英美合同法的解释 (2) 杨良宜 / Philip Yang 11/16/2018.

Presentation on theme: "英美合同法的解释 (2) 杨良宜 / Philip Yang 11/16/2018."— Presentation transcript:

1 英美合同法的解释 (2) 杨良宜 / Philip Yang 11/16/2018

2 事实问题与法律问题 事实问题（issue of facts） 法律问题（issue of law）
最重要与普遍的争议是合约/文书文件的解释（ construction of contract/written document） 立法/国际公约的解释：Travaux préparatoires 11/16/2018

3 解释合约的国际规则 需要整体解释合约且给每一条文/文字一定解释
Lord Romilly MR in Re Strand Music Hall Co Ltd (1865) 35 Beav. 153: “The proper mode of construing any written instrument is, to give effect to every part of it, if this be possible, and not to strike out or nullify one clause in a deed, unless it be impossible to reconcile it with another and more express clause in the same deed.” 11/16/2018

4 解释合约的国际规则 Lord Watson in Chamber Colliery Ltd. v. Twyerould (1893) 1 Ch. 268: “.. The well known rule that a deed ought to be read as a whole, in order to ascertain the true meaning of its several clauses; and that the words of each clause should be so interpreted as to bring them into harmony with the other provisions of the deed, if that interpretation does no violence to the meaning of which they are naturally susceptible.” 11/16/2018

5 解释合约的国际规则 整体解释合约之一：两条不同条文之间的协调
Lord Goff in Yien Yieh Comm Bank Ltd v. Kwai Chung Cold Storage Co Ltd (1989) 2 HKLR 639, PC: “Their Lordships wish to stress that to reject one clause in a contract as inconsistent with another involves a rewriting of the contract which can only be justified in circumstances where the two clauses are in truth inconsistent …. Where the document has been drafted as a coherent whole, repugnancy is extremely unlikely to occur. The contract has, after all, to be read as a whole; and the overwhelming probability is that, on examination, an apparent inconsistency will be resolved by the ordinary processes of construction.” 11/16/2018

6 解释合约的国际规则 整体解释合约之二：相同文字应该有统一解释
Lord Diplock in Prestcold (Central) Ltd v. Minister of Labour (1969) 1 W.L.R. 89: “… the habit of a legal draftsman is to eschew synonyms. He uses the same words throughout the document to express the same thing or concept and consequently if he uses different words the presumption is that he means a different thing or concept; … a legal draftsman aims at uniformity in the structure of his draft.” 11/16/2018

7 解释合约的国际规则 整体解释合约之三：两条不同条文起直接矛盾
Para of Chitty on Contracts (31st edn, 2012): “Inconsistent or repugnant clauses. Where the different parts of an instrument are inconsistent, effect must be given to that part which is calculated to carry into effect the purpose of the contract as gathered from the instrument as a whole and the available background, and that part which would defeat it must be rejected. The old rule was, in such a case, that the earlier clause was to be received and the later rejected, but this rule was a mere rule of thumb, totally unscientific, and out of keeping with the modern construction of documents…” 11/16/2018

8 解释合约的国际规则 Lord Bingham in The “Starsin” (2003) 1 Lloyd’s Rep.571: “.. It is common sense that greater weight should attach to terms which the … parties have chosen to include in the contract than to pre-printed terms ..” 手写/附加条文超越印本（标准格式或合并规则） 狭窄或特定文字超越广泛或一般性的文字 In Re Hammond (1938) 3 All ER 308: “where words and figures conflict, the words ought to prevail.” （文字超越数字） 11/16/2018

9 解释合约的国际规则 In the case of incorporation, J. Buckley in Modern Building Wales Ltd v. Limmer and Trinidad Co Ltd (1975) 1 WLR 1281 CA: “…that if any of the imported terms in any way conflicts with the expressly agreed terms, the latter must prevail over what would otherwise be imported.” （合并条文） Crucial words of “notwithstanding the provisions …” 首要条文（Paramount Clause） 红字规则（Red ink rule） 11/16/2018

10 解释合约的国际规则 整体解释合约之四：假定双方不会约定多余的内容（The presumption against surplusage）
合约删除部分Deletion (of words in standard contract) 为什么不说清楚？Why did you not express it otherwise (clearer)? Hindsight bias的危险 11/16/2018

11 解释合约的国际规则 明显不完整的条文: unworkable or void for uncertainty; executory vs executed 含糊（ambiguity）：表面含糊”（patent ambiguity “潜在含糊”（latent ambiguity） 不肯定（uncertainty） 根本“无法给有关明示条文/文字任何解释”（devoid of any meaning）； 所用的条文/文字有多种解释或/与有关合约其他条文/文字会出现矛盾的解释，所以法院/仲裁庭根本无法确定它的意思或订约双方的想法； “协议将来达成协议”（agreement to agree） 11/16/2018

