英美合同实务（英美合同法之格式之战）

所谓“合意创立法律”, 根据传统合同法理论，合同的本质是当事人意思表示的一致，形成“合意”。而形成“合意”一般都要经过"要约"与"承诺"两个阶段，即合同成立强调“要约一承诺”结构性配对，其中，要约是希望和他人订立合同的意思表示，而承诺是受要约人同意的意思表示。

为了在当事人之间形成真正的“合意”，传统合同法理论最初采取的是形式主义缔约规则，要求承诺的内容必须与要约完全一致，承诺就像要约通过镜子照出的像（此即所谓的“镜像规则”），应当分毫不差。如果受要约人对要约内容作出变更、限制或补充，则不构成有效的承诺，而是对原要约人发出的一项新要约，或者称为反要约，需要原要约人作出承诺。

Mirror-image rule 镜像规则

The doctrine that acceptance of a contractual offer must be positive, unconditional, unequivocal, and unambiguous, and must not change, add to, or qualify the terms of the offer; the common law principle that for a K to be formed, the terms an acceptance must correspond exactly with those of the offer. In modern commercial contracts, the mirror-image rule has been replaced by UCC 2-207, which allows parties to enforce their agreement despite minor discrepancies between the offer and the acceptance.

然而随着社会以及实践的发展，这种规则的弊端也逐渐显现出来，现实生活中，承诺与要约总是很难吻合的，这不仅因为缔约双方在语言表达上存在着区别，而且由于双方立场不同，所虑不同，因此意思表示也存常常大相径庭，这就难免导致定约过程中陷入“要约—反要约—反要约”的无限循环，最终导致的结果是合同难以成立。[1]

为了解决这个问题，“合同之战（battle of forms）”应运而生，它所解决的问题是：当事人双方在缔约过程中向对方提出的格式条款发生冲突时，如何确定合同是否成立及合同成立时如何确立具体条款。

合同之战（battle of forms）

A battle of the forms arises when two businesses are negotiating the terms of a contract and each party wants to contract on the basis of its own terms. The paradigm battle of the forms occurs when A offers to buy goods from B on its (A's) standard terms and B purports to accept the offer on the basis of its own standard terms.

合同之战在司法实践中的典型表现形式为：缔约当事人一方（要约人）以格式条款（如订货单）向另一方发出订立合同的要约；另一方则以己方声称为承诺的格式条款（通常为订货单或通知单、确认书）予以回复，后者的“承诺”实际上包含了新增条款或不同于要约的条款；而要约人收到该“承诺”后，未作任何反对而直接向对方履行了合同，后因交易条件发生突变（如价格上涨或下跌），双方当事人对合同是否成立或合同的条款发生争议。这种双方当事人通过交换彼此的标准格式条款进行交易，并且都坚持最后的合同是在自己的格式条款的基础上达成，从而引起的关于合同是否成立以及如何确定合同条款的争议就是“格式之战”。[2]

一般而言，“格式之战”所引发的争议无外乎两种：

1. 一种是由于诸如市场价格变化等情况的出现，一方当事人企图以双方格式文本中的不一致来作为其不履行合同的借口；

2. 另一种是双方在合同履行过程中就某一事项发生争议，双方都主张按照自己文本中的内容来解决争议。

司法实践中对“格式之战”情形的探索由来已久，美国于1912年3月1日颁布《美国统一商法典》（Uniform Commercial Code,UCC），其中的第2-207条就对镜像规则提出了挑战(attempts to resolve battle of the forms by abandoning the common law requirement of mirror-image acceptance)，规定对承诺或确认中的补充条款生效的条件（proving that an acceptance with additional term is normally valid）：

(1) A definite and seasonable expression of acceptance or a written confirmation which is sent within a reasonable time operates as an acceptance even though it states terms additional to or different from those offered or agreed upon, unless acceptance is expressly made conditional on assent to the additional or different terms.

