Archive

Posts Tagged ‘law’

Creative Commons 創作共享許可權

July 30, 2013 1 comment

Traditional Chinese | 繁體中文

Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution

ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

維基百科:創作共享署名

同式共享3.0 書面聲明的許可權

CreativeCommons1

Creative Commons Deed 創作共享契約

This is a human-readable summary of the full license below.

以下是人人可讀的完整許可權摘要。

You are free:

to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and

to Remix—to adapt the work

你有自由:

去分享去複製,分發和傳送該作品,以及

去混搭去改編該作品

Under the following conditions:

條件為:

Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)

Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.

署名—你必須以作者或許可人指定的方式為作品署名(但是在任何情況下都不意味著他們替你或者你使用作品的做法背書)。

同式共享如果你更改,改造作品或者以此作品為本再創作,你只能夠在同樣,相同或者兼容的許可權之下分發成品。

With the understanding that:

並理解:

Waiver—Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.

Other Rights—In no way are any of the following rights affected by the license:

your fair dealing or fair use rights;

the author’s moral rights; and

rights other persons may have either in the work itself or in how the work is used, such as publicity or privacy rights.

Notice—For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do that is with a link to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

【寬免】—如果你有獲得版權持有人的許可,以上任何一個條件都可以寬免。

【其他權利】—下列任何一項權利都不受許可權的影響:

  • 你的公平交易或公平使用權;
  • 該作者的精神權利(人格權);以及
  • 其他也有權利的人,若不在於此作品本身就是如何使用此作品方面,比如說宣傳或隱私權。

【通告】你每次在轉用或者分發時,你都要清楚地讓別人知道這件作品的許可權條款。最好的辦法就是鏈接到http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

 

License 許可權

CREATIVE COMMONS CORPORATION IS NOT A LAW FIRM AND DOES NOT PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES. DISTRIBUTION OF THIS LICENSE DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP. CREATIVE COMMONS PROVIDES THIS INFORMATION ON AN “AS-IS” BASIS. CREATIVE COMMONS MAKES NO WARRANTIES REGARDING THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, AND DISCLAIMS LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ITS USE.

【創作共享組織】不是一家律師事務所也不提供法律諮詢服務。這個許可權的分發并沒有建立起律師與客戶的關係。【創作共享】以“原樣”為基礎提供這些信息。【創作共享】不為所提供的信息作任何擔保,對於使用這些信息造成的損失不承擔任何責任,就此卸責。

THE WORK (AS DEFINED BELOW) IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS CREATIVE COMMONS PUBLIC LICENSE (“CCPL” OR “LICENSE”). THE WORK IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE LAW. ANY USE OF THE WORK OTHER THAN AS AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS LICENSE OR COPYRIGHT LAW IS PROHIBITED.

此作品(定義在下文)是以此【創作共享公共許可權】(“CCPL”或“許可權”)的條款來提供。此作品受到版權亦或其他適用法律的保護。任何未受到此許可權或版權法的授權去使用此作品的做法都被禁止。

BY EXERCISING ANY RIGHTS TO THE WORK PROVIDED HERE, YOU ACCEPT AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. TO THE EXTENT THIS LICENSE MAY BE CONSIDERED TO BE A CONTRACT, THE LICENSOR GRANTS YOU THE RIGHTS CONTAINED HERE IN CONSIDERATION OF YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

在行使任何此作品在此提供的任何權利時,你接受也同意要受到此許可權的條款的制約。在此許可權也可以被當成一份合約來看的情況下,許可人在考慮到你接納這些條款與條件之后授予你涵盖于此的權利。

 

1. Definitions 定義

“Adaptation” means a work based upon the Work, or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, adaptation, derivative work, arrangement of music or other alterations of a literary or artistic work, or phonogram or performance and includes cinematographic adaptations or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted including in any form recognizably derived from the original, except that a work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image (“synching”) will be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License.

【改編】是指以該【作品】為本再創作,或者加諸于該【作品】或其他現成的作品去創作如翻譯,改編,衍生新作,樂曲的編排或者更改其他文創或藝術作品,或錄音或表演,包括影片的改編,或者用任何其他形式去重現,改造或改變該【作品】,包括可以被認出是衍生自原版作品的任何形式,除非作品是【選集】中的一部份,就這個許可權的本意來說,就不會被當成是一種【改編】的作為。爲了厘清疑問,要強調的是,如果該【作品】是一項音樂作品,表演或錄音,該【作品】在時間上若與移動畫面配合(“同步”)的話,就此許可權的目的來說,就會被當成是一種【改編】的作為。

“Collection” means a collection of literary or artistic works, such as encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other than works listed in Section 1(f) below, which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is included in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in themselves, which together are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.

【選集】是指文學或藝術作品的收集,如百科全書和文選,或表演,錄音或廣播,或其他作品,或下列【第一(f)條】裡所列的作品以外的事項,由於其內容的編排與挑選構成知識性創造,包括該作品在內完整地以未修飾的形式跟其一或更多其他貢獻品一起呈現,每一件都獨自構成獨立與分別開來的作品,組合一起成為一體的選集。就此許可權的目的來說,構成一個【選集】的作品就不被當成是一種【改編】(定義如上文)的作為。

“Creative Commons Compatible License” means a license that is listed at http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses that has been approved by Creative Commons as being essentially equivalent to this License, including, at a minimum, because that license: (i) contains terms that have the same purpose, meaning and effect as the License Elements of this License; and, (ii) explicitly permits the relicensing of adaptations of works made available under that license under this License or a Creative Commons jurisdiction license with the same License Elements as this License.

【創作共享兼容許可權】是指列在 http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses裡為【創作共享】所核准的許可權,基本上相當於此【許可權】,至少包括在內是因為此許可權:(i)涵蓋與此許可權的【許可權元素】有相同目的,意義與效力的條款;以及(ii)在此【許可權】或者【創作共享】權限底下的許可權與此【許可權】有相同【許可權元素】的情況下,明確准許該許可權再次許可作品的改編。

“Distribute” means to make available to the public the original and copies of the Work or Adaptation, as appropriate, through sale or other transfer of ownership.

【分發】是指讓公眾可以得到該作品的原件或複製品或【改編】品,恰當地通過銷售或其他方式轉讓所有權。

“License Elements” means the following high-level license attributes as selected by Licensor and indicated in the title of this License: Attribution, ShareAlike.

【許可權元素】是指下列高層次許可權的署名,由許可人選擇,此【許可權】的標題所指定的:【署名】,【同式共享】。

“Licensor” means the individual, individuals, entity or entities that offer(s) the Work under the terms of this License.

【許可人】是指一個人,幾個人,一個個體或多的個體依此【許可權】的條款提供該【作品】

“Original Author” means, in the case of a literary or artistic work, the individual, individuals, entity or entities who created the Work or if no individual or entity can be identified, the publisher; and in addition (i) in the case of a performance the actors, singers, musicians, dancers, and other persons who act, sing, deliver, declaim, play in, interpret or otherwise perform literary or artistic works or expressions of folklore; (ii) in the case of a phonogram the producer being the person or legal entity who first fixes the sounds of a performance or other sounds; and, (iii) in the case of broadcasts, the organization that transmits the broadcast.