12 解释合约的国际规则 标准格式的印本条件（Standard printed conditions and special conditions） 整体解释商业合约的结果应该是尽量合理（The reasonableness of the result） 双方同意不合理事情必须用清楚无误的条文/文字 针对规则（Contra Proferentem） 同类规则 （Ejusdem generis） 假设订约方不能去从他自己错误的行为中获利（The presumption that a contracting party cannot take advantage of its own wrong） 假设是合法（Presumption of legality） 假设订约方不会不合理去约定一些不可能做到的事情（Presumption against impossibility） Etc. 11/16/2018

13 解释合约的新趋势与目的 Lord Steyn in Mannai Investments Co Ltd v. Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd (1997) A.C. 749: “There has been a shift from strict construction of commercial instruments to what is sometimes called purposive construction of such documents. Lord Diplock deprecated the use of that phrase in regard to the construction of private contracts as opposed to the construction of statutes… That is understandable. There are obvious differences between the process of interpretation in regard to private contracts and public statutes … It is better to speak of a shift towards commercial interpretation.” 11/16/2018

14 解释合约的新趋势与目的 Lord Hoffmann in Investors Compensation Scheme v. West Bromwich Building Society : “The ‘rule’ that words should be given their ‘natural and ordinary meaning’ reflects the commonsense proposition that people have made linguistic mistakes, particularly in formal documents. On the other hand, if one would nevertheless conclude from the background that something must have gone wrong with the language, the law does not require judges to attribute to the parties an intention which they plainly could not have had. Lord Diplock made this point more vigorously when he said in Antaios Cia Naviera SA v. Salen Rederierna AB, The ‘Antaios’ (1985) A.C. 191: ‘… if detailed semantic and syntactical analysis of words in a commercial contract is going to lead to a conclusion that flouts business common sense, it must be made to yield to business common sense.’” 11/16/2018

15 解释合约的新趋势与目的 “目的解释”（purposive construction），也有称为“语境解释”（contextual construction），或“商业解释”（commercial construction），或“自由解释”（liberal construction） The “Diana Prosperity” (1976) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 621； Charter Reinsurance Co Ltd v. Fagan (1997) AC 313, HL; BCCI v. Ali (2001) 1 UKHL 8; The “Starsin” (2003) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 571; Rainy Sky SA and others v Kookmin Bank (2012) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 34 11/16/2018

16 背景/语境（factual matrix/context）
解释合约条文/文字的法律地位应该要考虑三个方面： 合约本身，包括其他所有的条文以作出全面、完整与协调的解释； 合约的本质，例如是涉及保险、货物买卖、航运或建筑的不同本质； 订约时的背景，这包括事实与法律两个方面。 “语境”（factual matrix/context）是包括了合约的本质与订约的背景 11/16/2018

17 口头证据（Parol evidence rule）
（一）是不接受一些次要的证据，也就是今天已经不存在的最佳证据规则（Masquerade Music Ltd v. Springsteen [2001] E.W.C.A. Civ 513; [2001] C.P.L.R. 369; [2001] E.M.L.R. 25）。对一个已经是签署的合约，这是双方订约意图最佳的证据，去以一些以前谈判的次要口头证据去帮助解释合约条文/文字就是违反最佳证据规则。 （二）是不容许提供文书合约以外的证据为了去改变、推翻或增加该文件的条文/文字。 （三）是一直以来法官通常只是局限在文书合约的四个角内去作出解释，不能接受与考虑有关背景的外来证据。 11/16/2018

18 例外情况 文件非是被订约双方意图当作完整的合约（document not intended to be whole contract）
附带保证/协议（collateral warranties or contracts） 合约变更（rectification） 对文字有怀疑或解释困难下才看周围环境（surrounding circumstances） 合约标的或订约方身份（subject matter or identity） 技术与科学性用语（technical or scientific language） 商业习惯做法/惯例或术语（trade usages or terms） 年代久远的文件（ancient documents） 外语（foreign language） 有关这不是被告所意向去订的合约的有关事实以及损害合约成立的事实（non est factum and vitiating factors） 合约归类或假局的合约（characterization or sham） 合约文字有一种以上解释，而其中一方指出双方谈判时有约定的解释 11/16/2018

19 例外情况 不被接受的外来证据 谈判除外规则（negotiation exclusion rule或prior negotiation rule） 谈判除外规则的例外之一：订约时双方都知道的背景 谈判除外规则的例外之二：客观来看合约双方的目的 订约后双方的行为 11/16/2018

20 解释合约新趋势下的先例介绍 英国先例 Prenn v. Simmonds (1971) 1 W.L.R. 1381; The “Diana Prosperity” (1976) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 621; Investors Compensation Scheme v. West Bromwich Building Society (1998) 1 W.L.R. 896; NLA Group Ltd v. Bowers(1999) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 109; The BOC Group v. Centeon (1999) 1 All E.R. (Comm) 970; The “Rio Assu” (1999) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 115; Canterbury Golf International Ltd v. Yoshimoto (2002) UKPC 40; Static Control Components (Europe) Ltd v. Egan (2004) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 429; GE Frankona Reinsurance Ltd v. CMM Trust No 1400 (2006) EWHC 429; etc. 11/16/2018

