the common law-第52节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


atter　was　a　sufficient　consideration　for　a　promise　at　a　later　day；　if　only　the　matter　relied　on　had　been　done　or　furnished　at　the　request　of　the　promisor。　/2/

It　is　now　time　to　analyze　the　nature　of　a　promise；　which　is　the　second　and　most　conspicuous　element　in　a　simple　contract。　The　Indian　Contract　Act；　1872；　Section　2；8　says：

　〃（a。）　When　one　person　signifies　to　another　his　willingness　＇298＇　to　do　or　to　abstain　from　doing　anything；　with　a　view　to　obtaining　the　assent　of　that　other　to　such　act　or　abstinence；　he　is　said　to　make　a　proposal：

　〃（b。）　When　the　person　to　whom　the　proposal　is　made　signifies　his　assent　thereto；　the　proposal　is　said　to　be　accepted。　A　proposal　when　accepted　becomes　a　promise。〃

According　to　this　definition　the　scope　of　promises　is　confined　to　conduct　on　the　part　of　the　promisor。　If　this　only　meant　that　the　promisor　alone　must　bear　the　legal　burden　which　his　promise　may　create；　it　would　be　true。　But　this　is　not　the　meaning。　For　the　definition　is　of　a　promise；　not　of　a　legally　binding　promise。　We　are　not　seeking　for　the　legal　effects　of　a　contract；　but　for　the　possible　contents　of　a　promise　which　the　law　may　or　may　not　enforce。　We　must　therefore　only　consider　the　question　what　can　possibly　be　promised　in　a　legal　sense；　not　what　will　be　the　secondary　consequence　of　a　promise　binding；　but　not　performed。

An　assurance　that　it　shall　rain　to…morrow；　/1/　or　that　a　third　person　shall　paint　a　picture；　may　as　well　be　a　promise　as　one　that　the　promisee　shall　receive　from　some　source　one　hundred　bales　of　cotton；　or　that　the　promisor　will　pay　the　promisee　one　hundred　dollars。　What　is　the　difference　in　the　cases？　It　is　only　in　the　degree　of　power　possessed　by　the　promisor　over　the　event。　He　has　none　in　the　first　case。　He　has　equally　little　legal　authority　to　make　a　man　paint　a　picture；　although　he　may　have　larger　means　of　persuasion。　He　probably　will　be　able　to　make　sure　that　the　promisee　has　the　cotton。　Being　a　rich　man；　he　is　certain　＇299＇　to　be　able　to　pay　the　one　hundred　dollars；　except　in　the　event　of　some　most　improbable　accident。

But　the　law　does　not　inquire；　as　a　general　thing；　how　far　the　accomplishment　of　an　assurance　touching　the　future　is　within　the　power　of　the　promisor。　In　the　moral　world　it　may　be　that　the　obligation　of　a　promise　is　confined　to　what　lies　within　reach　of　the　will　of　the　promisor　（except　so　far　as　the　limit　is　unknown　on　one　side；　and　misrepresented　on　the　other）。　But　unless　some　consideration　of　public　policy　intervenes；　I　take　it　that　a　man　may　bind　himself　at　law　that　any　future　event　shall　happen。　He　can　therefore　promise　it　in　a　legal　sense。　It　may　be　said　that　when　a　man　covenants　that　it　shall　rain　to…morrow；　or　that　A　shall　paint　a　picture；　he　only　says；　in　a　short　form；　I　will　pay　if　it　does　not　rain；　or　if　A　does　not　paint　a　picture。　But　that　is　not　necessarily　so。　A　promise　could　easily　be　framed　which　would　be　broken　by　the　happening　of　fair　weather；　or　by　A　not　painting。　A　promise；　then；　is　simply　an　accepted　assurance　that　a　certain　event　or　state　of　things　shall　come　to　pass。

But　if　this　be　true；　it　has　more　important　bearings　than　simply　to　enlarge　the　definition　of　the　word　promise。　It　concerns　the　theory　of　contract。　The　consequences　of　a　binding　promise　at　common　law　are　not　affected　by　the　degree　of　power　which　the　promisor　possesses　over　the　promised　event。　If　the　promised　event　does　not　come　to　pass；　the　plaintiff's　property　is　sold　to　satisfy　the　damages；　within　certain　limits；　which　the　promisee　has　suffered　by　the　failure。　The　consequences　are　the　same　in　kind　whether　the　promise　is　that　it　shall　rain；　or　that　another　man　shall　paint　a　picture；　or　that　the　promisor　will　deliver　a　bale　of　cotton。

＇300＇　If　the　legal　consequence　is　the　same　in　all　cases；　it　seems　proper　that　all　contracts　should　be　considered　from　the　same　legal　point　of　view。　In　the　case　of　a　binding　promise　that　it　shall　rain　to…morrow；　the　immediate　legal　effect　of　what　the　promisor　does　is；　that　he　takes　the　risk　of　the　event；　within　certain　defined　limits；　as　between　himself　and　the　promisee。　He　does　no　more　when　he　promises　to　deliver　a　bale　of　cotton。