【原創作者】是指文學或藝術作品案例中創作該【作品】的一個人,幾個人,一個個體或幾個個體,或者如果無法確認出一個人或個體時,就是出版者;此外還有(i)表演案例中的演員們,歌手們,演奏者們,舞者們以及其他演出,歌唱,唸誦,參與,翻譯或者以其他方式展現文學或藝術作品或民俗表現方式;(ii)錄音案例中的製作人就是那位第一個處理演出的音響或其他聲音的人士或法人;以及(iii)廣播案例中傳送廣播的機構。

“Work” means the literary and/or artistic work offered under the terms of this License including without limitation any production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression including digital form, such as a book, pamphlet and other writing; a lecture, address, sermon or other work of the same nature; a dramatic or dramatico-musical work; a choreographic work or entertainment in dumb show; a musical composition with or without words; a cinematographic work to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to cinematography; a work of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving or lithography; a photographic work to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to photography; a work of applied art; an illustration, map, plan, sketch or three-dimensional work relative to geography, topography, architecture or science; a performance; a broadcast; a phonogram; a compilation of data to the extent it is protected as a copyrightable work; or a work performed by a variety or circus performer to the extent it is not otherwise considered a literary or artistic work.

【作品】是指此【許可權】條款所提供的文藝亦或藝術作品,包括不設限的任何文藝,科學與藝術領域的製作,可以用任何一種方式或形式去表達,包括數碼形式,比如書本,小冊子以及其他文書;講座,演講,說教或其他相同性質的工作;戲劇或戲曲作品;編舞作品或啞劇裡的娛樂表演;有或無文字的音樂創作;用類似影視的製作過程展現出來的同類影視作品;繪畫,畫圖,繪測,雕塑,雕刻或石板刻印的作品;用類似攝影的製作過程展現出來的同類攝影作品;實用藝術作品;跟地理,地形,建築或科學有關的插圖,地圖,平面圖,草圖,或三維圖像作品;表演;廣播;音符播放;數據的彙編成為有受到版權保護的作品;或者是由綜合各類或馬戲團表演者演出,但不會被當成文學或藝術創作來看待的作品。

“You” means an individual or entity exercising rights under this License who has not previously violated the terms of this License with respect to the Work, or who has received express permission from the Licensor to exercise rights under this License despite a previous violation.

【你】是指一個人或一個個體依此【許可權】行使權利,此人之前未曾觸犯跟該【作品】相關的【許可權】條款,或許有得到【許可人】明示的准許以此【許可權】去行使權利,即便之前有所抵觸。

“Publicly Perform” means to perform public recitations of the Work and to communicate to the public those public recitations, by any means or process, including by wire or wireless means or public digital performances; to make available to the public Works in such a way that members of the public may access these Works from a place and at a place individually chosen by them; to perform the Work to the public by any means or process and the communication to the public of the performances of the Work, including by public digital performance; to broadcast and rebroadcast the Work by any means including signs, sounds or images.

【公開表演】是指公開唸誦該【作品】以及通過任何方法或過程,包括有線或無線的方法或公共數碼化的展現法去傳達那些公開唸誦的內容給公眾;提供該公開【作品】給公眾,讓公眾成員可以從一個地方以及各自選擇的地方去接觸到該【作品】;用任何方法或過程向公眾展現該【作品】以及向公眾傳達該【作品】所展現的內容,包括公共數碼化的展現方法;用任何方法包括標誌,聲音或圖像去廣播與轉播該【作品】。

“Reproduce” means to make copies of the Work by any means including without limitation by sound or visual recordings and the right of fixation and reproducing fixations of the Work, including storage of a protected performance or phonogram in digital form or other electronic medium.

【重制】是指用任何方式去複製該【作品】,包括但不限於任何錄音與錄影方式,修改該【作品】以及重制修改作品的權利,包括受保護表演或電子錄音形式或其他電子媒介的儲存。

 

2. Fair Dealing Rights 公平交易權

Nothing in this License is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict any uses free from copyright or rights arising from limitations or exceptions that are provided for in connection with the copyright protection under copyright law or other applicable laws.

此【許可權】沒有任何意圖要削減,限制或局限跟版權法或其他適用法律有關聯的版權保護所提供的免版權或出自限制或例外的條款而寬免權利的任何用途。

 

3. License Grant 授予許可權

Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below:

根據此【許可權】的條款與條件,許可人謹此授予【你】一項全球性,免版稅,非獨佔,永久性(在適用的版權期限內)的許可權去行使該【作品】的權利,陳述如下:

to Reproduce the Work, to incorporate the Work into one or more Collections, and to Reproduce the Work as incorporated in the Collections;

to create and Reproduce Adaptations provided that any such Adaptation, including any translation in any medium, takes reasonable steps to clearly label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made to the original Work. For example, a translation could be marked “The original work was translated from English to Spanish,” or a modification could indicate “The original work has been modified.”;

to Distribute and Publicly Perform the Work including as incorporated in Collections; and,

to Distribute and Publicly Perform Adaptations.

去複製該【作品】,將該【作品】納入一個或多個【選集】當中,以及去複製這個納入該【作品】的【選集】;

去創建與【複製改編】,條件是任何此類的【改編】,包括以任何媒介去作的翻譯,都要採取合理的步驟清楚標示,劃分,要不然也要確認原版的【作品】被更改的部份。舉例說,翻譯品可以注明“原版作品從英文翻譯成西班牙文,”或者經過修改的作品可以指明“原版作品被修改過。”;

去【分發】與【公開展現該作品】,包括納入【選集】中的作品;以及去【分發】與【公開展現改編作品】。

For the avoidance of doubt:

下文旨在釋疑:

Non-waivable Compulsory License Schemes. In those jurisdictions in which the right to collect royalties through any statutory or compulsory licensing scheme cannot be waived, the Licensor reserves the exclusive right to collect such royalties for any exercise by You of the rights granted under this License;

【不可寬免的強制性許可權方案】。某些司法管轄區并不允許寬免通過任何法定或強制性許可權方案收取版稅的權利,【許可人】保留該專有權力向在此【許可權】下被授予權益的【你】所行使的許可權收取版稅。

Waivable Compulsory License Schemes. In those jurisdictions in which the right to collect royalties through any statutory or compulsory licensing scheme can be waived, the Licensor waives the exclusive right to collect such royalties for any exercise by You of the rights granted under this License; and,

【可寬免的強制性許可權方案】。某些司法管轄區允許寬免通過任何法定或強制性許可權方案收取版稅的權利,【許可人】寬免該向在此【許可權】下被授予權益的【你】所行使的許可權收取版稅的權利。以及,

Voluntary License Schemes. The Licensor waives the right to collect royalties, whether individually or, in the event that the Licensor is a member of a collecting society that administers voluntary licensing schemes, via that society, from any exercise by You of the rights granted under this License.

【自願許可權方案】。如果【許可人】是管理自願許可權方案的收取版稅社團的成員之一,就寬免通過該社團向在此【許可權】下被授予權益的【你】所行使的許可權收取版稅的權利。

The above rights may be exercised in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter devised. The above rights include the right to make such modifications as are technically necessary to exercise the rights in other media and formats. Subject to Section 8(f), all rights not expressly granted by Licensor are hereby reserved.

上述權利可以在任何媒體和形式中行使,不論是現在已知的或過後制定的。上述權利包括因技術的需要而作此類修改的權利以便在其他媒體與形式中行使此權利。依據第8f)條,謹此保留所有【許可人】未曾明確授予的權利。

 

4. Restrictions 限制

Omitted and not translated省略未譯

 

5. Representations, Warranties and Disclaimer 陳述,擔保與免責聲明

UNLESS OTHERWISE MUTUALLY AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES IN WRITING, LICENSOR OFFERS THE WORK AS-IS AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE WORK, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTIBILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NONINFRINGEMENT, OR THE ABSENCE OF LATENT OR OTHER DEFECTS, ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OF ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT DISCOVERABLE. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO SUCH EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.