（1）在合理时间内寄送的承诺表示或确认书，只要确定并且及时，即使与原要约或原同意的条款有所不同或对其有所补充，仍具有承诺的效力，除非承诺中明确规定，以要约人同意这些不同的或补充的条款为承诺的生效条件。(2) The additional terms are to be construed as proposals for addition to the contract. Between merchants such terms become part of the contract unless:(２) 补充条款应被解释为是对合同的补充建议。在商人之间，除下列情况外，这些条款构成合同的组成部分：　(a) the offer expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer;

ａ．要约明确规定，承诺必须符合原要约条款；(b) they materially alter it; or

ｂ．补充条款对合同作了实质性改变；或(c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received.ｃ．在收到此种补充条款后的合理时间内，要约人通知受要约人，拒绝此种补充条款。

(3) Conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of a contract is sufficient to establish a contract for sale although the writings of the parties do not otherwise establish a contract. In such case the terms of the particular contract consist of those terms on which the writings of the parties agree, together with any supplementary terms incorporated under any other provisions of this Act.

(３) 如果当事方的行为构成对合同存在的承认，则即使当事方的书面材料尚不足以订立合同，买卖合同亦告成立。在这种情况下，该特定合同的条款由当事方在书面材料中同意的条款加上依本法其它有关规定而成立的补充条款构成。

转眼到了1969年，英国发生了合同法上著名的Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd. v. Ex-Cell-O Corporation(England) Ltd.案：

案件事实：

The suppliers of a machine, Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd ('the sellers'), on 23 May 1969 quoted a price for a machine tool of £75,535. Delivery was to be given in ten months. On the back of the quotation there were terms and conditions. One of them was a price variation clause. It provided for an increase in the price if there was an increase in the costs and so forth. The machine tool was not delivered until November 1970. By that time costs had increased so much that the sellers claimed an additional sum of £2,892 as due to them under the price variation clause.

The buyers, Ex-Cell-O Corp, rejected the excess charge. They relied on their own terms and conditions. They said: 'We did not accept the sellers' quotation as it was. We gave an order for the self-same machine at the self-same price, but on the back of our order we had our own terms and conditions. Our terms and conditions did not contain any price variation clause.'

卖方Butler Machine Too于交易当年的5月23日向买方发出了一个报价单，除了对机器规格进行描述之外，还对价格做了报价，同时该报价单还附了一个很重要的条款，就是价格允许调整，随行就市。买方收到报价单之后，于5月27日回函，表示接受卖方的报价单，但是要以己方的格式合同为准，也就是以买方的订单当中的条款为准，其中还特别强调价格不允许调整。6月5日，卖方在接到买方的订单之后，回函给买方，很荣幸收到贵方发来的订单，同意按照贵方的条件来成交，但是成交条件以我们在5月23日当中的报价单的条款为准。至此，双方的书面函件往来结束，合同开始履行，然而在机器设备交付后出现了价格调整的情况，于是双方为到底这部机器以何种价格成交打起了官方，卖方主张应该按照5月23日的报价单中含有的允许价格随行就市加以调整的价格为准，而买方则声称其在订单中明确表明价格不允许调整。

于是卖方提起诉讼，一审法院支持了卖方的主张，判令买方按上升后的价格支付货款。买方不服，上诉丹宁勋爵所在的法院，因此上诉案件的审理焦点就聚焦在（1）合同什么时候成立？以及（2）如果合同成立，应以哪一方当事人的合同文本为准？两个问题。

The court at the first instance found in favour of the sellers and ordered for the buyers to pay the increased cost. The buyers appealed this decision. In the appeal, it was important for the court to establish at which point, and on which party’s terms the contract had been constructed.

丹宁勋爵和Lawton LJ以及Bridge LJ共同审理了此案，其中丹宁勋爵的说理及观点极具前瞻性，另外两位法官的观点相对保守，但也算是与丹宁勋爵不谋而合。下面我们看一下丹宁勋爵的说理判词：

...there may be a consensus between the parties far short of a complete mode of expressing it, and that consensus may be discovered from letters or from other documents of an imperfect and incomplete description.

......也许在合同缔结过程中双方的合意没有得到完整的表达，但从双方往来函电或其他法律文件中可以推定合意的存在。

The difficulty is to decide which form, or which part of which form, is a term or condition of the contract. In some cases the battle is won by the man who fires the last shot.

困难之处在于法院要决定以哪一方的格式为准，或者以哪一方的哪一条款为准。有时我们适用“最后一枪规则”。

He is the man who puts forward the latest term and conditions: and, if they are not objected to by the other party, he may be taken to have agreed to them.

