Home > Legal:法律 > Romalpa Clause 罗马巴条款

Romalpa Clause 罗马巴条款

Title Retention Clause  罗马巴条款

 

A retention of title clause (also called a Romalpa clause in some jurisdictions[1]) is a provision in a contract for the sale of goods that the title to the goods remains vested in the seller until certain obligations (usually payment of the purchase price) are fulfilled by the buyer.

保留所有权条款 (在某些司法管辖区内称为Romalpa罗马巴条款)[1]在售物合同中规定,物品的所有权仍然归属卖方,直到某些义务(通常是在支付买价时)由买方达成。

 

Contents  目录

  • Purpose  目的
  • Legal analysis  法律分析
  • Sample clauses  条款范文
  • Case list  案例列表
  • Notes  注

 

Purpose  目的

The main purposes of retention of title clauses are to ensure that where goods are supplied on credit, if the buyer subsequently goes into bankruptcy, the seller can repossess the goods. Retention of title clauses are most prevalent in Europe (particularly in Germany). In North America they appear to be less common, and there may be a variety of reasons for this.[2]

保留所有权条款的主要目的是要确保赊账的货物在供应以后,如果买方在收货后破产,卖方就有权收回货物。保留所有权条款在欧洲最常用到(尤其是在德国) 。在北美,这个条款似乎是不普遍,可能有多种原因。[2]

Title retention clauses are often seen as a natural extension of the credit economy; where suppliers are expected to sell goods on credit, there is a reasonable expectation that if they are not paid they should be able to repossess the goods. Nonetheless, in a number of jurisdictions, insolvency regimes or credit arrangement regimes prevent title retention clauses from being enforced where doing so would upset administration of the regime.[3]

保留所有权条款往往被视为一种信贷经济自然的发展结果;买方期望供应商延后收款,因此卖方可以合理地期望,如果买方不付款,他们应该能够收回商品。尽管如此,在一些司法管辖区里,破产制度或信贷安排制度阻止保留所有权条款被强制执行,否则将会破坏整个管理组织。[3]

 

Legal Analysis  法律分析

Although title retention clauses are conceptually very simple, they have become increasingly widely drafted, which has resulted in the courts in a number of countries striking down the clauses, or recharacterising them as the grant of a security interest. Several particular problems have resulted:—

虽然保留所有权条款的概念很简单,但是这类条款已经被起草得越来越多,导致一些国家的法院要删除这些条款,或者解读成一项被赋予的保安利益。有一些特定的问题出现: –

  • If for example, the clause reserves only part of the title to the seller (instead of reserving title to the whole thing) then in many jurisdictions this is recharacterised as an equitable charge, and is often void if certain registration requirements are not complied with.[4]

例如,如果该条款只是保留卖方部分的所有权(而不是保留全部的所有权),那么这项条款就在许多司法管辖区被解读成公平赊账,如果不遵守某些登记要求,它通常都失效。[4]

  • Problems can also arise where the goods sold are mixed with other goods of a similar nature, so that they are no longer identifiable (e.g. a quantity of oil, or grain).[5]

问题也可以出现在售出的货物跟其他类似性质的商品混合在一起,使到原订的货物再也分辨不出来(如石油或粮食)。[5]

  • Many jurisdictions allow the buyer to re-sell the goods before title has passed to him (often this is the only way that he can pay the seller). In many jurisdictions such an onward sale passes good title to the subsequent purchaser, and the original seller loses title despite the clause[6]

许多司法管辖机构允许买方在所有权转回给他以前转售货物(通常也只有这么做才能付款给卖方)。在许多司法管辖区里,这种转售过程把货物所有权转给下一个买家,即使有这项条款,卖方还是失去所有权。[6]

  • Where the seller tries to have a clause which provides that, if the buyer re-sells the goods, then the proceeds of sale of the goods shall be held on trust for the seller, this can be recharacterised as a registrable charge, which may also be void for non-registration.[7]

如果卖方试图用一项条款规定,如果买方转售商品,售出的收益由买方为卖方以信托责任代为保留,这个做法也可以被解读为可登记的赊账,也可能因为不可登记而失效。[7]

  • Another frequently litigated problem occurs where the goods which are subject to the clause are then either improved (e.g. raw thread is worked into cloth) or mixed with other raw materials to form a new product (e.g. silica is used to make glass).[8]
  • ·另一个常惹官司的问题是受制于该条款的货物不是经过改良(如原材料的线织入布料中)就是跟其他原料混合在一起,形成另一个新的产品(如矽石被用来做成玻璃)。[8]
  • In some countries, where a clause purports to retain title until, not only the purchase price, but also any other debts of the buyer to the seller are paid in full, such clauses have been struck down for non-compliance with security registration requirements in those jurisdictions.

