法律翻译｜美国上诉法院推翻原审的部分判决，《石油销售行为法》不支持“推定不续约”
译者｜孙书朋 西南政法大学国际法学院硕士
审稿｜李梓源 英国布里斯托大学 LL.M.
孙济民 中国人民大学法学院博士
编辑｜卢晓洋 香港大学硕士
李建云 中国政法大学硕士
责编｜李薇 浙江工商大学本科
Mac’s Shell Service v.
Shell Oil Products Co.
麦克壳牌服务诉壳牌石油产品公司
[Facts of the case]
【案件事实】
Gas station franchisees won a verdict against franchisor Motiva in the Massachusetts federal district court for violations of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act. The franchisees argued that new leases that changed the way rent was calculated and which amounted to increased rents were made in bad faith and meant to drive them out of business. They claimed that the new lease terms amounted to "constructive nonrenewal," prohibited by the PMPA, even though they signed the agreements. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed in part, holding that the PMPA did not support a claim for constructive nonrenewal under the circumstances in the case. It reasoned that the PMPA requires franchisees faced with objectionable contract terms to refrain from ratifying those terms by executing the contract, as the franchisees did in this case.
加油站特许经营人就特许权人莫蒂瓦企业公司*违反《石油销售行为法》一案在麻省联邦地区法院获得胜诉判决。特许经营人称由于新的租赁协议改变了租金的计算方式并且提高了租金，因此该租赁协议是恶意的，意图强迫特许经营人退出该行业。特许经营人还称尽管他们在协议上签了字，但是新的租赁条款构成“推定不续约”，而这是为《石油销售行为法》所禁止的。该案上诉后，美国上诉法院第一巡回法庭推翻了原审的部分判决，并认为在本案情形下，《石油销售行为法》并不能支持“推定不续约”的主张。该院推定《石油销售行为法》要求特许经营人对合同条款有异议时，不得像本案中的特许经营人一样通过签署合同来认可这些条款。
*注：莫蒂瓦企业公司是荷兰皇家壳牌集团和沙特国有石油公司沙特阿拉伯国家石油公司的合资企业。
[Question]
【争议焦点】
Does the PMPA encompass a claim for "constructive nonrenewal" of franchisee's lease when:
在下列情形中，《石油销售行为法》是否支持特许经营人租赁协议构成“推定不续约”的主张？
i) franchisees filed suit prior to receiving new lease agreements that violated the act,
ii) lease agreements were presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis,
iii) franchisor stated it would terminate the leases unless franchisees signed the new agreements, and iv) franchisees signed lease agreements under protest and pursued their legal claims against the franchisor?
（1）特许经营人在收到违反该法的新的租赁协议前提起诉讼；
（2）租赁协议采用“不接受就走人”的方式；
（3）特许权人声称除非特许经营人签署新的协议，否则其将终止协议；
特许经营人被迫签署租赁协议，并起诉特许权人。
[Analysis]
【法律分析】
1. A franchisee cannot recover for constructive termination under the Act if the franchisor’s allegedly wrongful conduct did not compel the franchisee to abandon its franchise.
1. 如果特许权人所诉称的非法行为并未强迫特许经营人放弃特许经营权，那么特许经营人不能依据《石油销售行为法》就推定终止(constructive termination)获得救济。
(a) The Act provides that “no franchisor … may … terminate any franchise,” except for an enumerated reason and after giving written notice, and specifies that “ ‘termination’ includes cancellation,” . Because it does not further define those terms, they are given their ordinary meanings: “put [to] an end” or “annul[ed] or destroy[ed].” Thus, the Act prohibits only franchisor conduct that has the effect of ending a franchise. The same conclusion follows even if Congress used “terminate” and “cancel” in their technical, rather than ordinary, senses.
（a） 《石油销售行为法》规定除了出现该法所列举的事由并以书面形式通知对方以外，“特许权人不得终止(terminate)特许协议”，并且该法还规定“‘终止(termination)’包括解除(cancellation)”。由于该法并没有进一步规定这些术语的含义，所以我们只能按照通常的意思来理解这些术语，即“结束(put [to] an end)”或者“取消(annul[ed])或者无效(destroy[ed])”。因此，《石油销售行为法》仅仅禁止特许权人终止特许协议的行为。即便国会采用的是“terminate”和“cancel”在法律上的特定含义而非通常意思，我们也可以得出同样的结论。
This conclusion is also consistent with the general understanding of the constructive termination doctrine as applied in analogous legal contexts—e.g., employment law, see Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders—where a termination is deemed “constructive” only because the plaintiff, not the defendant, formally ends a particular legal relationship—not because there is no end to the relationship at all. Allowing franchisees to obtain relief for conduct that does not force a franchise to end would ignore the Act’s scope, which is limited to the circumstances in which franchisors may terminate a franchise or decline to renew a franchise relationship and leaves undisturbed state-law regulation of other types of disputes between petroleum franchisors and franchisees. This conclusion is also informed by important practical considerations, namely, that any standard for identifying those breaches of contract that should be treated as effectively ending a franchise, even though the franchisee continues to operate, would be indeterminate and unworkable.
