Home > Legal:法律 > Himalaya Clause

Himalaya Clause

Himalaya Clause  喜马拉雅条款

 

A Himalaya clause is a contractual provision expressed to be for the benefit of a third party who is not a party to the contract. Although theoretically applicable to any form of contract, most of the jurisprudence relating to Himalaya clauses relate to marine matters, and exclusion clauses in bills of lading for the benefit of stevedores in particular.

喜马拉雅条款是为跟合同无关的第三方提供权益的明确条款。虽然在理论上它适用于任何形式的合同,大多数跟喜马拉雅条款有关的合同都牵涉到海洋事务以及装卸提单中的排除条款,好让码头工人受益。

 

Contents  目录

  • Origin of the term  专业用语的起源
  • Reasoning  辩护理由
  • Developments since Adler v Dickson 。Adler诉Dickson一案以后的发展
  • The United States  美国法律
  • Sample clause  条款范文
  • Footnotes  注脚

 

Origin of the Term  专业用语的起源

The clause takes its name from a decision of the English Court of Appeal in the case of Adler v Dickson (The Himalaya) [1954] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 267, [1955] 1 QB 158 [1]. The claimant was a passenger on the S.S. Himalaya who had been injured when a gangway fell, throwing her onto the quayside below. The passenger ticket contained a non-responsibility clause exempting the carrier, so the claimant sued the master of the ship and the boatswain. The claimant argued that under the normal rules of privity of contract the defendants could not rely on the terms of a contract that they were not party to. However, the Court of Appeal declared that in the carriage of passengers as well as in the carriage of goods the law permitted a carrier to stipulate not only for himself, but also for those whom he engaged to carry out the contract. It was held as well that the stipulation might be express or implied. Ironically, on the facts before the court, it was held that the passenger ticket did not expressly or by implication benefit servants or agents and thus the defendants could not take advantage of the exception clause. However, after the decision, specially drafted Himalaya clauses benefiting stevedores and others began to be included in bills of lading.[1]

条款名称出自英国上诉法院在Adler诉Dickson阿德勒v迪克森(喜马拉雅号)[1955] Lloyd’s Rep 267 1 QB 158一案的判词. 索赔人是一位SS喜马拉雅号客船的乘客,在走道掉落时跌到码头岸边受了伤。船票中有一则条款豁免承运人的的责任,申请人就只好起诉船长和水手。索赔人认为,根据合同参与者的一般规则,被告不能依据不包括他们在内的合同中的条款去豁免责任。然而,上诉法院宣布,法律允许运载乘客以及货物的承运人不仅是规定自己,也包括受雇履行合同的人都豁免责任。而这种规定可以是明示也可以是默示的。讽刺的是,法庭根据呈上法庭的事实认为,船票并没有明示或暗示雇员或代理人也受益于不负责条款,因此,被告就不能引用例外条款来免责获益。然而,在这次裁定之后,对码头工人和其他人有利而特别起草的喜玛拉雅条款就开始被列入装卸提单中[1]。

The decision has subsequently been upheld several times by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and is now accepted as settled law in most common law countries.

这个裁定随后也被枢密院司法委员会维持原判好几次,目前在大部份执行普通法的国家里被接受成为既定的法律。

 

Reasoning  辩护理由

Although the decision in The Himalaya is clear and unambiguous, the reasoning underpinning the case is still the subject of some debate. The courts at various times have suggested that the exception to the common law rules of privity of contract may be founded upon “public policy” reasoning, the law of agency, trust arrangements or (with respect to goods) by the law of bailment rather than the law of contracts.

虽然在喜马拉雅号一案里的裁定是明确又不含糊的,这个案子的辩护理由还是有一些可争议的课题。不同时候的法院认为,普通法中合同的参与性规则的例外状况可能是以“公共政策”,法律机构,信托安排或(货物)由委托保管法律的理由去成立,而不是以合同法去成立。

 

Developments since Adler vs Dickson  爱德乐诉迪生一案以后的发展

The following cases reveal how English law has developed:

下列个案显示英国法律如何发展出来:

Scruttons v Midland Silicones [1962] AC 446: The House of Lords applied the Privity Rule to prevent a negligent stevedore from relying on a limitation clause in the bill or lading.

Scruttons诉Midland Silicons[1962] AC 446一案:上议院引用知情规则阻止一名疏忽的码头工人依据提货單中的限制条款的免责保护。

N.Z. Shipping v Satterthwaite (The Eurymedon) [1975] AC 154: The Privy Council found that enough had been done to allow a negligent stevedore to rely on such a limitation clause.

N.Z.船务诉Satterthwaite(The Eurymedon)[1975] AC 154一案:枢密院发现有足够的努力允許疏忽的码头工人可以依据這個限制条款的免责保护。

Port Jackson Stevedoring v Salmond, The New York Star [1980] 3 All ER 257 PC developed the law further.

