granting or denying rescission, reformation,
specific performance, or other remedy.
第214條前或同時作成之協定與磋商
之證據
於書面訂定前或同時作成之協定與磋商得
作為主張下列事項之證據：
(a) 該書面是或不是一完整協定
(b) 如有完整協定時，該完整協定係屬完
全或部分者
(c) 該書面之意義，不論其是否已被整合；
(d) 不合法、詐欺、脅迫、錯誤、欠缺約
因、或其他無效之原因。
(e) 准許或否認回復原狀，重擬，強制履
行或其他救濟之理由。

§ 215. Contradiction Of Integrated Terms
Except as stated in the preceding Section, where there is a binding
agreement, either completely or partially integrated, evidence of
prior or contemporaneous agreements or negotiations is not
admissible in evidence to contradict a term of the writing.
第215條完整條款之牴觸
除前條另有規定外，一有拘束力之協定
時，不論其係完全或部分完整者與否，前
或同時作成之協定或磋商之證據不得作為
與書面條款牴觸之證據。

§ 216. Consistent Additional Terms
(1) Evidence of a consistent additional term is admissible to
supplement an integrated agreement unless the court finds that
the agreement was completely integrated.
(2) An agreement is not completely integrated if the writing omits a
consistent additional agreed term which is
(a) agreed to for separate consideration
(b) such a term as in the circumstances might naturally be
omitted from the writing.
第216條一致之附加條款
(1) 除法院認為該協定係完全完整者外，一
致之附加條款之證據得具補充一完整
協定之效力。
(2) 一協定為非完全完整者，如其書面省略
一下列情形之一致之附加之合意條款；
(a) 該條款之被同意係出自另外之約
因，或
(b) 該條款依其惟形得自然自該書面省略。

§ 217. Integrated Agreement Subject To Oral
Requirement Of A Condition
Where the parties to a written agreement agree orally that
performance of the agreement is subject to the occurrence of a stated
condition, the agreement is not integrated with respect to the oral
condition.
第217條適用條件之口頭要件之完整協定
書面協定之當事人雙方口頭同意該協定之
履行繫於一定條件之發生時，就該口頭條
例而言該協定並非完整。

§ 218. Untrue Recitals; Evidence Of Consideration
(1) A recital of a fact in an integrated agreement may be shown to be
untrue.
(2) Evidence is admissible to prove whether or not there is
consideration for a promise, even though the parties have
reduced their agreement to a writing which appears to be a
completely integrated agreement.
第218條非真實之書面陳述；約因之證
據
(1) 一完整協定中之事實陳述得舉反證為
非真實。
(2) 即使當事人雙方已將其協定作成一完
全完整之協定，對於一約定是否具有約
因，仍得舉證證明之。

Topic 4. Scope As Affected By Usage
§ 219. Usage
Usage is habitual or customary practice.
第四節受習慣影響之範圍
第219條習慣
稱習慣者謂習常或慣例之行為。

§ 220. Usage Relevant To Interpretation
(1) An agreement is interpreted in accordance with a relevant usage
if each party knew or had reason to know of the usage and
neither party knew or had reason to know that the meaning
attached by the other was inconsistent with the usage.
(2) When the meaning attached by one party accorded with a
relevant usage and the other knew or had reason to know of the
usage, the other is treated as having known or had reason to
know the meaning attached by the first party.
第220條與解釋相關之習慣
(1) 當事人雙方知或有理由得知某特定習
慣且任一方皆不知或無法得知他方所
賦予的意義與該習慣並不一致時，則協
定依該相關習慣解釋之。
(2) 當事人一方所賦予之意義與一相關習
慣一致且他方當事人知或有理由得知
該習慣時，該他方當事人視為已知或有
理由得知對方當事人所賦予之意義。