21 解释合约新趋势下的先例介绍 澳大利亚先例 新加坡先例 香港先例
Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas (2004) 218 CLR 451; Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust v South Sydney City Council (2002) 240 CLR 45; Secured Income Real Estate (Australia) Ltd. v St. Martins Investments Pty. Ltd (1979) 144 CLR 596; Franklins Pty Ltd v Metcash Trading Ltd (2009) 76 NSWLR 603; etc. 新加坡先例 Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd v B-Gold Interior Design & Construction Pte Ltd (2008) 3 SLR 1029 香港先例 Jumbo King Ltd v Faithful Properties Ltd & Ors (1999) 2HKCFAR 279 11/16/2018

22 新趋势下要求重新收紧 Rainy Sky SA and others v Kookmin Bank (2012) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 34 在合约条文/文字不含糊的情况下，不能去作出扭曲。 Lord Clark： “Where the parties have used unambiguous language, the court must apply it.” 11/16/2018

23 新趋势下要求重新收紧 Arnold v Britton and Others [2015] UKSC 36先例，解释合约时应该考虑：
条文的一般字面意思（the nature and ordinary meaning of the clause）; 合约其他相关条文（any other relevant provisions of the contract）; 条文与合约的整体目的（the overall purpose of the clause and the contract）; 订约时双方知道或假设的事实与情况（the facts and circumstances known or assumed by the parties at the time that the document was executed）； 商业常识（commercial common sense）； 不考虑订约方单方面的主观意图 11/16/2018

24 新趋势下要求重新收紧 使用上述原则时应注意的因素： 依赖商业常识与周围环境不应低估条文字面意思的重要性
“the reliance placed in some cases on commercial common sense and surrounding circumstances … should not be invoked to undervalue the importance of the language of the provision which is to be construed. The exercise of interpreting a provision involves identifying what the parties meant through the eyes of a reasonable reader, and, save perhaps in a very unusual case, that meaning is most obviously to be gleaned from the language of the provision. Unlike commercial common sense and the surrounding circumstances, the parties have control over the language they use in a contract.” 11/16/2018

25 新趋势下要求重新收紧 合约写得越不清楚，法院越愿意偏离条文的字面意思
“the less clear they are, or, to put it another way, the worse their drafting, the more ready the court can properly be to depart from their natural meaning.” 不能事后诸葛亮地援引商业常识去偏离条文的字面意思 “commercial common sense is not to be invoked retrospectively. The mere fact that a contractual arrangement, if interpreted according to its natural language, has worked out badly, or even disastrously, for one of the parties is not a reason for departing from the natural language. Commercial common sense is only relevant to the extent of how matters would or could have been perceived by the parties, or by reasonable people in the position of the parties, as at the date that the contract was made. ” 11/16/2018

26 新趋势下要求重新收紧 尽管商业常识在解释合约时是十分重要，但不能仅仅因为如果根据条文的字面意思，觉得合约一方接受这样的条文也会是十分不明智（即使没有后知之明），就偏离条文的字面意思。很多经验显示水平低的人乱定合约，法院没有责任去帮助一个不聪明的合约方或去惩罚一个谨慎的合约方 “while commercial common sense is a very important factor to take into account when interpreting a contract, a court should be very slow to reject the natural meaning of a provision as correct simply because it appears to be a very imprudent term for one of the parties to have agreed, even ignoring the benefit of wisdom of hindsight. Experience shows that it is by no means unknown for people to enter into arrangements which are ill-advised… when interpreting a contract a judge should avoid re-writing it in an attempt to assist an unwise party or to penalise an astute party.” 11/16/2018

27 新趋势下要求重新收紧 解释合约能去加以考虑的，必须是双方都知道的事实
“When interpreting a contractual provision, one can only take into account facts or circumstances which existed at the time that the contract was made, and which were known or reasonably available to both parties. ” 11/16/2018

28 新趋势下要求重新收紧 Laird Resources LLP v Aumm Holdings Ltd [2015] EWHC 2615 (Comm) 根据Rainy Sky与Arnold v Britton先例，即使有清楚的条文可能会导致商业上不合理的情况所带来的争议，法院也不大可能扭曲条文的字面意思去猜测其他的解释或增加默示条文。 所以起草合约时要小心与准确，条文文字的字面意思就是想表达的意思。如果条文是清楚无误，商业常识是不能超越条文明显的字面意思。 11/16/2018

29 中国法对合约的解释 中国法律下针对债务与损失的裁量权的不明朗：例如《中华人民共和国合同法》第54条：“当事人一方有权请求人民法院或者仲裁机构变更……在订立合同时显失公平的……” 商业合约重视公平大原则（《中华人民共和国民法通则》第59条规定，最高人民法院关于贯彻执行《中华人民共和国民法通则》若干问题的意见第72条，“一方当事人利用优势或者利用对方没有经验，致使双方的权利义务明显违反公平、等价有偿原则的，可以认定为显失公平” 11/16/2018