沉浸式翻译

flexible doctrine of equitable mistake,however,was repudiated in The
然而，灵活的衡平法错误原则在

Great Peace.
大和平。

MISTAKE IN EQUITY
公平错误

Mistake has clear relevance to the equitable remedies of specific performance and rectification;the concern is not,however,mistake per se but unconscionable behaviour.Rescission is,of course,available for induced mistakes,i.e.misrepresentation.But whether it is otherwise available seems doubtful.
错误与具体绩效和纠正的公平补救措施有明显的相关性，然而，关注的不是错误本身，而是不合情理的行为。当然，撤销适用于诱发错误，即虚假陈述，但是否可用似乎值得怀疑。

It is important to stress that equity's rationale for a distinctive approach to mistake (here as elsewhere)is the effect on conscience. MacMillan shows that unconscionability was the historical basis for the Court of Chancery's interventions -consensus per se was irrelevant.202 But this conscience-focused rationale must be carefully defined if equitable mistake is not to be ridiculed as a ‘hovering angel³,swooping down to rescue 'the poet or the philosopher,the artist or the moron,who [has]unwittingly wandered into the grim marts of trade and been caught in its toils.203 Of course,the judges have long insisted that ‘Chancery mends no man's bargain>.204 It is bad behaviour rather than imprudence that justifies intervention.205
重要的是要强调，衡平法对错误采取独特方法（这里和其他地方一样）的基本原理是对良心的影响。麦克米伦表明，不合情理是衡平法院干预的历史基础，s-共识本身是无关紧要的。202但这种以良心为中心的比例必须是仔细定义，如果公平的错误不应该被嘲笑为“盘旋的天使³”，swoopingdowntorescue“诗人或哲学家，艺术家或莫罗n，谁[他]不知不觉地走进了贸易的阴暗市场，陷入了它的辛劳中。203当然，法官们长期以来一直坚持认为，“大法官不修复任何人的讨价还价>.204 它是不良行为而不是鲁莽，才有理由干预205。

The second distinctive feature of equity is flexibility,the ‘quintessence'of equitable relief.206 Rescission,for example,is unavailable where this would affect the rights ofinnocent third parties or when the parties cannot be returned to their original position-although a
衡平法的第二个显著特征是灵活性，即衡平法救济的精髓。206 例如，如果撤销合同会影响无辜第三方的权利，或者当当事人的权利无法返回到其原始位置 - 尽管

flexible attitude is taken to ‘restitutio in integrum?.207 Rescission may
采取灵活的态度来'restitutioinintegrum？.207 撤销

even be granted ‘on terms',e.g.only if the parties undertake to enter into a new contract on fairer terms.208 Whether to grant an equitable remedy is always within the discretion of the court.This is clearly visible in specific performance cases,where the remedy may be declined on the basis of mistake.A classic example is the 'typo'case Webster v Cecil²09 later explained as one in which the buyer snapped up an offer that he must have realised was mistaken.210
甚至被授予“按条件”，e。g.只有在双方承诺以更公平的条款签订新合同的情况下。208 是否给予衡平法补救措施始终由法院酌情决定。这在特定的履约案件中可以清楚地看到，在这些情况下，补救措施可能会因错误而被拒绝。一个典型的例子是 WebstervCecil²09的“错别字”案例，后来被解释为买方抢购了一个他一定意识到是错误的报价210。

Rectification is'classically'for documents that incorrectly record the prior agreement reached by the parties.21I But the courts have recognised (or revived)a jurisdiction to rectify when only one party was mistaken about the contents of the document.Crucially,there must be‘a degree of sharp practice'by the non-mistaken party.212 This requires knowledge of the other party's mistake,or at least strong suspicion thereof.213 Combining this with active steps to distract the mistaken party from discovering the truth has been held ‘sharp and unconscionable practice', ‘quite inequitable'and 'beyond the boundaries of fair dealing even in an arm's length commercial negotiation³.214
更正是“传统上”错误记录双方先前达成的协议的文件。21I 但是，当只有一个当事方对文件内容至关重要的是，非误会的一方必须有一定程度的敏锐实践。212 这需要了解对方的错误，或者至少有强烈的怀疑213将此与积极步骤相结合，以分散错误方的注意力，使其无法发现真相，这被认为是“尖锐和不合情理的做法”，“相当不公平”和“超越”公平交易的界限，即使在公平的商业谈判中³.214