Port Jackson码头工诉Salmond,纽约之星[1980] 2 All ER 257 PC 一案进一步发展这个法律。

Houtimport v Agrosin, The Starsin [2003] 1 Lloyds rep 571 also developed the law further.

Houtimport诉Agrosin,The Starsin [2003] 1 Lloyds rep 571一案也进一步发展这个法律。

Note that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (which amends the Doctrine of Privity) does NOT apply to contracts for the carriage of goods by sea.

请注意,合同(第三方权利)1999年法令(修订了知情条款)不适用於海运的合同。

 

The United States  美国法律

The decision of the English courts has been generally accepted and adopted throughout the Commonwealth. In the United States, which has always had a more circumspect view of the rules of privity of contract, has generally been accommodating to exceptions to the principle, and the decision in Herd v Krawill 59 US 297, [1959] Lloyd’s Rep 305 is generally taken to uphold them provided (as in other legal systems) certain criteria are ahered to.

英国法院的裁定已被普遍接受,也被整个英联邦采纳。美国法律中通常都有更周到的合同参与性规则,一般上都可容纳原则以外的例外状况,在Herd诉Krawill 59 US 297, [1959] Lloyd’s Rep 305一案的裁定总的来说是维持了这个观点,条件是有符合(其他法律制度)中的特定标准。

 

Sample Clause  条款范文

“It is hereby expressly agreed that no servant or agent of the carrier (including every independent contractor from time to time employed by the carrier) shall in any circumstances whatsoever be under any liability whatsoever to the shipper, consignee or owner of the goods or to any holder of this Bill of Lading for any loss, damage or delay of whatsoever kind arising or resulting directly or indirectly from any act, neglect or default on his part while acting in the course of or in connection with his employment and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this clause, every exemption, limitation, condition and liberty herein contained and every right, exemption from liability, defense and immunity of whatsoever nature applicable to the carrier or to which the carrier is entitled hereunder shall also be available and shall extend to protect every such servant or agent of the carrier acting as aforesaid and for the purpose of all the foregoing provisions of this clause the carrier is or shall be deemed to be acting as agent or trustee on behalf of and for the benefit of all persons who are or might be his servants or agents from time to time (including independent contractors as aforesaid) and all such persons shall to this extent be or be deemed to be parties to the contract in or evidenced by this Bill of Lading.”[2]

“谨在此声明同意,乘运人的雇员或代理人(包括每一个不时由乘运人雇佣的独立承包商)在任何情况下都不负责因为其受雇期间执行任务时的任何行为,疏忽或他的错误对任何托运人,收货人或者货物拥有人或任何本提单人造成的任何损失,损害,或延误;在不妨碍本条款上述所规定的一般情况下,本文所载的适用于承运人,或者承运人有资格拥有的每一个豁免权,限制,条件和自由,以及一切权益,法律责任的豁免权,国防和任何性质的豁免,都应当提供给他们,也延伸到保护每一位上述的这些雇员或承运人的代理人;由于上述此条款中的所有前述条文中正在或被视为以代理人或受托人的身份代替不同时段内(包括前述的独立承包商)所有是或可能是承运人的雇员或代理人办事让他们受益,所有这些人必须在这个范围内是或被视为是合同里的当事人或者本提单所注明的相关人员。[2]

 

Footnotes  注脚

[1] ^ The decision itself has been partly superseded by legislation in the United Kingdom on two fronts. Under s.2(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, it is now no longer possible to limit liability for personal injury or death caused by negligence, and under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 contracts can confer benefits upon persons not party to the contract, in a wider form than under the judicial decision. Although contracts for carriage of goods by sea are excluded from the operation of the Act in order to avoid conflict with the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992, the Act does apply to giving a third party the benefit of an exclusion or limitation clause in the contract.

^此裁定本身已经被英国立法在两方面取代了一部份。在1977年第2(1)条不公平合同条款法中,现在已经不可能再为疏忽或过失所引起的人身伤害或死亡限制法律责任,而且,根据1999年合同法(第三方权益),合同可赋予合同以外的人士一些利益,比起司法判决下的形式更广泛。虽然海运载具的合同为了避免与1992年的海上货运法令有冲突而被这个法令排除在外,该法令仍适用于让第三方享受合同中的排除或限制条款的好处。

[2] ^ Eisen und Metall AG v Ceres Stevedoring Co Ltd and Canadian Overseas Shipping Ltd (The Cleveland) [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 665

     ^Eisen und Metall AG艾森与冶金公司诉Ceres Stevedoring Co Ltd与Canadian Overseas Shipping Ltd(The Cleaveland)谷神星港埠有限公司和加拿大海外船务有限公司(克利夫兰)[1977] 1 Lloyd Rep 665

—— END ——

 

Source > Wikipedia at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalaya_clause

Translated by > BlogHost

Word Count > approx. 1100 words in English

 

Advertisements
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: