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

 

Yellow Dog Contract 黄犬合同

Yellow-dog Contract  黄犬合同

 

A yellow-dog contract (a yellow-dog clause[1] of a contract, or an ironclad oath) is an agreement between an employer and an employee in which the employee agrees, as a condition of employment, not to be a member of a labor union. In the United States, such contracts were, until the 1930s, widely used by employers to prevent the formation of unions, most often by permitting employers to take legal action against union organizers. In 1932, yellow-dog contracts were outlawed in the United States under the Norris-LaGuardia Act.[2][3]

黄犬合同(合同中的黄犬条款[1]，或铁皮誓言)是雇主和雇员之间的协议，雇员同意不成为工会会员是受雇条件之一。在美国，直到20世纪30年代，这样的合同广泛地被雇主用来预防工会的成立，最常见的就是允许雇主采取法律行动对付工会筹组人。1932年，黄犬合同在美国的Norris-LaGuardia法令中被禁止[2][3]。

The term yellow-dog clause can also have a different meaning: non-compete clauses within or appended to a non-disclosure agreement to prevent an employee from working for other employers in the same industry.[4]

黄犬条款这个名词也可以有不同的含义： 内部不竞争条款或附加在不披露协议之上，防止雇员为同业的雇主工作[4]。

 

Contents  目录

• Origin of term and brief history  词源与简史
• Yellow-dog union  黄犬工会
• See also  另见
• References  参考文献

 

Origin of Term and Brief History  词源与简史

In the 1870s, a written agreement containing a pledge not to join a union was commonly referred to as the “Infamous Document”. This strengthens the belief that American employers in their resort to individual contracts were consciously following English precedents. This anti-union pledge was also called an “iron clad document”, and from this time until the close of the 19th century “iron-clad” was the customary name for the non-union promise. Beginning with New York in 1887, sixteen states wrote on their statute books declarations making it a criminal act to force employees to agree not to join unions.[citation needed] The Congress of the United States incorporated in the Erdman Act of 1898 a provision relating to carriers engaged in interstate commerce.

在19世纪70年代，书面协议里包含了不加入工会的承诺通常都被称为“不名誉文件”。这种文件加强了一个信念，那就是美国雇主在诉诸个人合同时，有意追随英国的先例。这种反工会的承诺也被称为“铁皮文件”，并从这个时候起直到19世纪结束为止，“铁皮”是承诺不加入工会的的俗称。1887年从纽约开始，十六个州在他们的法典中明文宣告，迫使雇员同意不加入工会的协议是一种罪行。美国议会在1898年订立的Erdman厄尔曼法令收纳了跟州际贸易的运营商有关的条文。

During the last decade of the 19th century and the opening years of the 20th, the individual, anti-union promise declined in importance as an instrument in labor warfare. Its novelty had worn off; workers no longer felt themselves morally bound to live up to it and union organizers, of course, wholly disregarded it. In the early 20th century, the individual, anti-union promise was resorted to frequently in coal mining and in the metal trades. And it was not membership in a union that was usually prohibited, but participation in those essential activities without which membership is valueless.

在19世纪最后十年以及20世纪开始时，作为劳工福利的一件工具，个人与反工会承诺已经式微，其新鲜度已经褪色，工人不再觉得自己在道义上要遵守承诺，当然，工会组织更是完全不理会。在20世纪初，个人与反工会的承诺还经常出现在煤炭开采和金属行业中。禁止的范围通常都不是工会的会员身份，而是参与那些基本活动，不参与的话这种会员身份就没有价值了。

In 1910, the International United Brotherhood of Leather Workers on Horse Goods, following an unsuccessful conference with the National Saddlery Manufacturers’ Association, called a national strike in the saddlery industry for the 8-hour day. The strike proved a failure, and a large number of employers required verbal or written promises to abandon and remain out of the organization as a condition of re-employment.

1910年，国际马用商品皮革工人团结兄弟会跟国家马具制造商协会召开的会议谈判不成功以后，号召马具行业的全国性大罢工八个小时。这次罢工以失败收场，因为大多数雇主要求雇员口头或书面承诺放弃和不参与工会活动作为再受雇条件之一。

In the case Adair v. United States, the United States Supreme Court’s majority held that the provision of the Erdman Act relating to discharge, because it would compel an employer to accept or retain the personal services of another person against the employer’s will, was a violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which declares that no person shall be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law. The court was careful, however, to restrict the decision to the provision relating to discharge, and to express no opinion as to the remainder of the law. The section of the Erdman Act making it criminal to force employees to sign anti-union agreements therefore remained unadjudicated.