一些国家的条款要求保留所有权,直到买价以及任何买方尚未清还卖方的债务都全数还清了才能转给买方,这样的条款因为不遵守这些司法管辖机构要求的保安登记而被删除不考虑。

 

Sample Clauses  条款范文

Retention of title clauses will obviously vary from country to country, and even within countries they will usually be specialised to the form of industry used in, and the type of goods which are sold. The following are just two examples of the types of clause which can be seen.

很显然的,所有权保留条款因国而异,即使是在同一个国家里,这些条款也为专属的工业和售出的货品类型而起草。以下例子是两种不同的条款,可以看出不同点。

A shorter form clause:

较短的条款:

  1. Title to {the Goods} shall remain vested in {the Seller} and shall not pass to {the Buyer} until the purchase price for {the Goods} has been paid in full and received by {the Seller}.

{该货品}的所有权应该被{卖方}保留,不得转给{买方},直到{该货品}的买价全数付清由{卖方}收到为止。

A longer form clause:

较长的的条款:

  1. Title to {the Goods} shall remain vested in {the Seller} and shall not pass to {the Buyer} until the purchase price for {the Goods} has been paid in full and received by {the Seller}. Until title to {the Goods} passes:

{该货品}的所有权应该被{卖方}保留,不得转给{买方},直到{该货品}的买价全数付清由{卖方}收到为止。在{该货品}的所有权转移以前:

1.  {the Seller} shall have authority to retake, sell or otherwise deal with and/or dispose of all or any part of {the Goods};

{卖方}应有权收回,出售或以其他方式处理亦或卖掉部份或全部的{货品};

2.  {the Seller} and its agents and employees shall be entitled at any time and without the need to give notice enter upon any property upon which {the Goods} or any part are stored, or upon which {the Seller} reasonably believes them to be kept;

{卖方}及其代理人和雇员应有权在任何时候,无需预先通知就可进入任何或部份储藏这些{货品}的房地产,或者进入其他{卖方}合理相信储藏这些{货品}的地点;

3.  {the Buyer} shall store or mark {the Goods} in a manner reasonably satisfactory to {the Seller} indicating that title to {the Goods} remains vested in {the Seller}; and

{买方}应以{买方}满意的合理方式储存,或者在{货品}上标记表明所有权仍旧属于{卖方};另外

4.  {the Buyer} shall insure {the Goods} to their full replacement value, and arrange for {the Seller} to be noted on the policy of insurance as the loss payee.

{买方}应该担保{货品}的全部替代价值无损,也安排通知{卖方}保单上注明{卖方}是赔偿金收款人。

  1. Irrespective of whether title to {the Goods} remains vested in {the Seller}, risk in {the Goods} shall pass to {the Buyer} upon delivery.

不论{货品}的所有权是否仍旧归属于{卖方},{货品}的风险在移交给{买方}之后就转移给{买方}去承担。

 

Case List  案例列表

  • Aluminium Industrie Vaassen BV v Romalpa Alumnium Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 676

Aluminium Industrie Vaassen铝工业公司BV诉Romalpa Alumnium罗马巴铝业有限公司   [1976] 1 WLR 676

  • Re Peachdart [1984] Ch 131, if the clause applies to something not yet made, then it is a charge and must be registered to be effective.

Re Peachdart重保 [1984] 131章,如果该条款适用于一些尚未制造的货品,那么它就是一个赊账,必须登记才算有效。

  • Clough Mill Ltd v Martin [1984] 3 All ER 982, explaining how a simple clause operates.