最后一枪规则是指，最后提出条件未被对方反对者，视为对方接受了这一条件。

注释：

最后一枪规则，又称“最后一枪理论”（ the last shot doctrine），最后用语规则，即与原要约不符的承诺构成对原要约的拒绝，为新要约。合同成立前提下，以最后发出反要约方的格式条款为准缔约。

In some cases, however, the battle is won by the man who gets the blow in first. If he offers to sell at a named price on the terms and conditions stated on the back and the buyer orders the goods purporting to accept the offer on an order form with his own different terms and conditions on the back, then, if the difference is so material that it would affect the price, the buyer ought not to be allowed to take advantage of the difference unless he draws it specifically to the attention of the seller.

有时也采用第一拳规则。如果买方想以背面载有格式条款的订单变更在先的卖方背面载有格式条款的报价单，而且该变更属于重大变更，影响了交易的价格，则除非买方特别提请卖方注意，否则该变更无效。

注释：

第一拳规则，又称“第一枪理论”（the first blow doctrine ），最先一击规则，即以原要约人的要约缔约，这是格式之战较为简便的解决方法。

There are yet other cases where the battle depends on the shots fired on both sides. There is a concluded contract but the forms vary. The terms and conditions of both parties are to be construed together. If they can be reconciled so as to give a harmonious result, all well and good. If differences are irreconcilable, so that they are mutually contradictory, then the conflicting terms may have to be scrapped and replaced by a reasonable implication.

除此之外，还有些其他情况的格式之战，要看双方开枪的具体情形。不管怎样，如果合同成立，但格式条款不同，则要具体情况具体分析，把双方的格式条款要放到一起同时解释，如果能作出一致的解释最好，但是如果双方的分歧无法调和，相互抵触，则要排除适用双方冲突的条款，由法院做出解释。

注释：

“相互击倒理论”（the knock out doctrine），又称剔除规则或排除异意规则，即冲突格式条款因未达成合意而被相互击倒，以法律规定填补相应漏洞。

In the present case the judge thought that the sellers in their original quotation got their blow in first; especially by the provision that 'These terms and conditions shall prevail over any terms and conditions in the Buyer's order'. It was so emphatic that the price variation clause continued through all the subsequent dealings and that the buyer must be taken to have agreed to it. I can understand that point of view. But I think that the documents have to be considered as a whole. And, as a matter of construction, I think the acknowledgement of 5 June 1969 is the decisive document. It makes it clear that the contract was on the buyers' terms and not on the sellers' terms: and the buyers' terms did not include a price variation clause.

本案中，法官认为卖方第一次报价时就使用了格式条款，特别是“买方条款与该条款不同的地方，以卖方该条款为准”。此条太过绝对，“价格随行就市变化”的格式条款一下穿透其后的条款，从而使得买方不得不接受这一条。该条款字面意思不难明白，但是就该案应当结合全部往来文本综合解释，因此1969年6月5日的声明应该是具有决定意义的一次文件。它表明合同应该是依买方条款成立，而非卖方，根据该条款，买方不用支付价格浮动部分的款项。

格式之战的情况下，面对双方不同格式条款，法律的使命是决断双方合同是否成立，以及如果合同成立，应当以谁的格式条款作为确定权利义务的依据。就本案情形，鉴于双方已经实际履行，所以对于合同是否成立基本没有异议，丹宁勋爵在判决观点中也予以确认，然而，对于应适用何方格式条款的问题，丹宁勋爵则摒弃了传统观点中的镜像规则（mirror-image rule）,认定此情形属于格式之战，并本着公平正义的原则采取了 “最后一枪”的规则（ the last shot doctrine）。

如同丹宁勋爵在判决中所说，解决格式之战的司法主流通说有“第一拳规则”、“最后一枪理论”与“相互击倒理论”。

1. “第一拳规则”（the first blow doctrine ）现在在荷兰司法体系中仍有所沿用，《荷兰民法典》第255条第3款规定：“要约和承诺涉及不同的一般条款和条件的，承诺中的一般条款和条件不发生效力……”[3]据此，在上述Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd. v. Ex-Cell-O Corporation(England) Ltd.案中，出卖人订单为要约，出售条款构成合同内容，认购条款与出售条款的歧异内容不生效力，则一审判决没问题，买方应该支付因市场波动所上杨的货款。
3. “最后一枪理论”（ the last shot doctrine），为德国早期司法通说，也是英美合同法主流，1986年的《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》第19条也是该理论的体现，我国目前也采传统或有限制的“最后一枪理论”。比如我国原来的《合同法》第三十条，现在的《民法典》第488条都规定，实质性变更要约，构成新要约:

