学界似乎也可以在认识上淡化“最大诚信原则”这一渊源不明、意义空虚的美丽传说、并对之予以去魅。相比之下，保险合同法中的披露义务这一具体规则，是更值得品味研读的真问题。正如有学者指出，“‘最大诚信’这一术语固然确立已久，但其实用性值得怀疑；它似乎使人们偏离真正的问题：某种合同是否要求当事人负有先合同披露义务？如果是，披露的范围或者内容是什么？”[7]339披露义务与其他类似的义务有何异同？这些异同会造成什么实际的法律效果？诸如此类的具体规则问题更加需要我们共同详细探讨。
【作者简介】
韩永强，广东外语外贸大学法学院。
【注释】(1766) 3 Burr 1905.
Manifest Shipping Company limited v Uni-Polaris Shipping Company Limited UKHL 1, para.5, per Lord Clyde.
Carter v Boehm (1766) 3 Burr 1905, 1910-12.
Wolff v Horncastle 126 Eng. Rep. 924, 928; (1798) 1 Bos. & Pul. 316, 322, per Buller J.
(1743) 2 Str 1183; 93 Eng. Rep. 1115 1378-1865.
(1723) 2 P Wms 170; 24 Eng. Rep. 686 1557-1865.
Pan Atlantic Insurance Co. Ltd. v Pine Top Insurance Co. Ltd. 1 A.C. 501, 536, 543.
UCC, section 1-304; The Restatement (Second) of Contract, Section 205.
Mutual & Federal Insurance v Municipality of Oudtshoorn ZASCA 129, 432B-C,433E-F.
Manifest Shipping Company limited v Uni-Polaris Shipping Company Limited UKHL 1, para.5, per Lord Clyde, citing Prof T B Smith, "A Short Commentary on the Law of Scotland" (1962), p 836, quoting MA Millner "Fraudulent Non-Disclosure" (1957) 76 SALJ 177, pp 188-9; Mutual and Federal Insurance Co Ltd v Oudtshoorn Municipality 1985 (1) SA 419, 433; Blackstone''s Commentaries, 4th ed. (1876) vol. II, chapter 30 pp 412-413; Carter v Boehm (1766), 3 Burr 1905, 1910.
此为Angelo D. M. Forte教授指导本文作者学位论文写作过程中提出的诘问。
Mutual & Federal Insurance v Municipality of Oudtshoorn ZASCA 129, 443D. (“The words ‘uberrimae fidei’ must not, of course, be taken too literally. One may be less than honest but one cannot be more honest than honest.”)
Mutual & Federal Insurance v Municipality of Oudtshoorn ZASCA 129, 432B-C,433E-F.
Bell v Lever Bros Ltd A.C. 161 HL 227, 231-32.
关于这一术语的翻译以及相关实质问题，参见 韩永强：《<
保险法>第
16 条中被误读的“告知义务”》，《法学》2010年第2期。
Faruqi v English Real Estates Ltd 1 W.L.R. 963, 969.
Hamilton v Watson (1845) 12 Cl. & Fin. 109, 119; Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No. 2) UKHL 44; 3 W.L.R. 1021, paras. 114, 185.
Safeheaven Investments Inc. v Springbok Ltd (1996) 71 P.&C.R. 59, 66.
Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No. 2) UKHL 44; 3 W.L.R. 1021, paras. 114, 185.
Bell v Lever Bros Ltd A.C. 161 HL 227, 231-32.