Clough Mill Ltd克拉夫磨坊有限公司诉Martin马丁 [1984] 3 ALL ER 982,此案解释一个简单的条款如何运作。

  • Indian Oil v Greenstone Shipping [1987] 3 WLR 869

Indian Oil印度石油诉Greestone Shipping绿宝石船务 [1987] 3 WLR 869

  • E Pfeiffer v Arbuthnot Factors [1988] 1 WLR 150

E.Pfeiffer诉Arbuthnot Factors亚毕诺租赁信贷 [1988] 1 WLR 150

  • Compaq Computer v Abercorn [1991] BCC 484

Compaq Computer康柏电脑诉Abercom阿伯康 [1991] BCC 484

  • Armour v Thyssen [1991] 2 AC 339

Armour装甲诉Thyssen泰森 [1991] 2 AC 339

 

Notes  注

[1] ^ Named after the decision in Aluminium Industrie Vaassen BV v Romalpa Alumnium Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 676

[1] ^在铝工业公司Vaassen BV诉Romalpa Alumnium有限公司 [1976] 1 WLR 676一案的决定之後命名。

[2] ^ The two most commonly suggested reasons are (i) that the provisions under the UCC of most States in the U.S.A. limit the effectiveness of such clauses, and (ii) that under American bankruptcy law, the relative ease of obtaining a stay of creditor’s rights in bankruptcy under Chapter 11 undermines the effect of such a clause. Whilst both reasons may apply to the U.S.A., it doesn’t really indicate why they should be less popular in other parts of North America

[2] ^最多人普遍认同的两个原因是(i)在美国大多数的州裡,根据UCC的規定限制这类条款的效力,以及(ii)根据美国破产法第11章的规定,相对容易獲取保留债权人的权利破坏了这种条款的效果。虽然这两个原因適用於美国,卻没有明确说明为什么他们在北美其他地区就不普遍。

[3] ^ For example, in the United Kingdom, where an administration order is made with respect to a company, section 11 of the Insolvency Act 1986 prevents goods being repossessed without the leave of the court.

[3] ^例如,在英国,当接管令发出给一家公司时,1986年破产法第11条就禁止未经法院许可,任何人不得收回货品。

[4] ^ For example, in England in Re Bond Worth Ltd [1980] Ch 228 such a clause was held to be void as it had not been registered within 21 days as required by section 395 of the Companies Act 1985

[4] ^例如,在英国Re Bond Worth 有限公司 [1980] 228章,这样的条款因为没有在21天内根据1985年的公司法第395条的规定作登记而被裁定为无效。

[5] ^ In most common law jurisdictions, so long as the clause prohibited mixing in this manner, the rule is that the buyer and the seller jointly own the whole mixture as tenants in common, see Indian Oil v. Greenstone Shipping [1987] 3 WLR 869

[5] ^在大部分普通法的司法管辖区里,只要该条款禁止以这种方式混合,规则就是买方和卖方就以分权共享人的身份共同拥有整个混合物,见Indian Oil印度石油公司诉Greenstone Shipping绿宝石航运[1987]3 WLR 869

[6] ^ For example, in England this is the effect of section 25(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, and section 2(1) of the Factors Act 1889

[6] ^例如,在英国,这是1979年货物买卖法第25条第(1)节和第1889年代理商法第2条第(1)节的效用。

[7] ^ In England, see E Pfeiffer v. Arbuthnot Factors [1988] 1 WLR 150, although a differently worded clause was distinguished and upheld in Compaq Computer v. Abercorn [1991] BCC 484

[7] ^在英国,见E Pfeiffer菲佛诉Arbuthnot Factors亚毕诺代收 [1988] 1 WLR 150,虽然措辞不同的条文在Compaq Computer康柏电脑诉Abercom阿伯康[1991] 484 BCC一例中被区分和维持原判。

[8] ^ Generally speaking, in England, the law has been consistently applied that if the retention of title clause purports to apply to the new substance which has been made, then it takes effect as a charge and would be void if not registered, see for example, Re Peachdart [1984] Ch 131

[8] ^一般来说,在英国,如果保留所有权条款有意用在已经制成的新物品里,那么就成为赊账,如果没有登记,就会失效,这套法律也一贯地沿用至今,例如,Re Peachdart [1984] 131章的案例。

 

Categories  分类

  • English law  英国法律
  • Business law  商业法
  • Contract law  合同法
  • Insolvency  破产法
  • Contract clauses  合同条款

 

—— END ——

 

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

Translated by > BlogHost — hkTan

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: