تاثیر شرط عدم اتکا بر مسئولیت پیش‌قراردادی در حقوق انگلیس و امریکا

معاملات بازرگانی با انجام گفتگوهای مقدماتی به‌تدریج شکل می‌گیرد. ازجمله دعاوی‌ای که ممکن است در امریکا و انگلیس پس از تشکیل قرارداد مطرح شود، دعوی مبتنی بر اظهار خلاف واقع در دورۀ پیش‌قراردادی است. خواهان ادعا می‌کند که اظهار یادشده موجب گمراهی او و ایجاد انگیزه و اتکا در بستن قرارداد شده است. برای پیشگیری از طرح این قبیل دعاوی، طرف قرارداد با آوردن شرط عدم اتکا، در صدد مستثنی کردن مسئولیت ناشی از اظهارات پیش‌قراردادی خود است. بنابراین، هدف اصلی از آوردن شرط یادشده، رفع مسئولیت در قبال اظهارات خلاف واقع در دورۀ پیش‌قراردادی است. این شرط با بیان اینکه هیچ‌یک از طرفین در انعقاد قرارداد به اظهارات طرف دیگر اتکا نکرده، بر اساس دانش و رای خویش قرارداد می‌بندد، هدف پیش‌گفته را دنبال می‌کند. شرط عدم اتکا در صدد مقابله با ادعای فسخ یا مطالبۀ خسارت است، اما در برابر اظهارات متقلبانه اثر ندارد. بر اساس یافته‌های این پژوهش مبتنی بر شیوۀ توصیفی- تحلیلی، در حقوق انگلیس اگر چنین شرطی معقول و منصفانه باشد و معیار مندرج در قانون شروط ناعادلانۀ قرارداد مصوب 1977 را داشته باشد مشمول قاعدۀ استاپل قرار گرفته، پذیرفته می‌شود. در حقوق امریکا نسبت به اعتبار آن اختلاف نظر بوده، رویۀ قضایی یکنواختی وجود ندارد. برخی دادگاه‌ها شرط عدم اتکا را پذیرفته، گروهی نمی‌پذیرند، و دستۀ سوم دادگاه‌هایی هستند که پذیرش آن را مشروط می‌دانند.

the effect of the non-reliance clause on pre-contractual ‎liability in english and american law

the important business transactions are formed by preliminary negotiations. the need for extensive pre-contractual discussions comes from the fact that the two parties do not have sufficient knowledge about each other, the characteristics of goods, services, and transaction conditions, and they want to enter into a contract with good knowledge and will by negotiations. in the pre-contractual period, the two parties tell each other various things. each party may commit significant errors in making these statements. the traded goods or services are falsely described in order to encourage the other party to conclude the contract, or the statements include mistakes, exaggerations, and inadvertent and even intentionally false statements. some pre-contractual statements are relied upon by the audience, and with their inaccuracy, the integrity of wills is disturbed, and sometimes the validity of the contract is distorted or unstable. in this case, each party is allowed to submit documents indicating fraudulent claims and file a claim for rescission or claim for damages. on the other hand, the parties to commercial transactions are looking for certainty and confidence. during the conclusion of the contract, they try to limit or exclude potential responsibilities resulting from pre-contract period statements as far as possible, so that the possibility of termination and possibly claiming damages from the other party is eliminated. therefore, sometimes they use the solution of non-reliance clause in the contract. according to this clause, none of the parties has trusted or relied on any statement made by the other party, but rather relies on his knowledge and belief. the mentioned clause in english law becomes binding by creating estoppel resulting from a statement or contract. although invoking the non-reliance clause as a declaratory estoppel appears unassailable, contractual estoppel can be more successfully invoked by the plaintiff. of course, the non-reliance clause does not work in the case of fraudulent misrepresentation, and no one can commit fraud against the law. in english law, the non-reliance clause must be fair and reasonable according to the unfair contract terms act, approved in 1977. reasonableness is evaluated based on the specific circumstances of each case. the criteria for measuring the reasonableness of the non-reliance clause can be seen in the opinions of the courts. by examining the judicial procedure in america, it is observed that there are mixed opinions about the validity of the non-reliance clause and the possibility of its implementation. courts can be divided into three groups based on the position that they have a non-reliance clause for determining the legal status: courts that refrain from implementing the non-reliance clause and base their judgment on moral prohibitions against lying or fraud. these courts assume that the parties derive no legitimate value from the non-reliance clause. the second group of courts recognize it by applying some restrictions, such as specific discussions of the parties regarding this clause. the third group are the courts that accept this clause without restrictions and taking into account the principle of contractual freedom and the sovereignty of the will of the parties.