在Adair诉美国一案里，美国最高法院的多数票裁定，厄尔曼法令中有关解雇的条文会迫使雇主接受或保留另一个人违反雇主意志的个人服务，就违反了宪法的第五次修订法令，法令宣告，任何人不得未经法律的正当程序被剥夺自由或财产。法院小心地把裁定限制在跟解雇有关的条文中，对法律的其余部份就不发表任何意见。厄尔曼法令的章节规定，强迫雇员签反工会协议是刑事罪，因此是未经裁定的罪行。

The term yellow dog started appearing in the spring of 1921, in leading articles and editorials devoted to the subject which appeared in the labor press. Typical was the comment of the editor of the United Mine Workers’ Journal:

黄犬这个名词首度出现在1921年春天一个专门报道劳工报章里的一篇专栏文章。比较典型的是美国煤矿工人杂志的编辑评论：

This agreement has been well named. It is yellow dog for sure. It reduces to the level of a yellow dog any man that signs it, for he signs away every right he possesses under the Constitution and laws of the land and makes himself the truckling, helpless slave of the employer.[5]

这个协议命名得好，肯定是隻黄犬。任何签署这种合同的人都自贬为黄狗，因为他把宪法和这块土地赋予他的每一项权益都签给别人了，使自己成为雇主那个齿轮般无助的奴隶[5]。

Even though they were forbidden in the private sector by the Norris – LaGuardia Act in 1932, Yellow dog contracts were allowed in public sector, including with all sorts of government jobs, such as teachers, until the 1960s, beginning with precedent established in 1915 with Frederick v. Ownens.[6]

即使是在私营领域里被1932年的Norris-LaGuardia法令禁止，黄犬合同却在公共领域里获准使用，包括政府部门的各种工作，如教师，直到20世纪60年代才结束在1915年的Frederick诉Ownens一案中开始成立的先例[6]。

The purpose of the yellow dog contract is essentially to prevent employees from organizing. Such contracts are not enforceable, as they are illegal under the Norris-LaGuardia Act (Section 3).[7]

黄犬合同的目的主要是为了防止员工们组织工会。这样的合同不能强制执行，因为根据“Norris-LaGuardia法”(第3部)是非法的[7]。

 

Yellow-dog Union  黄犬工会

A yellow-dog union, sometimes also known as a company union refers to an employee association calling itself a trade union but which, in fact, is affiliated covertly or which is operated openly by an employer.

黄犬联盟，有时也被称为公司联盟，是指雇员协会自称为工会，但是事实上却暗中隶属于或者由雇主公开经营。

 

See also  另见

• Labour rights  劳工权益
• Labour and employment law  劳工和就业法
• Christian Labour Association of Canada  加拿大基督教劳工协会
• Coppage v. Kansas 一案

 

References  参考文献

[1] ^ JargonDatabase.com definition

^JargonDatabase.com(术语库网站)定义

[2] ^ Kaushik Basu (January 2006). “Coercion, Contract and the Limits of the Market (CAE Working Paper #06-01)”.

^Kaushik Basu(2006年1月)著的“强制性，合同以及市场的局限(CAE工作文件#06-01)”。

[3] ^ Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., The Crisis of the Old Order, 1919-1933, (Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1957), pp. 238-239

^Arthur Schlesinger，Jr.著的“旧秩序的危机”，1919-1933，(Houghton Miffin公司，波士顿，1957)，238-239页

[4] ^ James Hague, compiler & editor, Stephen Biggs: Halcyon Days: Interviews with Classic Computer and Video Game Programmers, June 2002

^James Hague，编辑与编纂人，“Stephen Biggs:Halcyon日：访问旧电脑以及电玩程序编写员”，2002年6月。

[5] ^ Joel I. Seidman, The Yellow Dog Contract, The Johns Hopkins Press, 1932, Ch. 1, pp.11-38

^Joel I.Seidman著的“黄犬合约“，Johns Hopkins出版社，1932，第一章，11-38页。

[6] ^ Slater, Joseph E.. Public Workers: Government Employee Unions, the Law and the State, 1900 – 1962. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 2004.

^Slater，Joseph E著的“公共员工：政府雇员工会，法律与国家”，1900-1962。Ithaca，纽约：ILR出版社，2004.

[7] ^ Roberts, Harold S. (1986) Roberts’ Dictionary of Industrial Relations (3rd ed.). p. 800.