除非是當事人雙方在書面上同意,【許可人】只以原樣提供該【作品】,不論是明示,暗示,法定或其他方式,都不作任何跟作品有關的任何表述或擔保,不表述和不擔保的事項包括:不設限,署名的擔保,商用性,適用於某些目的,不侵權,或沒有潛伏的缺陷或其他瑕疵,準確度,或沒有出現任何錯誤,不論是否可以發現觀察出來。有些司法管轄區并不允許排除默示的擔保,因此這種排除就不適用於【你】。

 

6. Limitation on Liability 責任的限制

EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT WILL LICENSOR BE LIABLE TO YOU ON ANY LEGAL THEORY FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THIS LICENSE OR THE USE OF THE WORK, EVEN IF LICENSOR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

除了適用法律要求的責任以外,【許可人】不為此【許可權】或使用該作品所引起的任何特別的,偶發的,繼發的,懲罰的或懲罰性損害賠償負任何法理上的責任,即使【許可人】有被提醒過這類損害的可能性。

 

7. Termination 終止

This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License. Individuals or entities who have received Adaptations or Collections from You under this License, however, will not have their licenses terminated provided such individuals or entities remain in full compliance with those licenses. Sections 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 will survive any termination of this License.

此【許可權】以及謹此授予的權益在【你】違反此【許可權】的任何條款時自動終止,但并不終止以此【許可權】向【你】取得【改編】作品或【選集】的人()或個體()的許可權,只要這些人或個體完全符合這些許可權的條件。條款的第一,二,五,六,七和八條在此【許可權】終止後繼續生效。

Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above.

根據上述的條款與條件,謹此授予的許可權是永久性的(限於該【作品】適用版權的期限)。儘管如此,【許可人】保留藉由不同許可權條款發佈該【作品】,或者在任何時候停止分發該【作品】的權利;然而,條件是任何這種做法都不會撤銷此【許可權】(或者藉由此【許可權】的條款已授予的或者需要授予的任何其他許可權),而此【許可權】將繼續完全有效有用,除非是如上所述的終止。

 

8. Miscellaneous 雜項

Each time You Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work or a Collection, the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License.

每當【你分發】或【公開展現】該【作品】或【選集】,基於此【許可權】授予【你】的許可權相同的條款與條件,【許可人】提供給接收該原創【作品】的收件人這個許可權。

Each time You Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation, Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the original Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License.

每當【你分發】或【公開展現】一件【改編】作品,基於此【許可權】授予【你】的許可權相同的條款與條件,【許可人】提供給接收該原創【作品】的收件人這個許可權。

If any provision of this License is invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, it shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remainder of the terms of this License, and without further action by the parties to this agreement, such provision shall be reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make such provision valid and enforceable.

倘若此【許可權】的任何條款因某些適用法律而變得無效或不可強制執行,還是不能影響此【許可權】裡其餘條款的有效性或可強制執行力,即使當事人沒有採取進一步的行動,此條款的反效用就應該被改良到最小程度,有必要讓此條款變得有效和可強制執行。

No term or provision of this License shall be deemed waived and no breach consented to unless such waiver or consent shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged with such waiver or consent.

此【許可權】裡的任何條款或規定都不能被當成是已寬免的,也不贊同任何違約行為,除非此寬免權或贊同意願必須是由有權寬免或贊同的一方書寫簽名才有效。

This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You. This License may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You.

此【許可權】謹此構成該【作品】授權許可有關各方的整個協議。對於該【作品】沒有指定的內容沒有甚麼事不理解,不同意或者不申訴的。【許可人】不應受到在法律責任上跟【你】溝通時你可能會提出的新條件所制約。未經【許可人】與【你】雙方的書面同意,此【許可權】不得修改。

The rights granted under, and the subject matter referenced, in this License were drafted utilizing the terminology of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (as amended on September 28, 1979), the Rome Convention of 1961, the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996, the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty of 1996 and the Universal Copyright Convention (as revised on July 24, 1971). These rights and subject matter take effect in the relevant jurisdiction in which the License terms are sought to be enforced according to the corresponding provisions of the implementation of those treaty provisions in the applicable national law. If the standard suite of rights granted under applicable copyright law includes additional rights not granted under this License, such additional rights are deemed to be included in the License; this License is not intended to restrict the license of any rights under applicable law.

此【許可權】所授予的權益以及引用的要事在起草時使用的術語來自【保護文學與藝術作品的伯恩公約】(1979928日修訂)1961年的【羅馬公約】,1996年的【WIPO-世界知識產權組織之版權條約】,1996年的【WIPO-世界知識產權組織之表演與錄音版權條約】以及【普世版權公約】(1971724日複審)。這些權利和要事都在相關的司法管轄區裡生效,根據這些條約的相應規定以個別國家的適用法律去落實【許可權】要執行的條款。如果適用版權法律所授予的標準權益配套包括此【許可權】不授予的額外權益,這種額外的權益就會被當成是此【許可權】的一部份;此【許可權】無意限制適用法律所許可的任何權益。

 

Creative Commons Notice 創作共享公告

Creative Commons is not a party to this License, and makes no warranty whatsoever in connection with the Work. Creative Commons will not be liable to You or any party on any legal theory for any damages whatsoever, including without limitation any general, special, incidental or consequential damages arising in connection to this license. Notwithstanding the foregoing two (2) sentences, if Creative Commons has expressly identified itself as the Licensor hereunder, it shall have all rights and obligations of Licensor.

【創作共享】不是此【許可權】的當事人,也不給予跟該作品有關的任何擔保。【創作共享】對【你】或任何當事人都不負責法律理論上的任何損失,包括但不限於與此許可權相關引起的任何一般的,特殊的,偶發的或相應的損失。儘管有前述的兩(2)句,如果【創作共享】有明示自認為是此【許可權】的【許可人】,就應有【許可人】的所有權利與義務。

Except for the limited purpose of indicating to the public that the Work is licensed under the CCPL, Creative Commons does not authorize the use by either party of the trademark “Creative Commons” or any related trademark or logo of Creative Commons without the prior written consent of Creative Commons. Any permitted use will be in compliance with Creative Commons’ then-current trademark usage guidelines, as may be published on its website or otherwise made available upon request from time to time. For the avoidance of doubt, this trademark restriction does not form part of the License.

除了告知公眾該作品是在【CCPL】(創作共享許可權)的條款之下給予許可權的有限目的之外,【創作共享】并沒有授權任何一方使用【創作共享】的商標或任何相關商標或【創作共享】的圖標,除非有預先得到【創作共享】的書面同意。任何獲得准許的使用都要符合【創作共享】當時現行的商標使用準則,或許會在其網站上發表,要不然就不時地應需求而提供。爲了避免疑問,要強調的是此商標的管制并不構成該【許可權】的一部份。

 

Creative Commons may be contacted at http://creativecommons.org/.

聯繫【創作共享】請上網到 http://creativecommons.org

 

NOTE from BlogHost Translator :

This is NOT a complete version of the actual text available at source. It is meant to be shared as a reference and introductory knowledge for part of the contents and for translation purpose only, and readers are advised NOT to use and treat it as a legal document for commercial or contractual purpose but use at discretion at one’s own risk, therefore the translator and other information providers herewith related shall not be held responsible for anything that arise out of any use by any party.

版主譯者聲明

此文件不是源頭可得原文的完整版。本文僅提供和分享部份內容和譯文的參考和入門知識,因此要奉勸讀者不要將此文當成法律文件作商業或協議合約用途,使用者自行決定要怎麼看待怎麼用,也自負全責,譯者與此信息的相關供應者皆不為任何人的使用所產生的任何後果負任何責任。

 

—— END ——

 

Source > Wikipedia : Creative Commons 維基百科:創作共享

Translated by > BlogHost :- hkTan

Word Count > approx.2560 words in English

 

Categories: Legal:法律 Tags: ,

Wine Law 葡萄酒法律

October 1, 2012 Leave a comment

Wine Law  葡 萄 酒 法 律

 

Wine laws are legislation regulating various aspects of production and sales of wine. The purpose of wine laws includes combating wine fraud, by means of regulated protected designations of origin, labelling practices and classification of wine, as well as regulating allowed additives and procedures in winemaking and viticulture. Legislation affecting all kinds of alcohol beverages, such as the legal drinking age and licensing practices related to distribution and sales, are usually not considered wine laws.