If　it　be　proper　to　state　the　common…law　meaning　of　promise　and　contract　in　this　way；　it　has　the　advantage　of　freeing　the　subject　from　the　superfluous　theory　that　contract　is　a　qualified　subjection　of　one　will　to　another；　a　kind　of　limited　slavery。　It　might　be　so　regarded　if　the　law　compelled　men　to　perform　their　contracts；　or　if　it　allowed　promisees　to　exercise　such　compulsion。　If；　when　a　man　promised　to　labor　for　another；　the　law　made　him　do　it；　his　relation　to　his　promisee　might　be　called　a　servitude　ad　hoc　with　some　truth。　But　that　is　what　the　law　never　does。　It　never　interferes　until　a　promise　has　been　broken；　and　therefore　cannot　possibly　be　performed　according　to　its　tenor。　It　is　true　that　in　some　instances　equity　does　what　is　called　compelling　specific　performance。　But；　in　the　first　place；　I　am　speaking　of　the　common　law；　and；　in　the　next；　this　only　means　that　equity　compels　the　performance　of　certain　elements　of　the　total　promise　which　are　still　capable　of　performance。　For　instance；　take　a　promise　to　convey　land　within　a　certain　time；　a　court　of　equity　is　not　in　the　habit　of　interfering　until　the　time　has　gone　by；　so　that　the　promise　cannot　be　performed　as　made。　But　if　the　conveyance　is　more　important　than　the　time；　and　the　promisee　prefers　to　have　it　late　rather　than　never；　the　law　may　compel　the　performance　of　＇301＇　that。　Not　literally　compel　even　in　that　case；　however；　but　put　the　promisor　in　prison　unless　he　will　convey。　This　remedy　is　an　exceptional　one。　The　only　universal　consequence　of　a　legally　binding　promise　is；　that　the　law　makes　the　promisor　pay　damages　if　the　promised　event　does　not　come　to　pass。　In　every　case　it　leaves　him　free　from　interference　until　the　time　for　fulfilment　has　gone　by；　and　therefore　free　to　break　his　contract　if　he　chooses。

A　more　practical　advantage　in　looking　at　a　contract　as　the　taking　of　a　risk　is　to　be　found　in　the　light　which　it　throws　upon　the　measure　of　damages。　If　a　breach　of　contract　were　regarded　in　the　same　light　as　a　tort；　it　would　seem　that　if；　in　the　course　of　performance　of　the　contract　the　promisor　should　be　notified　of　any　particular　consequence　which　would　result　from　its　not　being　performed；　he　should　be　held　liable　for　that　consequence　in　the　event　of　non…performance。　Such　a　suggestion　has　been　made。　/1/　But　it　has　not　been　accepted　as　the　law。　On　the　contrary；　according　to　the　opinion　of　a　very　able　judge；　which　seems　to　be　generally　followed；　notice；　even　at　the　time　of　making　the　contract；　of　special　circumstances　out　of　which　special　damages　would　arise　in　case　of　breach；　is　not　sufficient　unless　the　assumption　of　that　risk　is　to　be　taken　as　having　fairly　entered　into　the　contract。　/2/　If　a　carrier　should　undertake　to　carry　the　machinery　of　a　saw…mill　from　Liverpool　to　Vancouver's　Island；　and　should　fail　＇302＇　to　do　so；　he　probably　would　not　be　held　liable　for　the　rate　of　hire　of　such　machinery　during　the　necessary　delay；　although　he　might　know　that　it　could　not　be　replaced　without　sending　to　England；　unless　he　was　fairly　understood　to　accept　〃the　contract　with　the　special　condition　attached　to　it。〃　/1/

It　is　true　that；　when　people　make　contracts；　they　usually　contemplate　the　performance　rather　than　the　breach。　The　express　language　used　does　not　generally　go　further　than　to　define　what　will　happen　if　the　contract　is　fulfilled。　A　statutory　requirement　of　a　memorandum　in　writing　would　be　satisfied　by　a　written　statement　of　the　promise　as　made；　because　to　require　more　would　be　to　run　counter　to　the　ordinary　habits　of　mankind；　as　well　as　because　the　statement　that　the　effect　of　a　contract　is　the　assumption　of　the　risk　of　a　future　event　does　not　mean　that　there　is　a　second　subsidiary　promise　to　assume　that　risk；　but　that　the　assumption　follows　as　a　consequence　directly　enforced　by　the　law；　without　the　promisor's　co…operation。　So　parol　evidence　would　be　admissible；　no　doubt；　to　enlarge　or　diminish　the　extent　of　the　liability　assumed　for　nonperformance；　where　it　would　be　inadmissible　to　affect　the　scope　of　the　promise。

But　these　concessions　do　not　affect　the　view　here　taken。　As　the　relation　of　contractor　and　contractee　is　voluntary；　the　consequences　attaching　to　the　relation　must　be　voluntary。　What　the　event　contemplated　by　the　promise　is；　or　in　other　words　what　will　amount　to　a　breach　of　contract；　is　a　matter　of　interpretation　and　construction。　What　consequences　of　the　breach　are　assumed　is　more　remotely；　in　like　manner；　a　matter　of　construction；　having　regard　＇303＇　to　the　circumstances　under　which　the　contract　is　made。　Knowledge　of　what　is　dependent　upon　performance　is　one　of　those　circumstances。　It　is　not　necessarily　conclusive；　but　it　may　have　the　effect　of　enlarging　the　risk　assumed。

The　very　office　of　construction　is　to　work　out；　from　what　is　expressly　said　and　done；　what　would　have　been　said　with　regard　to　events　not　definitely　before　the　minds　of　the　parties；　if　those　events　had　been　considered。　The　price　paid　in　mercantile　contracts　generally　excludes　the　construction　that　exceptional　risks　were　intended　to　be　assumed。　The　foregoing　analysis　is　believed　to