§ 221. Usage Supplementing An Agreement
An agreement is supplemented or qualified by a reasonable usage
with respect to agreements of the same type if each party knows or
has reason to know of the usage and neither party knows or has
reason to know that the other party has an intention inconsistent with
the usage.
第221條以習慣補充協定
當事人雙方知或有理由得知一習慣且為一
方皆不知或無理由得知他方當事人之意欲
係與該習慣不一致時，一協定得受就相同
類型協定而言係屬合理之習慣之補充或修正。

§ 222. Usage Of Trade
(1) A usage of trade is a usage having such regularity of observance
in a place, vocation, or trade as to justify an expectation that it
will be observed with respect to a particular agreement. It may
include a system of rules regularly observed even though
particular rules are changed from time to time.
(2) The existence and scope of a usage of trade are to be determined
as questions of fact. If a usage is embodied in a written trade
code or similar writing the interpretation of the writing is to be
determined by the court as a question of law.
(3) Unless otherwise agreed, a usage of trade in the vocation or trade
in which the parties are engaged or a usage of trade of which
they know or have reason to know gives meaning to or
supplements or qualifies their agreement.
第222條商業習慣
(1) 稱商業習慣者謂於一特定地域、行業或
商業中所被規則遵守而使人有就一時
定協定亦產生其將被遵守之正常期望
之習慣。商業習慣得包括一規律地被遵
守之規則制度，縱使特別規則時長改變。
(2) 商業習慣之存在及其範圍應依事實問
題之方式決定若習慣係規定於書面商
業法典或類似書面中，該書面之解釋應
由法院依法律問題之方式決定之。
(3) 除另有約定外，一當事人雙方所從事行
業或商業中之商業習慣，或當事人雙方
知或有理由得知之商業習慣，得賦予其
特定意義或補充或修改該協定。

§ 223. Course Of Dealing
(1) A course of dealing is a sequence of previous conduct between
the parties to an agreement which is fairly to be regarded as
establishing a common basis of understanding for interpreting
their expressions and other conduct.
(2) Unless otherwise agreed, a course of dealing between the parties
gives meaning to or supplements or qualifies their agreement.
第223條交易過程
(1) 稱交易過程者謂當事人間就一得確實
地視為用以解釋彼此表意及其他行為
而建立共同瞭解基礎之協定，雙方以往
交往行為之過程。
(2) 除另有約定外，當事人雙方間之交易過
程得賦予其協定意義，或補充或修改該協定。

Topic 5. Conditions And Similar Events
§ 224. Condition Defined
A condition is an event, not certain to occur, which must occur,
unless its non-occurrence is excused, before performance under a
contract becomes due.
第五節條件與相類事件
第224條條件之定義
稱條件者謂一些必須於契約履行期前發生
之不確定發生之事件，但其之未發生被免
責者，不在此限。

§ 225. Effects Of The Non-Occurrence Of A Condition
(1) Performance of a duty subject to a condition cannot become due
unless the condition occurs or its non-occurrence is excused.
(2) Unless it has been excused, the non-occurrence of a condition
discharges the duty when the condition can no longer occur.
(3) Non-occurrence of a condition is not a breach by a party unless
he is under a duty that the condition occur.
第225條條件不發生之效果
(1) 一附條件義務之履行除該條件發生或
其不發生而被免責外，其履行期並未屆至。
(2) 除另有免責之表示外，條件確定不發生
時，該條件之未發生免除契約義務。
(3) 除負有使條件發生之義務者外，一條件
之未發生非一當事人之違約。

§ 226. How An Event May Be Made A Condition
An event may be made a condition either by the agreement of the
parties or by a term supplied by the court.
第226條事件成為條件之方式
一事件得因當事人雙方之協定或法院所決
定之條款成為一條件。