^Roberts，Harold S.(1986)著的“Robert的工业关系字典”(第三版)第800页。

 

Categories  分类

• Contract law  合同法
• Labour law  劳动法
• History of labor relations in the United States  美国的劳工关系史
• History of the United States (1918–1945)  美国历史(1918年至1945年)

 

Other Categories  其他分类

Contract law  合同法

Part of the common law series  普通法系列的一部分

Contract formation  合同的订立

Offer and acceptance  邀约和承约：Mailbox rule 邮箱规则

Mirror image rule 镜像规则• Invitation to treat 邀请作交易

Firm offer 确定的邀约• Consideration 代价

Defenses against formation  抗辩合约的成立

Lack of capacity 能力不足

Duress 胁迫• Undue influence 不当的影响

Illusory promise 虚假的承诺• Statute of frauds 欺诈条例

Non est factum 否认定理契约的答辩

Contract interpretation  合同的释义

Parol evidence rule 口头证据规则

Contract of adhesion 附着力合同

Integration clause 集成条款

Contra proferentem 对条文发起人不利的解读

Excuses for non-performance 不履行的藉口

Mistake 过失• Misrepresentation 失实陈述

Frustration of purpose 目的受挫• Impossibility 不可能性质

Impracticability 不可行性质• Illegality 不合法

Unclean hands 不洁的手• Unconscionability 不合情理性质

Accord and satisfaction 协定和满意度

Rights of third parties  第三方的权利

Privity of contract 相互关系的合同

Assignment 转让• Delegation 转授

Novation 约务更替• Third party beneficiary 第三方受益人

Breach of contract  违约

Anticipatory repudiation 预期废除• Cover 承保

Exclusion clause 摒除条款• Efficient breach 有效率违约

Deviation 偏差• Fundamental breach 基本的违反

Remedies  补救措施

Specific performance 具体表现

Liquidated damages 算定的赔偿金

Penal damages 刑事赔偿• Rescission 撤销

Quasi-contractual obligations  半合同法律责任

Promissory estoppel 承诺不反悔

Quantum meruit 合理金额/按劳计酬

Related areas of law  相关领域的法律

Conflict of laws 法律冲突• Commercial law 商业法

Other common law areas  其他普通法适用地区

Tort law 侵权法·Property law 产权法

Wills, trusts and estates 遗嘱，信托和产业

Criminal law 刑法• Evidence 证据

 

—— END ——

 

Source > Wikipedia at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow-dog_clause

Translated by > BlogHost — hkTan

Word Count > approx.870 words in English

 

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

 

Vis Major

Vis Major  主要可见

 

Vis major (play /ˌvɪs ˈmeɪdʒər/; in Latin ‘a superior force’) is a greater or superior force; an irresistible force. It may be a loss that results immediately from a natural cause that could not have been prevented by the exercise of prudence, diligence and care. It is also termed as vis divina or superior force.

主要可见(拉丁语是指“优势”)是一个更大的优势力量，一种不可抗拒的力量。它可能是一个审慎，尽力和小心还是无法预防损失的自然成因所造成的损失。它也被称为vis divina或优势力量。

It is an irresistible violence; inevitable accident or act of God. Its nature and power absolutely uncontrollable, for example, the inroads of a hostile army or forcible robberies, may relieve from liability from contract.

这是个不可阻挡的破坏行为;不可避免的意外或天灾。它的性质和力量绝对无法控制，例如，敌方军队或强行抢劫的势力介入，就可以缓解合同中的法律责任。

This term has specific meaning in regard to strict liability. Strict liability in the law of torts allows for the accrual of liability against an actor where there is no fault or proximate cause given the damages arose from their participation in an ultrahazardous activity, i.e. blasting, damming of water, etc. However, “vis major” offers an exception to such liability. In Fletcher v. Rylands In the Exchequer Chamber, L.R. 1 Ex. 265, 1866, affirmed in the House of Lords on appeal in Rylands v. Fletcher L.R. 3 H.L. 330, the exception of vis major is introduced:

这个术语在严格责任方面有特别的含义。在侵权法中，严格责任允许一名行事者在没有人犯错或没有近因的情况下参与高度危险的活动时，如爆破, 水坝破裂等等造成的损伤不必负责赔偿。不过，“重大事件“对这种赔偿责任则有例外。在Fletcher诉Rylands（财政大臣厅内,LR 1 Ex.265，1866年)案中，众议院上议院在Rylands诉Fletcher(LR 3 HL 330)上诉案里肯定了“大事件”也有例外之处：

“[Defendant] can excuse himself by showing that the escape [of a dangerous substance] was owing to the plaintiff’s default; or perhaps that the escape was the consequence of vis major, or the act of God… [emphasis added]” -Blackburn J Fletcher v. Rylands L.R. 1 Ex. 265, 1866.

“[被告]可以不必负责，但必须证明躲避[危险性质]是原告的错，或者躲避是因为重大事件或天灾的结果….. [特别强调] “Fletchers诉Rylands LR 1 Ex.265，1866。

The existence of vis major, or an act of God, will preclude the use of the theory of strict liability given the impossibility of anticipating such an event. (Think of a dam breaking after a hurricane where there is no negligence found on the part of the owner/operator of the dam.)

由于此类事件无法预见，大事件或天灾的存在将预先排除使用严格责任的理论。（想象一个飓风过后的破坝，在拥有人/经营者那里找不到任何疏忽的行为）。

 

See also  另见

• Force majeure 不可抗力

 

References 参考文献

• Black’s Law Dictionary, P.1567, 7th Edn.,

布莱克法律词典，P.1567，第七版。

• Mitra’s Legal & Commercial Dictionary – 4th Edn., Eastern Law House, Page 790

Mitra法律和商业词典 – 第4版，东方律师楼，790页。

• Prosser Wade and Schwartz’s Torts: Cases and Materials, 11th Edn., Foundation Press, P. 694

Prosser Wade与Schwartz的侵权法：案例与资料，第11版，基金会出版社，第694页。

Categories 分类

• Contract law 合同法

Part of the common law series 普通法系列的一部分

• Contract formation 合同的订立

Offer and acceptance 邀约和承约：Mailbox rule 邮箱规则

Mirror image rule 镜像规则 • Invitation to treat 邀请作交易

Firm offer 确定的邀约 • Consideration 代价

• Defenses against formation 抗辩合约的成立

Lack of capacity 能力不足

Duress 胁迫• Undue influence 不当的影响

Illusory promise 虚假的承诺• Statute of frauds 欺诈条例

Non est factum 否认定理契约的答辩

• Contract interpretation 合同的释义

Parol evidence rule 口头证据规则

Contract of adhesion 附着力合同

Integration clause 集成条款

Contra proferentem 对条文发起人不利的解读

• Excuses for non-performance 不履行的藉口

Mistake 过失 • Misrepresentation 失实陈述

Frustration of purpose 目的受挫 • Impossibility 不可能性质

Impracticability 不可行性质 • Illegality 不合法

Unclean hands 不洁的手 • Unconscionability 不合情理性质

Accord and satisfaction 协定和满意度

• Rights of third parties 第三方的权利

Privity of contract 相互关系的合同

Assignment 转让 • Delegation 转授

Novation 约务更替 • Third party beneficiary 第三方受益人

• Breach of contract 违约

Anticipatory repudiation 预期废除• Cover 承保

Exclusion clause 摒除条款 • Efficient breach 有效率违约

Deviation 偏差 • Fundamental breach 基本的违反

• Remedies 补救措施

Specific performance 具体表现

Liquidated damages 算定的赔偿金

Penal damages 刑事赔偿 • Rescission 撤销

• Quasi-contractual obligations 半合同法律责任

Promissory estoppel 承诺不反悔

Quantum meruit 合理金额/按劳计酬

• Related areas of law 相关领域的法律

Conflict of laws 法律冲突 • Commercial law 商业法

• Other common law areas 其他普通法适用地区

Tort law 侵权法 · Property law 产权法

Wills, trusts and estates 遗嘱，信托和产业

Criminal law 刑法 • Evidence 证据

—— END ——

 

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

Translated by > BlogHost

Word Count > approx.330 words

 

Force Majeure

Force Majeure  不可抗力

 

Force majeure (French; pronounced: [fɔʁs maʒœʁ], approximately fors ma-zhur) or vis major (Latin) “superior force”, also known as cas fortuit (French) or casus fortuitus (Latin) “chance occurrence, unavoidable accident”,[1] is a common clause in contracts that essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties, such as a war, strike, riot, crime, or an event described by the legal term act of God (such as hurricane, flooding, earthquake, volcanic eruption, etc.), prevents one or both parties from fulfilling their obligations under the contract.[2]

不可抗力 （ 法文 ; 相近义或主要可见/大事件 （拉丁文）“强大力量”，又称cas fortuit（法国）或casus fortuitus(拉丁文)“偶然发生，无法避免的事故”[1]，是合同里常见的条款，基本上在发生一件不可控又非比寻常的事件或状况之下，如战争，罢工，暴动 ，犯罪，或法律条文所描述的天灾（ 如飓风，洪水，地震，火山爆发等等）让有法律义务与责任的双方都能不必负责，免除一方或双方根据合同履行其义务的要求[2]。

However, force majeure is not intended to excuse negligence or other malfeasance of a party, as where non-performance is caused by the usual and natural consequences of external forces (for example, predicted rain stops an outdoor event), or where the intervening circumstances are specifically contemplated.

但是， 不可抗力不能因为外界力量（如预测下雨而停办户外活动）造成的平常与自然后果，或特别设想去制造干预的状况之下不能执行合约而免除其中一方疏忽或其他渎职的责任。

 

Contents 目录

• Purpose  目的
• Importance  重要性
• Elements  因素
• Sample clause  范文
• See also  另见
• References  参考文献
• Note  註记
• External links  外部链接

 

Purpose 目的

Time-critical and other sensitive contracts may be drafted to limit the shield of this clause where a party does not take reasonable steps (or specific precautions) to prevent or limit the effects of the outside interference, either when they become likely or when they actually occur. A force majeure may work to excuse all or part of the obligations of one or both parties. For example, a strike might prevent timely delivery of goods, but not timely payment for the portion delivered. Similarly, a widespread power outage would not be a force majeure excuse if the contract requires the provision of backup power or other contingency plans for continuity.

其他时间是关键或者有其他敏感条件的合同可以另外起草条文来限制这个条款的保护作用，适用于其中一方不采取合理步骤(或针对性的预防措施)去避免或减低外界干扰的影响力的情况，不论这些干扰的后果变得很有可能或者已经发生。不可抗力也可以免除单方或双方全部或部分的责任。例如，罢工可能会妨碍准时交付货物，但不妨碍准时支付已交付部分的付款。同样的，如果合同要求提供备用电源或其他可持续的应急计划，全面停电就不构成不可抗力的条件。

A force majeure may also be the overpowering force itself, which prevents the fulfillment of a contract. In that instance, it is actually the impossibility or impracticability defenses.

不可抗力 本身也可能是压倒性的力量，从而阻止合同的履行。在这种情况下，不可抗力本身其实就是不可能或不可行的辩护理由。

In the military, force majeure has a slightly different meaning. It refers to an event, either external or internal, that happens to a vessel or aircraft that allows it to enter normally restricted areas without penalty. An example would be the Hainan Island incident where a U.S. Navy aircraft landed at a Chinese military airbase after a collision with a Chinese fighter in April 2001. Under the principle of force majeure, the aircraft must be allowed to land without interference.

在军事上，不可抗力有一个稍微不同的含义。它是指一个内部或外部事件，允许船只或飞机进入通常受到管制但不惩罚的禁区。一个例子就是美国海军的飞机在2001年4月跟中国战机擦撞后降落在位于中国海南岛一个空军基地。在不可抗力的原则下，飞机必须获得允许不受扰地降陆。

 

Importance  重要性

The importance of the force majeure clause in a contract, particularly one of any length in time, cannot be overstated as it relieves a party from an obligation under the contract (or suspends that obligation). What is permitted to be a force majeure event or circumstance can be the source of much controversy in the negotiation of a contract and a party should generally resist any attempt by the other party to include something that should, fundamentally, be at the risk of that other party. For example, in a coal-supply agreement, the mining company may seek to have “geological risk” included as a force majeure event; however, the mining company should be doing extensive exploration and analysis of its geological reserves and should not even be negotiating a coal-supply agreement if it cannot take the risk that there may be a geological limit to its coal supply from time to time. The outcome of that negotiation, of course, depends on the relative bargaining power of the parties and there will be cases where force majeure clauses can be used by a party effectively to escape liability for bad performance.

合同中的不可抗力条款的重要性在于，不能夸大任何时段中的一段时间去免除其中一方的合约责任(或暂停该义务)。不可抗力允许的事件或情况可以成为合同的谈判中备受争议的源头，其中一方通常都会抗拒另一方试图包括一些原本属于另一方应面对的风险成为不可抗力的一部份。例如，在煤炭供应的协议中，矿业公司也许会要求把”地质风险”也列入不可抗力的事件中；不过，矿业公司本身应该为资源储藏量进行广泛的探测与分析，如果不能承担煤炭供应的地理限制的风险，就没有谈煤炭供应协议的能力。当然，谈判的结果取决于各方的相对议价能力，但也有利用不可抗力条款来有效地逃避责任和劣等表现的案例。

In Hackney Borough Council v. Dore (1922) 1 KB 431 it was held that “The expression means some physical or material restraint and does not include a reasonable fear or apprehension of such a restraint”.

在Hackney Borough Council诉Dore的案子里，法官认为“(对不可抗力)表述的意思是说有物理和物质上的局限，但不包括对这种局限合理的恐惧和害怕。

The expression bears more extensive meaning than “act of God” or vis major. As to delay due to breakdown of machinery, it comes within the words “force majeure”, which certainly cover accidents to machinery. The term cannot, however, be extended to cover bad weather, football matches, or a funeral. Matsoukis v. Priestman & Co (1915) 1 KB 681.

這個表述比起“天灾”或大事件有更廣泛的含義。因為機械故障而延誤，“ 不可抗力 ”這個字當然就包含了機械意外在內。但是，這個名詞的涵蓋範圍不能被扩展到包括恶劣天气，足球比赛，或葬礼。如Matsoukis對Priestman & Co （1915年）的案例。

The expression is undoubtedly a term of wider import than vis major. Judges have agreed that strikes, breakdown of machinery, which though normally not included in vis major, are included in force majeure.

這個表述無疑是比大事件的涵蓋面更廣。法官認為，罢工和機械故障通常都不算是大事件的状况就包括在不可抗力之內。

In Re Dharnrajmal Gobindram v. Shamji Kalidas [All India Reporter 1961 Supreme Court (of India) 1285] it was held that “An analysis of ruling on the subject shows that reference to the expression is made where the intention is to save the defaulting party from the consequences of anything over which he had no control”.

在Re Dharnrajmal Gobindram诉Shamji Kalidas [(All India Report)全印度報導1961年最高法院(印度)1285]的案例中，法官認為“根據案件判決的分析顯示，有參考引用的表述在於要替违约方善後處理任何他无法控制之事的意圖”。

Under international law it refers to an irresistible force or unforeseen event beyond the control of a State making it materially impossible to fulfil an international obligation. Force majeure precludes an international act from being wrongful where it otherwise would have been.

根据国际法，這是指一种不可抗拒的力量或无法预料的事件超出一個国家所能控制的範圍，以致無法履行国际义务。不可抗力使到一件原本是不對的國際行为成為合理的事情。

 

Elements  因素

The understanding of force majeure in French law is similar to that of international law and vis major as defined above. For a defendant to invoke force majeure in French law, the event proposed as force majeure must pass three tests:

法國的法律對於不可抗力的理解跟國際法以及上述大事件的定義類似。被告人在援引法国法律中不可抗力的事件時，這些事件就必须通过三项测试：

Externality  源自外部

The defendant must have nothing to do with the event’s happening.

被告必须与事件的发生无关。

Unpredictability  不可预测性

If the event could be foreseen, the defendant is obligated to have prepared for it.[3] Being unprepared for a foreseeable event leaves the defendant culpable. This standard is very strictly applied:

如果是可以预见的事件，被告有责任做好准备[3]。一个可预见的事件若沒做好准备，被告有法律責任。这个标准非常严格地应用在：

CE 9 April 1962, “Chais d’Armagnac”: The Conseil d’Etat adjudged that, since a flood had occurred 69 years before the one that caused the damage at issue, the latter flood was predictable.

CE 1962年4月9日，“Chais d’Armagnac行政長官”：The Counceil d’Etat行政法院裁定，由于洪水在69年前已经发生过现在这个问题的破坏，以后的洪水就可以预见。

Administrative tribunal of Grenoble, 19 June 1974, “Dame Bosvy”: An avalanche was judged to be predictable since another had occurred around 50 years before.

Grenoble行政法庭在1974年6月19日，“Bosvy圣母院”一案说：既然50多年前的另一个雪崩已经发生过一次，这次雪崩就可以裁定为是可预见的。

Irresistibility  不可抗拒

The consequences of the event must have been unpreventable.

这个事件的后果必须是无可避免的。

Other events that are candidates for force majeure in French law are hurricanes and earthquakes. Force majeure is a cause of relief from responsibility that is applicable throughout French law.

其他在法国法律中的不可抗力事件有飓风和地震。不可抗力是为了減輕法律责任，在整个法国律法里都适用。

On the other hand, the German understanding goes under the German translation of vis major (höhere Gewalt) but seems conceptually synonymous with the common law interpretation of force majeure, comprehending both natural disasters and events such as strikes, civil unrest, and war. However, even in the event of force majeure, liability persists in the face of default by a debtor (Schuldnerverzug, cf. BGB §287 (in German)) or deprivation of property (Sachentziehung, cf. BGB §848 (in German)).

另一方面，德国对于德文翻译的大事件的了解似乎在概念上跟普通法所解释的不可抗力同义，包括自然灾害和事件如罢工，内乱和战争。然而，即使在不可抗力的事件中，债务人违约的债务责任仍然存在（比照Schuldnerverzug一案中的財產損失)。

Force Majeure in areas prone to natural disaster requires a definition of the magnitude of the event for which Force Majeure could be considered as such in a contract. As an example in a highly seismic area a technical definition of the amplitude of motion at the site could be established on the contract base for example on probability of occurrence studies. This parameter or parameters can later be monitored at the construction site (with a commonly agreed procedure). An earthquake could be a small shaking or damaging event. The occurrence of an earthquake does not imply the occurrence of damage or disruption. For small and moderate events it is reasonable to establish requirements for the contract processes; for large events it is not always feasible or economical to do so. Concepts such as ‘damaging earthquake’ in force majeure clauses does not help to clarify disruption, especially in areas where there are no other reference structures or most structures are not seismically safe.[4]

不可抗力在常有自然灾害的地方就需要对事件的幅度作定义，以便在合同中纳入不可抗力的涵盖范围之内。譬如说，可以在合同内为地震频繁地区的地壳移动幅度下技术性定义，如发生的或然率的研究。此参数或众多参数可以（按照共同商定的程序）在后来的施工现场用来作监控。地震也可能是一个小震动或破坏事件。但是地震的发生并不意味着会造成损坏或导致工程中断。对于小型和中等事件，建立合同流程的要求是合理的，而大型活动就不一定可行或者有经济效益。在不可抗力的条款底下的概念如“破坏性地震”还无法厘清中断的意义，特别是在那些没有可参考依据或建筑结构不抗震不安全的地方[4]。

Force majeure and cas fortuit are distinct notions in French Law.

不可抗力和cas fortuit在法国律法中是很特出的观念。

 

Sample Clause  範文

The following is an example of how force majeure might be described in a specific contract.

以下例子显示如何在特定合同中描述不可抗力条款的內容。

Clause 19. Force Majeure  第19条。不可抗力

A party is not liable for failure to perform the party’s obligations if such failure is as a result of Acts of God (including fire, flood, earthquake, storm, hurricane or other natural disaster), war, invasion, act of foreign enemies, hostilities (regardless of whether war is declared), civil war, rebellion, revolution, insurrection, military or usurped power or confiscation, terrorist activities, nationalisation, government sanction, blockage, embargo, labor dispute, strike, lockout or interruption or failure of electricity or telephone service. No party is entitled to terminate this Agreement under Clause 17 (Termination) in such circumstances.

如果因為天灾(包括火灾，水灾，地震，暴雨，飓风或其他自然灾害)，战争，军事入侵，外敌行动，敌对举动（不论是否宣战），内战，叛變，革命，起义，军事或篡夺权力或没收接管，恐怖活动，国有化，政府制裁，封锁，禁运，劳资纠纷，罢工，停工，或电力或电信服务中断或故障，未能执行合約义务的一方就不必负责。在这种情况下，根据第17条（终止条款），任何一方都无权终止本协议。

If a party asserts Force Majeure as an excuse for failure to perform the party’s obligation, then the nonperforming party must prove that the party took reasonable steps to minimize delay or damages caused by foreseeable events, that the party substantially fulfilled all non-excused obligations, and that the other party was timely notified of the likelihood or actual occurrence of an event described in Clause 19 (Force Majeure).

如果一方指称另一方利用不可抗力条款为借口来逃避不执行义务的责任，不执行义务的一方就必须证明自己有采取合理的步骤尽量减少延误或可预见事件所造成的破坏，而且自己已经实质地完成大部份不可推托的义务，也适时地通知合约另一方会发生像第19条（不可抗力）中所描述的事件的可能性。

 

See also  另见

• Acts of God  天灾
• Contract law  合同法
• Hardship clause  艰难条款
• Hell or high water clause  地狱或高水位条款
• Impossibility  不可能的事
• Mutual assent  相互同意
• Substantial performance  实质履行
• Vis major  主要可见/大事件

 

References  参考文献

[1] ^ Royal Institute of Thailand. (n.d.). Word Coinage by the Royal Institute of Thailand. accessed 18 March 2008.

^ 泰国皇家学院 。(n.d.)。泰国皇家学会的造字。 2008年3月18日检索。

[2] ^ Principle of Force Majeure (including international references), Trans-Lex.org

^ 不可抗力（包括国际引用）的原则，TransLex.org

[3] ^ Lufthansa – Terms & Conditions

^ 德国汉莎航空公司-条款及条件

[4] ^ (Spanish) Force Majeure Construction and Earthquakes

^ （西班牙语）不可抗力的建设和地震

 

Note  註記

• Mitra Legal & Commercial Dictionary-Mitra法律和商业的词典。350-351页。第四版。Eastern Law House。ISBN 978-8171770151。

 

External Links  外部链接

• (Spanish) Force Majeure Construction and Earthquakes

(西班牙)不可抗力建设和地震

 

Categories  分类

• Contract clauses  合同条款
• French legal terms  法国法律名词
• French loanwords  法语外来词
• Contract law  合同法

 

Other Categories  其他分类

• Contract law  合同法

Part of the common law series  普通法系列的一部分

• Contract formation  合同的订立

Offer and acceptance 邀约和承约：Mailbox rule  邮箱规则

Mirror image rule  镜像规则 • Invitation to treat  邀请作交易

Firm offer  确定的邀约 • Consideration 代价

• Defenses against formation  抗辩合约的成立

Lack of capacity  能力不足

Duress 胁迫 • Undue influence 不当的影响

Illusory promise 虚假的承诺 • Statute of frauds 欺诈条例

Non est factum 否认定理契约的答辩

• Contract interpretation  合同的释义

Parol evidence rule  口头证据规则

Contract of adhesion  附着力合同

Integration clause  集成条款

Contra proferentem  对条文发起人不利的解读

• Excuses for non-performance  不履行的藉口

Mistake  过失 • Misrepresentation  失实陈述

Frustration of purpose 目的受挫 • Impossibility 不可能性质

Impracticability 不可行性质 • Illegality 不合法

Unclean hands 不洁的手 • Unconscionability 不合情理性质

Accord and satisfaction 协定和满意度

• Rights of third parties  第三方的权利

Privity of contract 相互关系的合同

Assignment 转让 • Delegation 转授

Novation 约务更替 • Third party beneficiary 第三方受益人

• Breach of contract  违约

Anticipatory repudiation 预期废除 • Cover 承保

Exclusion clause 摒除条款 • Efficient breach 有效率违约

Deviation 偏差 • Fundamental breach 基本的违反

• Remedies  补救措施

Specific performance 具体表现

Liquidated damages 算定的赔偿金

Penal damages 刑事赔偿 • Rescission 撤销

• Quasi-contractual obligations  半合同法律责任

Promissory estoppel 承诺不反悔

Quantum meruit 合理金额/按劳计酬

• Related areas of law  相关领域的法律

Conflict of laws 法律冲突 • Commercial law 商业法

• Other common law areas  其他普通法适用地区

Tort law 侵权法 · Property law 产权法

Wills, trusts and estates 遗嘱，信托和产业

Criminal law 刑法 • Evidence 证据

—— END ——

 

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

Translated by > BlogHost

Word Count > approx.1480 words in English

 

High Water Clause

Hell or High Water Clause  地狱或高水位条款

 

A hell or high water clause is a clause in a contract, usually a lease, which provides that the payments must continue irrespective of any difficulties which the paying party may encounter (usually in relation to the operation of the leased asset). The clause usually forms part of a parent company guarantee. It is intended to limit the applicability of the doctrines of impossibility or frustration of purpose. The term for the clause comes from a colloquial expression that a task must be accomplished “come Hell or high water” that is, regardless of any difficulty.

地狱或高水位条款通常都用在租赁的合同中，它规定付方不论遇到任何困难都必须继续支付该付款项（通常都跟租赁资产的使用有关）。该条款通常成为要求母公司担保的一部份事项。它的目的是要限制不可能完成或目的受挫这类条规的使用。该条款的术语是来自一个口语化的表达方式，意思是说不论有多困难，即使是“陷入地狱般或大淹水”的困境，都必须完成任务。

 

See also  另见

• Hardship clause  困苦条款
• Force majeure  不可抗力

 

External links  外部链接

• Article: “Are Hell or High Water Clauses and Waiver of Defence Clauses Enforceable?”

 文章：“地狱”或“高水条款和强制执行的国防部条款的豁免”

• Article: “Hell or high water clauses: Make them work for you

 文章：“地狱或高水位条款：让它们为你效劳 ”

 

Categories  分类

• Contract law  合同法

  Part of the common law series  普通法系列的一部分

• Contract formation  合同的订立

  Offer and acceptance 邀约和承约： Mailbox rule 邮箱规则

  Mirror image rule 镜像规则 • Invitation to treat 邀请作交易

  Firm offer 确定的邀约• Consideration 代价

• Defenses against formation 抗辩合约的成立

  Lack of capacity 能力不足

  Duress 胁迫 • Undue influence  不当的影响

  Illusory promise  虚假的承诺 • Statute of frauds  欺诈条例

  Non est factum  否认定理契约的答辩

• Contract interpretation  合同的释义

  Parol evidence rule  口头证据规则

  Contract of adhesion  附着力合同

  Integration clause  集成条款

  Contra proferentem  对条文发起人不利的解读

• Excuses for non-performance  不履行的藉口

  Mistake  过失 • Misrepresentation  失实陈述

  Frustration of purpose  目的受挫 • Impossibility  不可能性质

  Impracticability  不可行性质 • Illegality  不合法

  Unclean hands  不洁的手 • Unconscionability  不合情理性质

  Accord and satisfaction  协定和满意度

• Rights of third parties  第三方的权利

  Privity of contract  相互关系的合同

  Assignment  转让 • Delegation  转授

  Novation  约务更替 • Third party beneficiary  第三方受益人

• Breach of contract  违约

  Anticipatory repudiation  预期废除 • Cover  承保

  Exclusion clause  摒除条款 • Efficient breach  有效率违约

  Deviation  偏差 • Fundamental breach  基本的违反

• Remedies  补救措施

  Specific performance  具体表现

  Liquidated damages  算定的赔偿金

  Penal damages  刑事赔偿 • Rescission  撤销

• Quasi-contractual obligations  半合同法律责任

  Promissory estoppel  承诺不反悔

  Quantum meruit  合理金额/按劳计酬

• Related areas of law  相关领域的法律

  Conflict of laws  法律冲突 • Commercial law  商业法

• Other common law areas  其他普通法适用地区

  Tort law  侵权法 · Property law  产权法

  Wills, trusts and estates  遗嘱，信托和产业

  Criminal law  刑法 • Evidence  证据

—— END ——

 

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

Translated by > BlogHost

Word Count > approx.330 words in English