EXAMINED ARE DIFFERENCES RELATING TO ERRORS OF FACT (THE EXISTENCE OF CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH RENDER AN ACTION PUNISHABLE BY LAW) AND ERRORS OF LAW (THE ACTUAL PROVISIONS OF A STATUTE OR THE RECOGNIZED INTERPRETATION OF ITS SUBSTANCE). A REVIEW OF ISSUES RELATING TO THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO KEEP THEMSELVES INFORMED ON THE LAW SUPPORTS THE TRADITIONAL THEORY THAT ERRORS OF LAW TEND TO HAVE A GREATER EXCULPATORY EFFECT THAN DO ERRORS OF LAW. IT IS MAINTAINED THAT ERROR OF FACT IS REASON FOR JUSTIFICATION OR EXONERATION UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE A 'REASONABLE MAN' UNDER THE SAME OR SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD REACT IN SIMILAR FASHION. HOWEVER, IF AN ILLEGAL ACT ERRORS AS TO ITS INTENDED OR CONSEQUENCES, NO JUSTIFICATION OR EXONERATION EXISTS. ALSO ANALYZED ARE THE NON-ARGUABILITY OF 'GOOD FAITH' AS A JUSTIFICATORY DEFENSE AND THE EXCULPATORY NATURE OF FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS, (WHERE THE INTENTION TO COMMIT AN ILLEGAL ACT DOES NOT EXIST). IT IS CONCLUDED THAT IGNORANCE OR ERRORS OF LAW HAVE, IN CONTEMPORARY USAGE, COME TO BE REGARDED SIMILARLY, WITH BOTH HAVING AN EXONERATING EFFECT IN THOSE CASES INVOLVING FUNDAMENTAL ERROR. -- IN FRENCH ....ELW