§ 227. Standards Of Preference With Regard To
Conditions
(1) In resolving doubts as to whether an event is made a condition of
an obligor's duty, and as to the nature of such an event, an
interpretation is preferred that will reduce the obligee's risk of
forfeiture, unless the event is within the obligee's control or the
circumstances indicate that he has assumed the risk.
(2) Unless the contract is of a type under which only one party
generally undertakes duties, when it is doubtful whether
(a) a duty is imposed on an obligee that an event occur
(b) the event is made a condition of the obligor's duty
(c) the event is made a condition of the obligor's duty and a
duty is imposed on the obligee that the event occur
the first interpretation is preferred if the event is within the
obligee's control.
(3) In case of doubt, an interpretation under which an event is a
condition of an obligor's duty is preferred over an interpretation
under which the non-occurrence of the event is a ground for
discharge of that duty after it has become a duty to perform.
第227條條件優先之標準
(1) 於決定一事件是否為債務人債務之條
件，或該事件性質如何等問題時，除該
事件係在債權人之控制下，或情勢顯示
該債權人已負擔該危險外，可減少債務
人權利喪失危險之解釋應予優先。
(2) 除係通常僅當事人一方負擔義務類型
之契約外，於發生是否。
(a) 債權人負擔；使事件發生之義務；或
(b) 該事件係債務人義務之一條件；或
(c) 該事件係債務人義務之一條件且
債權人負有使該事發生之義務等
之問題時，
如該事件之發生與否係債權人之控制下
時，第一次解釋應優先適用。
(3) 於有疑問之情況下，將某一事件視為債
務人義務之要件的解釋乃優先於，在該
事件已成為應予履行之義務後方將其
之不發生視為義務免除之根據的解釋。

§ 228. Satisfaction Of The Obligor As A Condition
When it is a condition of an obligor's duty that he be satisfied with
respect to the obligee's performance or with respect to something
else, and it is practicable to determine whether a reasonable person
in the position of the obligor would be satisfied, an interpretation is
preferred under which the condition occurs if such a reasonable
person in the position of the obligor would be satisfied.
第228條以債務人滿足為條件
債務人之義務，係以其就債權人之履行或
其他事項應感到滿足而為條件者，且凡合
理人士居於債務人地位者是否會被滿足亦
屬可以決定之事項時，則似此居於債務人
地位之合理人士若被滿足，條件乃發生之
此一解釋，應優先適用。

§ 229. Excuse Of A Condition To Avoid Forfeiture
To the extent that the non-occurrence of a condition would cause
disproportionate forfeiture, a court may excuse the non-occurrence
of that condition unless its occurrence was a material part of the
agreed exchange.
第229條避免失權之條件免除
除一條件之不發生將導致不成比例之權利
喪失外，法院得免除該條件不發生之責
任，但該條件之發生係一約定交換之主要
部分者，不在此限。

§ 230. Event That Terminates A Duty
(1) Except as stated in Subsection (2), if under the terms of the
contract the occurrence of an event is to terminate an obligor's
duty of immediate performance or one to pay damages for
breach, that duty is discharged if the event occurs.
(2) The obligor's duty is not discharged if occurrence of the event
(a) is the result of a breach by the obligor of his duty of good
faith and fair dealing
(b) could not have been prevented because of impracticability
and continuance of the duty does not subject the obligor to
a materially increased burden.
(3) The obligor's duty is not discharged if, before the event occurs,
the obligor promises to perform the duty even if the event occurs
and does not revoke his promise before the obligee materially
changes his position in reliance on it.
第230條終止義務之事件
(1) 除本條件第(2)項另有規定外，依契約條
款之規定一事件之發生終止債務人應
立即履行之義務或就其違約應負之賠
償之義務，則該事件發生時，該等義務
消滅。
(2) 事件之發生如係：
(a) 債務人違反其誠信及公平交易義
務之結果，或
(b) 因不可行而不能被防止，且該義務
之繼續並不使債務人負有重大增
加之負擔時，該債務人之義務不消
滅。
(3) 事件發生前債務人承諾縱使該事件發
生時仍履行其義務，且於債權人重大改
變其所依賴之地位前亦不撤回該承諾
時，債務人之義務不消滅。