承诺的内容应当与要约的内容一致。受要约人对要约的内容作出实质性变更的，为新要约。有关合同标的、数量、质量、价款或者报酬、履行期限、履行地点和方式、违约责任和解决争议方法等的变更，是对要约内容的实质性变更。

The contents of an acceptance shall correspond to those of the offer. If the offeree makes a substantial modification to the contents of the offer, the acceptance shall constitute a new offer. The modification relating to the subject matter, quality, quantity, price or remuneration, time or place or method of performance, liabilities for breach of contract, method of dispute resolution, etc. shall constitute the substantial modification of an offer.

该条可以说是对“最后一枪理论”的沿用与继受，紧接着原《合同法》的第31条和《民法典》第489条又对此作出了限制，主张非实质性变更的承诺只是承诺，不构成新要约：

承诺对要约的内容作出⾮实质性变更的，除要约⼈及时表示反对或者要约表明承诺不得对要约的内容作出任何变更外，该承诺有效，合同的内容以承诺的内容为准。

Where the acceptance does not substantially modifies the contents of the offer, it shall be effective, and the contents of the contract shall be subject to those of the acceptance, except as rejected in a timely manner by the offeror or indicated in the offer that an acceptance may not modify the offer at all.

3.“相互击倒理论”（the knock out doctrine），是时下国际商事争议判例中广泛采纳的通说，《国际商事合同通则》中第第2. 1.22条关于格式之战特别规则的规定就采用了该规则，该规则在一定程度地弥合了“第一拳规则”的机械性，也消解了“最后一枪理论”的任意性和偶然性，从某种程度上讲，它突破了传统的缔约机制，不再拘泥于要约、承诺的结构性配对，而以实质合意为核心。瑞士和现在的德国在司法实践中都以此说为主流，以实质性条款合意为合同成立的前提。

综上，关于“格式之战”在司法当中的实践和探索，从初期恪守“要约一承诺”传统镜像规则，到保护要约人的“第一枪理论”、促进交易的“最后一枪理论”，再到最近的 “相互击倒理论”，可以说，合同订立慢慢从形式合意逐步向实质合意的发展，这也是社会和经济发展的大趋势。

法条链接：

《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》（United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, CISG）第十九条：

(1) A reply to an offer which purports to be an acceptance but contains additions, limitations or other modifications is a rejection of the offer and constitutes a counter-offer.

（１）对发价表示接受但载有添加、限制或其它更改的答复，即为拒绝该项发价，并构成还价。

(2) However, a reply to an offer which purports to be an acceptance but contains additional or different terms which do not materially alter the terms of the offer constitutes an acceptance, unless the offeror, without undue delay, objects orally to the discrepancy or dispatches a notice to that effect. If he does not so object, the terms of the contract are the terms of the offer with the modifications contained in the acceptance.

（２）但是，对发价表示接受但载有添加或不同条件的答复，如所载的添加或不同条件在实质上并不变更该项发价的条件，除发价人在不过分迟延的期间内以口头或书面通知反对其间的差异外，仍构成接受。如果发价人不做出这种反对，合同的条件就以该项发价的条件以及接受通知内所载的更改为准。

(3) Additional or different terms relating, among other things, to the price, payment, quality and quantity of the goods, place and time of delivery, extent of one party's liability to the other or the settlement of disputes are considered to alter the terms of the offer materially.

（３）有关货物价格、付款、货物质量和数量、交货地点和时间、一方当事人对另一方当事人的赔偿责任范围或解决争端等等的添加或不同条件，均视为在实质上变更发价的条件。

---

[1] 朱广新：“论合同订立过程中的格式之战”，载《法学（月刊）》2014年第4期第73页。

[2] 扈力: “论合同订立中的格式之战”，载《现代法学》1999年双月刊第6期，第43页

[3] 金晶：“合同法上格式之战的学说变迁与规范适用”，载《环球法律评论（双月刊）》2017年第3期，第83页

,