这一结论与对类似法律语境中所适用的推定终止原则的普遍理解是一致的——例如在Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders案中所适用的《劳动法》：终止该法关系之所以被认为是“推定”的，原因在于原告（而非被告）正式终止特定的法律关系，并非由于该法律关系永远不会终止。允许特许经营人就并未强行终止特许协议的行为获得救济，这是忽视了《石油销售行为法》的适用范围，即该法仅适用于特许权人终止特许协议或者拒绝延续特许经营关系的情形，而州法对于特许权人和特许经营人之间其它类型争议的规制不受影响。一些重要的现实因素也印证了这一结论，例如如果认定违约的标准可以用来有效终止特许协议（尽管该协议仍可以执行），那么这些标准将会变的模糊且难以适用。
（图片来源于网络）
(b) The dealers’ claim that this interpretation of the Act fails to provide franchisees with protection from unfair and coercive franchisor conduct that does not force an end to the franchise ignores the availability of state-law remedies to address such wrongful conduct. The Court’s reading of the Act is also faithful to the statutory interpretation principle that statutes should be construed “in a manner that gives effect to all of their provisions,” United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York, because this interpretation gives meaningful effect to the Act’s preliminary injunction provisions and its alternative statute-of-limitations accrual dates.
（b） 经销商认为对《石油销售行为法》作此解释未能保护特许经营人免受特许权人所为的不公平和恶意行为的侵害，尽管该类行为并未强行终止特许协议，该主张忽视了州法提供的救济也可以用来应对此类非法行为。法院对《石油销售行为法》的解释也是符合制定法解释原则的，即在解释制定法时，“应当让其所有的规定都有效”（见United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York），因为此种解释让《石油销售行为法》所规定的初步禁制令及替代性的诉讼时效均有意义。
2. A franchisee who signs and operates under a renewal agreement with a franchisor may not maintain a constructive nonrenewal claim under the Act. The Act’s text leaves no room for such an interpretation. It is violated only when a franchisor “fail[s] to renew” a franchise relationship for an enumerated reason or fails to provide the required notice, and it defines “fail to renew” as a “failure to reinstate, continue, or extend the franchise relationship,”. A franchisee that signs a renewal agreement cannot carry the threshold burden of showing a “nonrenewal of the franchise relationship,” and thus necessarily cannot establish that the franchisor has violated the Act.
2. 如果特许经营人与特许权人续约并且依据该协议运营加油站，那么该特许经营人不能再根据《石油销售行为法》提出推定不续约的主张。《石油销售行为法》的文本并不支持该解释。只有当特许权人并非因该法列举的事由或者未能根据规定通知对方而导致“未能续约”，并且该法将“未能续约”规定为“未能恢复、继续或者延展特许经营关系”时，才能认定特许权人违反了《石油销售行为法》。特许经营人续约后就无法初步证明“特许经营关系未展期”，因此也就不一定能证明特许权人违反了《石油销售行为法》。
Signing their renewal agreements “under protest” did not preserve the dealers’ ability to assert nonrenewal claims. When a franchisee signs a renewal agreement—even “under protest”—there has been no “fail[ure] to renew,” and thus no violation of the Act. The Act’s structure and purpose confirm this interpretation. Accepting the dealers’ contrary reading would greatly expand the Act’s reach.
“被迫”续约这一行为使得经销商无法再主张（推定）不续约。当特许经营人续约时——即便是“被迫”——也就不存在“未能续约”的情形了，故特许权人未违反《石油销售行为法》。该法的结构和目的印证了这一结论。如果我们接受了经销商相反的解释，那么这会极大地扩张《石油销售行为法》的适用范围。
（图片来源于网络）
[Conclusion]
【结论】
We hold that a franchisee who is offered and signs a renewed franchise agreement cannot maintain a claim for unlawful nonrenewal under the PMPA. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals with respect to the dealers’ nonrenewal claims.
我们认为特许经营人在收到并续签特许经营协议后，就不能再依据《石油销售行为法》主张非法续约。因此，我们维持上诉法院就经销商主张未续约而作出的判决。
原文链接：
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-240
微信扫码关注该文公众号作者