葡萄酒法律是監管生產與銷售葡萄酒各個方面的立法。葡萄酒法律的目的是打擊葡萄酒欺詐手段,通過管制受保護的原產地名銜,注明葡萄酒的標籤規則與級別,以及管制釀酒和葡萄栽培法的過程與准許的添加劑的辦法去監管。影響所有酒精飲料的立法如法定的飲酒年齡以及跟分銷與銷售有關的執照通常都不算是葡萄酒法律。

Wine is regulated by regional, state, and local laws. The laws and their relative rigidity differ for New World and Old World wines. Old World wines tend to have more stringent regulations than New World wines. Various wine laws, however, may include appellation-based regulations that cover boundaries as well as permitted grape varieties and winemaking practice-such as the French Appellation d’origine contrôlée (AOC), Italian Denominazione di origine controllata (DOC), Spanish Denominación de Origen (DO) and Portuguese Denominação de Origem Controlada (DOC). In some New World wine regions, such as the United States and Australia, the wine laws of the appellation systems (American Viticultural Area (AVA) and Australian Geographical Indication (GIs)) only pertain to boundary specifics and guaranteeing that a certain percentage of grapes come from the area listed on the wine label.

葡萄酒受到區域,州和當地法律的管制,這些法律與其相對僵硬的條例對新世界(世代)和舊世界(世代)的酒都有所不同。然而,各種葡萄酒法律可以包括以產區為本的法規,涵蓋了產區範圍,獲准的葡萄品種以及釀酒法如法國優良受管原產區的d’origine contrôlée(AOC),意大利最優質受管原產區的Denominazione di origine controllata(DOC),西班牙原產區的Denominación de Origen(DO)和葡萄牙受管原產區的Denominação de Origem Controlada(DOC)。在一些新世代葡萄酒的區域如美國和澳洲的產區系統(美國葡萄栽培園區(AVA)和澳洲地理迹象(GIs))的葡萄酒法律只涵蓋範圍的細則以及保證某個百分比的葡萄酒是產自酒標上列明的產區。

Some wine laws are established by local governments and are specific to that wine region, such as the 1954 municipal decree in the village of Châteauneuf-du-Pape that banned the overhead flying, landing or taking off of aviation in the commune which could negatively affect the region’s vineyards and wine production.

有些葡萄酒法律是當地政府制定的,而且只針對該葡萄酒生產區域而定,譬如Châteauneuf-du-Pape村在1954年頒佈的市政法令就禁止在該社區的航空活動,不得飛過,降落和起飛,因為會影響這個區域的葡萄園和產品的品質。

 

Contents  目錄

1. History  歷史

2. Comparative wine laws  可比較的葡萄酒法律

2.1 European Union  歐盟

2.2 United States  美國

3. See also  參閱

 

History  歷史

The oldest known wine laws were created by the Roman emperor Domitian, who c. 92 issued an edict that banned the plantings of any new vineyards in Italy and ordered the uprooting of half of the vineyards in Roman provinces. The purpose of the edict was to improve the food supply of Roman cities by increasing the production of cereals. There is evidence to suggest that Domitian’s edict was largely ignored in the Roman provinces. Domitian’s edict, while probably not followed to any greater extent, stayed in effect for 188 years until Emperor Probus repealed the measure in 280.

已知最古老的葡萄酒法律是由羅馬皇帝圖米斯燕(Domitian)開創的,他在公元92年下詔公告,禁止在意大利開墾任何新葡萄園,還下令銷毀羅馬省裡半數的葡萄園。這個諭旨的目的是要改善羅馬各城市的食物供應,增加穀物的產量。有證據顯示圖米斯燕的諭旨在大部份羅馬省份裡被當成耳邊風。雖然他的諭旨可能沒多少人要遵守,但還是維持有效188年,直到普羅卜司(Probus)在280年废除這項措施。

In the Holy Roman Empire, the oldest wine law was created by the Reichstag 1498 to combat wine fraud.

神聖羅馬帝國最早的葡萄酒法律是雷伊徹斯特(Reigchstag)在1498年訂立來對付葡萄酒欺詐行為。

In the wake of the Great French Wine Blight, which led to much wine fraud to supplement diminishing supply, wine laws were created in France to combat fraud. The French wine legislation later evolved to the AOC system, and inspired common European Union regulations.

在“法國葡萄酒大枯萎”期間,爲了填補日益減少的供應量,就出現很多造假的欺詐案,因此才在法國訂立葡萄酒法律來打擊欺詐行為。後來,法國的葡萄酒法規演變成公認優良產區(AOC)系統,也催生出共通的歐盟法規。

 

Comparative Wine Laws  可比較的葡萄酒法律

European Union  歐盟

In the European Union (EU), much of the wine law is common to all countries through the European Union wine regulations which is a part of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The CAP Wine Regime consists of a set of rules that govern the wine sector, with the aim of achieving a balanced and open market. The principal features are rules governing production, oenological practices and processes, classification of wines, a range of structural and support measures, detailed rules governing the description and labeling of wines, and imports from non-EU countries.

歐盟(EU)的大部份葡萄酒法律對所有國家都通用,歐盟的葡萄酒法規就是”共同農業政策”(CAP)中的一部份。”CAP葡萄酒制度”有一套規則來管制葡萄酒行業,目標是要建立起一個平衡與開放的市場,主要特點有管制生產的規則,釀酒做法與程序,葡萄酒級別,一連串結構性與支援措施,管制描述葡萄酒與酒標的規則細節,以及來自非歐盟國家的進口。

In addition to regulations that apply to all EU members, each EU country has its own framework of laws which govern aspects of winemaking such as the percentage of a grape to be included in a wine labeled with that variety name. For instance, in France wine professionals acribe to the Appellation d’Origine Contrôlée (AOC) system, which guarantees the origin of wine and other food products, such as cheese.

除了適用於所有歐盟成員國的法規以外,每個歐盟國都有自己的一套法律架構來管制制酒的各個方面,譬如酒標上注明的葡萄酒品種名稱需要有多少百分比的葡萄在內。舉例說,遵守“受管優質原產區”(AOC) 系統的法國葡萄酒專業業者就保證葡萄酒的原產正宗,也保證其他食物如奶酪的原產品質。

 

United States  美國

In the United States, the wine laws are more flexible than European standards in regards to regulations on what viticultural and winemaking practice are allowed in each wine region. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATF) defines and approves applications for regions to become American Viticultural Areas. This system was established in 1978 with the Augusta AVA in Missouri designated as the first recognized AVA on June 20, 1980. A sizable portion of American wine laws relate to wine labelling practices and include the stipulations that if an AVA name appears on the label that at least 85% of grapes used to produce the wine must come from that AVA. In addition to AVAs, every American state and county can produce wine and label it under their state/county wide appellation provided at least 75% of the grapes come from that area. The state of California and Texas have wine laws increasing the requirement to 100% and 85%, respectively, for use of a state-wide appellation on the wine label.