Denning LJ advocated rescission for common mistake in Solle v Butcher²15 This received its quietus in The Great Peace on the ground that there was no conceptual room for a separate equitable doctrine of common mistake.216 Accordingly,Solle was inconsistent with Bell v Lever Bros and should not be followed.217 This reasoning may be criticised on a number of grounds,most fundamentally that The Great Peace pays Bell unwarranted respect.Lord Phillips MR said it was not ‘conceivable'that the House of Lords would have overlooked a separate equitable mistake doctrine if one existed.218 But MacMillan contends this is precisely what occurred.219 The nineteenth-century doctrine of equitable mistake was misunderstood by Pollock and entirely sidelined in his treatise.The House of Lords cemented his errors in place
丹宁受勋法官（Denning LJ）在SollevButcher²15一案中主张撤销共同错误。这在《大和平》一案中得到了平静，理由是没有概念空间来制定单独的等同原则216因此，Solle案与Bellv LeverBros案不一致，不应被遵循。217 这种推理可能基于多种理由而受到批评：最根本的是，在《大和平》中，他对贝尔给予了不应有的尊重。菲利普斯勋爵（Lord Phillips MR）表示，上议院会忽视一个单独的衡平法错误原则（如果存在的话），这是不可想象的。218但麦克米伦争辩说这正是发生的事情。219 19世纪的衡平法错误原则被波洛克误解，并在他的论文《上议院》中被边缘化他的错误就位

unawares.220
不知情220

Denning LJ simply attempted to revive the older jurisdiction;221 he was credited with more innovation than was due by commentators familiar with modern contract treatises rather than old equity jurisprudence.222 His controversial dismissal of the rule that mistake renders a contract void from Bell has much to commend it.223 But this bold revolt against precedent was always likely to be dismissed as Denningesque insubordination.Moreover,as MacMillan points out, Denning LJ failed to draw on the rectification and specific performance doctrines to bolster equitable mistake.224 Yet here,the continuity of equity jurisprudence had never been lost,because these remedies had
丹宁受勋法官（Denning LJ）只是试图恢复旧的司法管辖区;221他被认为比熟悉现代合同论著的评论家认为她比旧衡平法学应有的创新更多。222他对规则的有争议的驳斥使合同无效，贝尔有much来称赞它。223但这种对先例的大胆反抗总是有可能被斥为丹宁式的不服从。此外，正如麦克米伦所指出的丹宁受勋法官（Denning LJ）未能利用纠正和具体履行原则来支持衡平法错误。224 然而，在这里，衡平法判例的连续性从未丧失，因为这些补救措施已经

been assigned exclusively to the Chancery Division in 1875 and the different branches of the High Court maintained considerable independence.225 John Swan comments that these other equitable remedies are better authority for a distinct equitable doctrine of mistake than Solle itself.226
1875 年被专门分配给衡平法院，高等法院的不同分支机构保持了相当大的独立性。225JohnSwan评论说，这些其他衡平法补救措施是独特的衡平法的更好权威mistake 的教义比Solle 本身更重要226。

Today,therefore,we see a curious situation in which mistake (accompanied by‘sharp practice')is relevant for specific performance and rectification but not for rescission.This is‘curiouser and curiouser because rectification is actually a more intrusive remedy:
因此，今天我们看到一个奇怪的情况，其中 mistake（伴随着尖锐的练习）与特定的履行和纠正有关，但与撤销无关。这是 curiouser和curiouser，因为整改实际上是一种更具侵入性的补救措施：

in rescission the court simply undoes the bargain,provided the parties can be restored to their original position;in rectification for unilateral mistake the original bargain is undone and a different one imposed.227
在撤销协议时，法院只是撤销交易，前提是双方可以恢复到原来的立场;In纠正单方面错误原来的交易被取消，并施加不同的交易227。

As rectification is available,for example,where one party sets out to ensure that the other does not realise his mistake,should not rescission be available a fortiori?228 The analogy is particularly strong given the remedy of rescission ‘on terms'in Solle itself-the landlord obtained relief,but on condition that he lease back to the tenant on demand at the full permitted rent.229 This seems identical in outcome to rectifying the contract (if,perhaps,jurisprudentially distinct).
既然可以纠正，例如，如果一方开始确保另一方没有意识到他的错误，难道不应该有更强的撤销吗？228鉴于 ana logy特别强大在 Solle 本身中，“按条件”解除合同的补救措施——房东获得了救济，但条件是他必须按允许的全额租金按需租回给租客。229这在结果上似乎是相同的纠正合同（如果可能在法理上有所不同）。

The charge against The Great Peace,then,is that it perpetuates the historical misunderstandings of equitable mistake in Bell.The court makes no attempt to justify the distinction implicitly drawn between rectification and rescission.The argument that there was ‘no room³for equitable mistake also seems weak.The doctrine is readily distinguishable from the supposed doctrine at common law (assuming this exists).First,as argued above,the focus throughout equity is on unconscionable behaviour -the Court of Appeal even quoted a classic authority requiring 'some fraud or surprise upon the ignorant party?230 Second,the effect of equitable mistake is obviously different.Equity is quintessentially flexible,and making contracts voidable offers clear advantages over automatic voidness.Highly experienced commercial judges had commended the flexibility of Solle for this reason.23¹In one
因此，对《大和平》的指控是，它使贝尔案中对衡平法错误的历史误解永久化。法院没有试图证明在纠正和撤销之间隐含的界限是合理的。“没有公平错误的空间”的论点似乎很弱。该原则很容易与普通法中的假定原则区分开来（假设存在）。首先，如上所述，粗略的衡平法的重点是不合情理的行为——上诉法院甚至引用了一个经典的权威，要求“对无知的蚂蚁进行一些欺诈或惊喜230其次，衡平法错误的效果显然不同。Equity是典型的灵活性，使合同可撤销比自动作废具有明显的优势。经验丰富的商业法官称赞了 Sollef 的灵活性或这个原因。23¹合二为一

of the odder features of The Great Peace,Lord Phillips MR himself
大和平勋爵菲利普斯先生本人的古怪特征

admitted that there was'scope for legislation to give greater flexibility to our law of mistake',as rescission on terms had done.232 That scope for reform exists,of course,only because of his Lordship's own decision to depart from Solid Lord Denning divided judges into 'bold spirits'and ‘timorous souls'and so one can imagine his reaction to The Great
承认“立法有空间为我们的错误法提供更大的灵活性”，正如废除条款所做的那样。232当然，改革空间的存在只是因为他勋爵自己决定离开坚实的丹宁勋爵将法官分为“大胆的灵魂”和“胆怯的灵魂”，因此可以想象他对TheGreat 的反应

Peace.233
和平.233

Probably legislation will now be required if flexible remedies for mistake are to return to English law.Perhaps a bold Supreme Court could revive the historical unconscionability jurisdiction over mistakes,234 while rejecting the historically dubious view that mistake vitiates consent at law-if the radical arguments ventilated in this Debate were to be accepted.
如果要将错误的灵活补救措施回归英国法律，现在将需要制定公关立法。也许一个大胆的最高法院可以恢复历史上对错误的不合情理管辖权，234同时拒绝历史上可疑的观点，即错误会使法律上的同意无效——如果激进的论点在这场辩论将被接受。