美國的葡萄酒法律就比歐洲的標準靈活得多,特別是每一個葡萄酒產區可准許哪一種釀酒與制酒做法的規定。美國煙酒槍械與爆炸物管理局(BATF)為“美國葡萄栽培園區”(AVA)定義,也批准這些地區的申請,這套系統在1978年建立,密蘇裡州(Missouri)的奧古斯塔(Augusta)AVA在1980年6月20日被指定為第一個公認的“美國葡萄栽培園區”。美國的葡萄酒法律有很多篇章都跟葡萄酒標籤有關,還明文規定說,如果AVA的名字在酒標上出現,那麼釀製出這瓶葡萄酒的葡萄要有至少85%是來自那個葡萄園區。除了AVA以外,每一個美國的州和郡(省和縣)可以給自家生產的葡萄酒貼上那個州/郡的原產地酒標,只要有至少75%的葡萄是產自那個產區就行。加利福尼亞州(California)和德克薩斯州(Texas)的葡萄酒法律甚至把要求提高到100%和85%,作為整個州的原產地酒標。

The appearance of grape variety (or varietal) and vintage year is also regulated by US wine labeling laws with requirements of at least 75% for the grape variety and 95% being harvested in that vintage year for either to appear on the wine label. The state of Oregon has increased the restriction for grape variety to 90%, with exception of Cabernet Sauvignon which under Oregon wine laws can have a minimum 75%. Additionally, all US wine must include the Surgeon General warning about dangers associated with alcohol consumption and a warning about the possible use of sulfites. Several wineries and importers have had conflicts with the BATF over these labeling requirements, one notable example being the importer Kermit Lynch. The criticism is typically centered on the absence of inclusion about the potential positive aspects of moderate wine consumption (such as the so-called “French paradox”) and that many wineries are forced to label their wines as “containing sulfites” when the decision to use sulfites are normally not made until long after wine labels have been ordered and the finished wine may contain no sulfites at all.

葡萄品種和收成年份的顯示也受到美國葡萄酒標籤法律的管制,要求至少有75%該品種的葡萄成份以及至少95%在那一年收成才能出現在酒標上。俄勒岡州(Oregon)把葡萄品種的要求提高到90%,除了赤霞珠(Cabernet Sauvignon)這個品種例外,俄勒岡州的葡萄酒法律允許這種酒只需至少75%就行。此外,所有美國葡萄酒標籤上必須加“外科總監”(公共健康總發言人)對喝酒精的警告字句,以及警告可能有用到的亞硫酸鹽。一些酒廠和進口商在標籤要求上跟BATF針鋒相對,比較突出的例子是Kermit Lynch進口商。批評通常都圍繞在沒考慮到適度喝酒的潛在好處上(比如所謂的“法國人悖論”),而且很多酒廠都被迫在他們的酒標上聲明“內含亞硫酸鹽”,因為成酒可能完全不含任何亞硫酸鹽,而且一般上都是在酒標已經預訂多時之後才來決定要加這個字眼。

 

See also  參閱

  • Alcohol law  酒精法

 

—— END ——

 

Source >Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_law

Translated by > BlogHost – hkTan

Word Count > approx.977 words in English

 

Lese-majesty 冒犯君主罪

June 18, 2012 Leave a comment

Lese-majesty  冒犯君主罪

Lese-majesty /ˌliːz ˈmædʒɨsti/[1] (French: lèse majesté [lɛz maʒɛste]; Law French, from the Latin laesa maiestas, “injured majesty”; in English, also lese majesty or leze majesty) is the crime of violating majesty, an offence against the dignity of a reigning sovereign or against a state.

Lese-majesty冒犯君主罪[1](法文: lèse majesté [lɛz maʒɛste];法国法律,拉丁文laesa maiestas,“受创的威严”,英语也用lese majesty或leze majesty)是违反国王陛下的罪名,是对一个统治主权的尊严或对一个国家的攻击。

This behavior was first classified as a criminal offence against the dignity of the Roman republic in Ancient Rome. In the Dominate, or Late Empire period the Emperors scrapped the Republican trappings of their predecessors and began to identify the state with their person.[2] Though legally the princeps civitatis (his official title, roughly ‘first citizen’) could never become a sovereign, as the republic was never officially abolished, emperors were deified as divus, first posthumously but by the Dominate period while reigning. Deified Emperors thus enjoyed the legal protection provided for the divinities of the state cult; by the time it was exchanged for Christianity, the monarchical tradition in all but name was well established.

这种行为第一次在古罗马时代因为有人冒犯罗马共和国的尊严而被列为刑事罪行。在帝政期或晚期帝国的时期,皇帝摆脱了前任共和党员的制约,开始把个人和国家的地位划上等号[2]。虽然在法律上princeps civitatis(皇帝的官衔,相当于现在的“第一公民”)不可能成为一个主权,共和国体制并未正式废除,但皇帝却被神化为(divus)神人,在加冕时首度追封帝政期的先帝。因此,神化了的皇帝就享有国家级被崇拜的神位,得到法律的保障;这时的神位取代了基督教,传统的君主制度除了名称以外,全部结构都建立得完善。

Narrower conceptions of offences against Majesty as offences against the crown predominated in the European kingdoms that emerged in the early medieval period. In feudal Europe, various real crimes were classified as lese-majesty even though not intentionally directed against the crown, such as counterfeiting because coins bear the monarch’s effigy and/or coat of arms.

在早期中世纪时期出现的反对欧洲国王陛下的冒犯行为被狭隘地解读,动辄得咎。在欧洲的封建期间,各种实际犯罪的罪过都被当成是冒犯君主的威严,即使不是故意针对王权而犯,比如造假,只因为假硬币上印了君主的肖像亦或臂章。

However, since the disappearance of absolute monarchy, this is viewed as less of a crime, although similar, more malicious acts could be considered treason. By analogy, as modern times saw republics emerging as great powers, a similar crime may be constituted, though not under this name, by any offence against the highest representatives of any state.

然而,随着绝对君主专制的消失,这种行为不再被当成是犯罪,虽然类似和更多恶意的行为可能被视为叛国罪。打个比方,现代的共和国体制兴起成为强权,类似的罪行或许不再以这种名义定罪,但却还是冒犯了国家最高代表(比如藐视最高法院或法官)。

 

Contents  目录

1 Current lese-majesty laws  当前的冒犯君主罪

1.1 Europe  欧洲

1.1.1 Denmark  丹麦

1.1.2 Netherlands  荷兰

1.1.3 Spain  西班牙

1.1.4 Greece  希腊

1.2 Morocco  摩洛哥

1.3 Thailand  泰国

1.4 Others  其他

2 Former laws  之前的法律

2.1 United Kingdom  英国

3 See also  另见

4 References  参考文献

5 External links  外部链接

 

Current Lese-majesty Laws  当前的冒犯君主法律

Europe  欧洲

Further information: Freedom of speech by country: Germany and Poland

更多讯息:言论自由国家分类:德国和波兰

In Germany, Switzerland,[3] and Poland it is illegal to insult foreign heads of state publicly.

在德国,瑞士[3],和波兰,公开侮辱外国的国家元首是非法的。

On 5 January 2005, Marxist tabloid publisher Jerzy Urban was sentenced by a Polish court to a fine of 20,000 złoty (about €5000 or US$6,200) for having insulted Pope John Paul II, a visiting head of state.[4]

2005年1月5日,马克思派的小报出版商Jerzy Urban被波兰法院判处罚款20000zloty(约€5000欧元或6,200美元),因为他侮辱教皇约翰保罗二世这位到访的国家元首。[4]

On 26–27 January 2005, 28 human rights activists were temporarily detained by the Polish authorities for allegedly insulting Vladimir Putin, a visiting head of state. The activists were released after about 30 hours and only one was actually charged with insulting a foreign head of state.[5]

2005年1月26日至27日,28名人权活跃份子被波兰当局暂时扣留,因为他们公然侮辱普京这位到访的国家元首。约30个小时之后,这些活跃份子都获得释放,只有一人实际上被控侮辱外国国家元首。[5]

In October 2006, a Polish man was arrested in Warsaw after expressing his dissatisfaction with the leadership of Lech and Jarosław Kaczyński by passing gas loudly.[6]

2006年10月,一名波兰男子在华沙被捕,因为不满领导人Lech和Jaroslaw Kaczyrisjki的车队大声排放烟雾。[6]

Denmark  丹麦

In Denmark, the monarch is protected by the usual libel paragraph (§ 267 of the penal code which allows for up to four months of imprisonment), but §115[7] allows for doubling of the usual punishment when the regent is target of the libel. When a queen consort, queen dowager or the crown prince is the target, the punishment may be increased by 50%. There are no historical records of §115 having ever been used, but in March 2011, Greenpeace activists who unfurled a banner at a dinner at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference were charged under this section.[8] They received minor sentences for other crimes, but were acquitted of the charge relating to the monarch.[9]

在丹麦,君主通常都受到诽谤条文的保护(刑法§ 第267条允许最多4个月的监禁),但是,当摄政成为诽谤目标时,§第115条[7]就允许加倍处罚。当王后,皇太后或王储成为诽谤目标时,处罚可能会增加50%。历史记录里还没使用过§第115条,但是,在2011年3月,绿色和平活跃份子在2009年联合国气候变化大会的晚宴上展开布条之后,他们就在这个条款下被控诉[8]。他们的其他罪行都获得轻判,而跟君主有关的指控都获得无罪释放。[9]

Netherlands  荷兰

In October 2007, a 47-year-old man was fined €400 for, amongst other things, lese-majesty in the Netherlands when he called Queen Beatrix a “whore” and described several sexual acts he would like to perform on her to a police officer.[10]

2007年10月,一名47岁的男子被罚款€400欧元,除其他事项外,主要是冒犯荷兰君主,因为他称呼荷兰女王Beatrix为“妓女”,还对警务人员描述一些他想要跟女王性交的几种方式。[10]

Spain  西班牙

The Spanish satirical magazine El Jueves was fined for violation of Spain’s lese-majesty laws after publishing an issue with a caricature of the Prince of Asturias and his wife engaging in sexual intercourse on the cover in 2007.[11]

西班牙的讽刺杂志“El Jueves”因为违反了西班牙的冒犯君主法而被罚款,该杂志在2007年的某一期的杂志封面刊登了一则漫画描绘Asturias王子和他的妻子性交的画面。[11]

Greece  希腊

The 14th article of the Constitution of Greece makes it an offence for the press to insult the President of Greece (as well as Christianity and any other religion recognized by the state).[12]

希腊宪法第14条规定报章侮辱希腊总统是犯法的行为(还包括侮辱基督教和国家认可的其他宗教)。[12]

Morocco  摩洛哥

Moroccans are routinely prosecuted for statements deemed offensive to the King. The penal code states that the minimum sentence for a statement made in private (i.e.: not broadcast) is imprisonment for 1 year. For a public offense to the King, the minimum sentence is 3 years. In both cases, the maximum is 5 years.[13]

摩洛哥人不时都有人因为被认定发表冒犯国王的声明而被起诉。刑法规定私下言论(即:不广播)的最低刑期是1年监禁。公开冒犯国王的最低刑期是3年。两种罪同时触犯的话,最高刑期是5年。[13]

The case of Yassine Belassal[14] The Fouad Mourtada Affair, and Nasser Ahmed (a 95 year-old who died in jail after being convicted of lese-majesty), revived the debate on these laws and their applications. In 2008, an 18 year-old was charged with “breach of due respect to the king” for writing “God, Country, Barca” on a school board, in reference to his favorite football club. The national motto of Morocco is “God, Country, King”.

最近,Yassine Belassal[14]在The Fouad Mourtada的事件中以及Nasser Almed的案例(95岁的囚犯因为冒犯君主被定罪死在狱中)使到这些法律及其应用的辩论再度展开。2008年,一名18岁青年被控“违反对君主不敬”的罪名,只因为他在学校布告栏上写“上帝,国家,Barca(巴卡球队)”的字,指的是他最喜欢的足球俱乐部。而摩洛哥的国家格言应该是“上帝,国家,国王”。

In February 2012, 18 years old Walid Bahomane was convicted for posting two mild cartoons of the king on Facebook. The procès-verbal cites two facebook pages and an IBM computer being seized as evidence. Walid is officially prosecuted for “touching the sacralities”.[15]

2012年2月,18岁的Walid Bahomane因为在脸书上张贴了两张温和的泰王卡通图片而被判罪。官方说法是用两篇脸书上的记录和没收的IBM电脑为证据,正式控告Walid“触碰到神圣的品德”。

Thailand  泰国

Thailand’s Criminal Code has carried a prohibition against lese-majesty since 1908.[16] In 1932, when Thailand’s monarchy ceased to be absolute and a constitution was adopted, it too included language prohibiting lese-majesty. The 2007 Constitution of Thailand, and all seventeen versions since 1932, contain the clause, “The King shall be enthroned in a position of revered worship and shall not be violated. No person shall expose the King to any sort of accusation or action.” Thai Criminal Code elaborates in Article 112: “Whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years.” Missing from the Code, however, is a definition of what actions constitute “defamation” or “insult”.[17] From 1990 to 2005, the Thai court system only saw four or five lese-majesty cases a year. From January 2006 to May 2011, however, more than 400 cases came to trial, an estimated 1,500 percent increase.[18] Observers attribute the increase to increased polarization following the 2006 military coup and sensitivity over the elderly king’s declining health.[19]

泰国刑法从1908年起就禁止冒犯君主[16]。1932年,当泰国的君主制不再有绝对权力时,通过的新宪法也收纳了禁止冒犯君主的条文。2007年的泰国宪法以及1932年起至今的所有十七个版本里都有这样的条文:“国王应该以备受尊敬的崇拜地位登基,而且地位不得侵犯。任何人都不得对国王作出任何指控或行动。”泰国的刑事法典第112条阐述:“任何诽谤,侮辱或威胁国王,王后,以及其指定继承人或摄政,应处以三到十五年的监禁。”然而,刑法中遗漏的部份是如何定义什么样的行为会构成“诽谤”或“侮辱”[17]。从1990年到2005年,泰国法院系统每年只处理四个或五个冒犯君主的案件。然而,从2006年1月至2011年5月,共有400多个案件待审,估计增加了1500%[18]。观察员把这个增加的幅度归咎于2006年的军事政变以及老国王的健康每况愈下引起的两极化社会。[19]

Neither the King nor any member of the Royal Family has ever personally filed any charges under this law. In fact, during his birthday speech in 2005, King Bhumibol Adulyadej encouraged criticism: “Actually, I must also be criticized. I am not afraid if the criticism concerns what I do wrong, because then I know.” He later added, “But the King can do wrong,” in reference to those he was appealing to not to overlook his human nature.[19] The Constitution does not provide the legal right for the royal family to defend themselves; accordingly they cannot file grievances on their own behalf.[citation needed] Instead, the responsibility has been granted to the state and to the public. Cases are often filed by state authorities or by individuals, and anyone may take action against anyone else. In one notable incident during the 2005–2006 political crisis, deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his political opponent Sondhi Limthongkul filed charges of lese-majesty against each other. Thaksin’s alleged lese-majesty was one of the stated reasons for the Thai military’s 2006 coup.[20][21][22][23]

国王或任何王室成员都未曾用这条法律亲自告状提控任何人。事实上,Bhumibol Adulyadej莆湄博国王在他的2005年生日上还鼓励批评,他说:“其实,我也必须被批评。我不怕批评我做错了什么事,这样我才能知道。”接着他又补充说,“但是国王也会做错事”,呼吁那些崇拜他的人不要忽略他也是个人。”宪法并没有为王室提供合法权利去为自己辩护;因此他们不能自行控告。相反的,责任在政府和公众手上。案件往往都由国家机关或个人提告,任何人都可以用这条法律去控告任何人。值得一提的一件事发生在2005-2006年的政治危机,被废黜的总理(Thaksin Shinawatra)达信和他的政治对手Sondhi Limthongkul用冒犯君主罪互相起诉对方。达信涉嫌的冒犯君主罪是2006年泰国军方发动政变声明的其中一个理由。[20][21][22][23]

Social activists such as Sulak Sivaraksa were charged with the crime in the 1980s and 1990s because they allegedly criticized the king; Sulak was eventually acquitted.[24]

在20世纪80年代和90年代的社会活跃份子如Sulak Sivaraksa也被控这样的罪名,因为他们涉嫌批评国王; 最终Sulak还是获得无罪释放。[24]

Frenchman Lech Tomasz Kisielewicz allegedly committed lese-majesty in 1995 by making a derogatory remark about a Thai princess while on board a Thai Airways flight. Although in international airspace at the time, he was taken into custody upon landing in Bangkok and charged with offending the monarchy. He was detained for two weeks, released on bail, and acquitted after writing a letter of apology to the king, and deported.[citation needed] In March 2007, Swiss national Oliver Jufer was convicted of lese-majesty and sentenced to 10 years in jail for spray-painting graffiti on several portraits of the king while drunk in Chiang Mai;[25] he was pardoned by the king on 12 April 2007 and deported.[26]

1995年,法国人Lech Tomasz Kisielewicz涉嫌在泰国航空的班机上发表诋毁泰国公主的言论而犯了冒犯君主罪。虽然当时是在国际航空领域里,他在飞机降落曼谷时马上被羁押,然后被控冒犯君主罪。他被拘留了两周,获得保释,写了一封道歉信给国王才获得无罪释放,并驱逐出境。2007年3月,瑞士人Oliver Jufer因为在清迈喝醉酒[25],在几幅国王的人像照上喷漆涂鸦,被判处10年徒刑,当年4月12日国王赦免他,然后驱逐出境。[26]

In March 2008, Colonel Watanasak Mungkijakarndee of Bang Mod police station filed a case against Jakrapob Penkhair a politician and spokesman for former premier Thaksin Shinawatra, for public statements threatening violence and national security made on the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand (FCCT) stage in August 2007.[27] In 2008 BBC South-East Asia correspondent and FCCT vice-president Jonathan Head was accused of lese-majesty three times by Col. Watanasak. Col. Watanasak filed new charges and evidence highlighting a conspiracy connecting Thaksin Shinawatra, Jakrapob Penkhair and Jonathan Head to Veera Musikapong at the FCCT. Jonathan Head was subsequently transferred by the BBC to Turkey.[28] Prime Minister Abhisit Vejajiva has still not made a decision as to whether prosecutors should continue proceedings against Jakrapob Penkhair.

2008年3月,Bang Mod警局的Watanasak Mungkijakarndee上校提告政治家Jakrapob Penkhair和前总理达信的发言人在2007年8月公开发表言论以暴力和国家安全威胁泰国的外国记者俱乐部(FCCT)[27]。2008年,BBC的东南亚特派记者和FCCT副总裁Jonathan Head被Watanasak上校连续三次指控冒犯君主。Watanasak上校提出新的指控和证据凸显达信,Jakrapob Penkhair和Jonathan Head三人跟FCCT的Veera Musikapong有关联的阴谋。后来Jonathan Head被英国广播公司(BBC)调到土耳其去[28]。总理Abhisit Vejajiva阿比西还未决定检察官是否应该继续起诉Jakrapob Penkhair。

In September 2008, Harry Nicolaides[29] from Melbourne, Australia, was arrested at Bangkok’s international airport[30] and charged with lese-majesty, for an offending passage in his self published book Verisimilitude. After pleading guilty, he was sentenced to three years in jail[31] but then pardoned by the king, released, and deported.[32]

2008年9月,澳洲墨尔本的Harry Nicolaides[29]在曼谷国际机场被捕[30],被控冒犯君主的罪,因为他在自行出版的一本书“Verisimilitude-逼真的事物”里有冒犯的段落。他认罪后被判处3年有期徒刑,后来也被国王赦免释放,并驱逐出境。[32]

On 29 April 2010, Thai businessman Wipas Raksakulthai was arrested following a post to his Facebook account allegedly insulting Bhumibol.[33] The arrest was reportedly the first lese-majesty charge against a Thai Facebook user.[34] In response, Amnesty International named Wipas Thailand’s first prisoner of conscience in nearly three decades.[35]

2010年4月29日,泰国商人Wipas Raksakulthai在他的Facebook脸书页面上发表涉嫌侮辱莆湄博国王的言论之后就被捕[33]。这是第一次有泰国的脸书用户因为冒犯君主罪而被捕[34]。因此,国际特赦组织把Wipas命名为三十年来泰国的第一位良知囚犯。[35]

On 27 May 2011, an American citizen, Joe Gordon (Lerpong Wichaikhammat), was arrested on charges he insulted the country’s monarchy, in part by posting a link on his blog to a banned book about the ailing king. Gordon had lived in the United States for thirty years before returning to Thailand. He is also reportedly suspected of translating, from English into Thai, portions of The King Never Smiles – an unauthorized biography of King Bhumibol Adulyadej – and posting them online along with articles he wrote that allegedly defame the royal family.[36][37]After being denied bail eight times, a shackled–and–handcuffed Gordon said in court on 10 October, “I’m not fighting in the case. I’m pleading guilty, sirs.”[38] On 8 December 2011] a court in Thailand sentenced Joe Gordon to two and a half years in prison for defaming the country’s royal family by translating excerpts of a locally banned biography of the king and posting them online. [www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57339098/thailand-jails-u.s-man-for-insulting-king/]

2011年5月27日,一名美国公民,Joe Gordon(泰国原名为Lerpong Wichaikhammat)被逮捕,他在自己的博客上的一篇贴文中链接到一本关于生病的泰王的禁书而被控局部性地侮辱国家的君主。Gordon在美国住了三十年才回到泰国。据报道,他也涉嫌把泰王未授权的自传“The King Never Smiles-未曾笑过的国王”中的一部份从英文翻译成泰文,连同他自己写的也涉嫌诋毁王室的文章都一起贴在网页上[36[37]。他被拒绝保释八次之后,10月10日那天,手脚被镣的Gordon戈登在法院说:“我不想再辩护。我认罪,大人们。”[38] 2011年12月8日,泰国法庭判处戈登两年半徒刑,罪名是翻译本地禁止的国王传记中的摘录张贴在网上诽谤了国家的王室。[www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57339098/thailand-jails-us-man-for-insulting-king/]

In September 2011, computer programmer Surapak Puchaieseng was arrested, detained and had his computer confiscated after accused of insulting the Thai royal family on Facebook – his arrest marked the first lèse majesté case since prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra was elected.[39] The 10 October AP report on Joe Gordon’s plea adds that “Yingluck’s government has been just as aggressive in pursing the cases as its predecessors.”

2011年9月,软件程序员Surapak Puchaieseng被逮捕,拘留,电脑被没收,被控在脸书上侮辱泰国王室家族-他的被捕是瑛乐Yinluck Shinawatra当选总理之后第一起冒犯君主案[39]。10月10日美联社报道戈登的呼吁时补充说:“瑛乐的政府跟前任政府一样在处理这种案件时咄咄逼人。”

Others  其他

In January, 2009 there was a diplomatic incident between Australia and Kuwait over an Australian woman being held for allegedly insulting the Emir of Kuwait during a fracas with Kuwaiti Immigration authorities.[40]

在2009年1月,澳洲和科威特之间发生了一件外交纠纷,一名澳洲女人涉嫌在跟科威特移民机关的官员争吵时侮辱科威特国王。[40]

Even though the Supreme Leader of Iran is not a king, there are laws against insulting the station of the Supreme Leader.

尽管伊朗最高领袖不是一个国王,还是有国家法律明文禁止侮辱最高领袖。

 

Former Laws  之前的法律

United Kingdom  英国

In Scotland, section 51 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 abolished the common law criminal offences of sedition and ‘leasing-making’. The latter offence, also known as ‘lease /ˈliːz/ making’, was considered an offence of lese-majesty or making remarks critical of the Monarch of the United Kingdom. It had not been prosecuted since 1715.[41]

在苏格兰,刑事司法及牌照(苏格兰)法令2010第51节废除了普通法中的刑事罪行如煽动叛乱和”造谎“。后者的罪行被称为“造谎“,也被认为是冒犯君主罪或放话批评英国王室。不过从1715年起就没人被起诉过。[41]

 

See also  另见

  • Blasphemy  亵渎
  • Flag desecration  沾污国旗
  • Insubordination  犯上
  • Mutiny  兵变
  • Sedition  煽动
  • Treason  叛国

 

References  参考文献

[1] ^ “lese-majesty”. Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. 2nd ed. 1989.

^ “冒犯君主罪”牛津英文字典。牛津大学出版社第二版1989。

[2] ^ TheFreeDictionary.com, “Lese majesty” TheFreeDictionary.com, Columbia Encyclopedia, retrieved 22 September 2006

^ 免费字典网站,“冒犯君主罪”,哥伦比亚百科全书,2006年9月22日索取资料。

[3] ^ Swiss Penal Code , SR/RS 311.0 (E·D·F·I), art. 296 (E·D·F·I)

^ 瑞士刑法,SR/RS 311.0(E.D.F.I),art.296(E.D.F.I)

[4] ^ IFEX.org, “Criminal Defamation Laws Hamper Free Expression” IFEX.org, retrieved 22 September 2006

^ IFEX组织网站,“刑事毁谤法律钳制言论自由”,2006年9月22日索取资料。

[5] ^ NEWS.BBC.co.uk, “Sensitive heads of state”, retrieved 30 January 2008

^ 英国广播电台新闻网站,“敏感的国家元首”,208年1月30日索取资料。

[6] ^ Ananova.com, “Police hunt farting dissident” ananova.com, retrieved 31 August 2008

^ Ananova网站,“警察追捕放屁的异议份子”,2008年8月31日索取资料。

[7] ^ Resinformation.dk  ^ 丹麦网站Resinformation.dk

[8] ^ “COP-15 activists in lèse majesté case”. Politiken (Copenhagen). 1 March 2011. Retrieved 1 March 2011.

^“COP-冒犯君主罪的15名活跃份子”。Politiken报(哥本哈根)2011年3月1日报导。2011年3月1日索取资料。

[9] ^ Københavns Byret (22-08-2011). Greenpeace-aktivister idømt betinget fængsel i 14 dage. (in Danish).

^ Københavns Byret (2011年8月22日)。绿色和平活跃份子(丹麦文)

[10] ^ nrc.nl – Binnenland – Boete voor majesteitsschennis

[11] ^ “Spain royal sex cartoonists fined”. BBC. 13 November 2007. Retrieved 13 November 2007.

^ “西班牙王室性漫画的画家被罚款“。英国广播电台2007年11月13日报道。2007年11月13日索取资料。

[12] ^ http://www.ekloges.gr/syntagmaDetails.asp?pageid=3&langid=1&ArthroID=16

[13] ^ PCB.UB.es

[14] ^ BarcelonaReporter.com  ^ 巴塞罗那报道网站

[15] ^ “Busted for Posting Caricatures of the King on Facebook”. 8 February 2012. Retrieved 9 February 2012.

^ “破获在脸书上张贴的国王漫画”。2012年2月8日。2012年2月9日索取资料。

[16] ^ NEWS.BBC.co.uk ^ 英国广播电台新闻网站

[17] ^ NEWS.BBC.co.uk ^ 英国广播电台新闻网站

[18] ^ a b Todd Pitman and Sinfah Tunsarawuth (27 March 2011). “Thailand arrests American for alleged king insult”. Retrieved 27 May 2011.

^ a b Todd Pitman and Sinfah Tunsarawuth (2011年3月27日)。“泰国当局逮捕涉嫌侮辱泰王的美国人”。2011年5月27日索取资料。

[19] ^ “Royal Birthday Address: ‘King Can Do Wrong'”. National Media. 5 December 2005. Retrieved 26 September 2007.

^ “皇家生日发言:“国王也会做错”。国家媒体,2005年12月5日报导。2007年9月26日索取资料。

[20] ^ Asiaweek, A Protective Law, 3 December 1999 vol.45 no.28

^ 亚洲周刊,“保护性法律”,1999年12月3日45集第28本。

[21] ^ Colum Murphy, “A Tug of War for Thailand’s Soul”, Far Eastern Economic Review, September 2006

^ Colum Murphy,“泰国灵魂的拔河赛”,远东经济评论,2006年9月。

[22] ^ AFP, Thai coup leader says new PM within two weeks, 19 September 2006

^ 法新社,“泰国政变领袖说两星期内选出新总理”,2006年9月19日。

[23] ^ Time, World Notes Thailand: Not Fit for a King, 15 September 1986

^ 时报周刊,世界栏,“泰国不适合国王”,1986年9月15日。

[24] ^ “A Critic May Now Look at a King”, Macan-Markar, Marwaan, The Asian Eye, 18 May 2005

^ “评论家或许可以看看国王”,Macan-Marker,Marwaan撰,亚洲眼,2005年5月18日。

[25] ^ BBC News, Sensitive heads of state, 29 March 2007

^ 英国广播电台新闻,“敏感的国家元首”,2007年3月29日报导。

[26] ^ BBC News, Thailand’s king pardons Swiss man, 12 April 2007

^ 英国广播电台新闻,“泰王赦免瑞士人的罪”。2007年4月12日。

[27] ^ The Nation (NationMultimedia.com): Police to summon Jakrapob for allegedly lese majeste

^ 国家(国家多媒体网站):“警察召集涉嫌触犯冒犯君主罪的Jakrapob。”

[28] ^ Colonel Watanasak filed further charges against BBC reporter at CSD, Manager Online, 23 December 2008

^ “Watanasak上校在CSD提告BBC记者”,管理在线,2008年12月23日。

[29] ^ Australian man refused bail for insulting Thai King, ABC Online, 3 September 2008

^ “澳洲人拒绝侮辱泰王的保释”,ABC在线,2008年9月3日。

[30] ^ Australian arrested in Thailand for lese-majeste

^ 澳洲人在泰国因为冒犯君主罪被逮捕。

[31] ^ NEWS.BBC.co.uk, Writer jailed for Thai ‘insult’

^ 英国广播电台新闻网站,“作家在泰国因为侮辱罪而坐牢”

[32] ^ NEWS.BBC.co.uk, Thailand frees Australian writer

^ 英国广播电台新闻网站,“泰国释放澳洲作家”。

[33] ^ “Thai man arrested for Facebook post about monarchy”. 30 April 2010. Retrieved 15 May 2011.

^ “泰国人在脸书上张贴有关君主的内容被捕”。2010年4月30日。2011年5月15日索取资料。

[34] ^ “Govt cracks down on social networking forums”. Bangkok Post. 3 July 2010. Retrieved 15 May 2011.

^ “政府镇压社交网络论坛”。泰国邮报,2010年7月3日报导。2011年5月15日索取资料。

[35] ^ Pravit Rojanaphruk (14 May 2011). “Amnesty International names Thailand’s first ‘prisoner of conscience'”. The Nation. Retrieved 15 May 2011.

^ Pravit Rojanaphruk (20115月14日)撰。“国际特赦组织称泰国为第一个良知的囚犯”。国家报。2011年5月15日索取资料。

[36] ^ “Joe Gordon, Colorado Man Living In Thailand, Arrested For Allegedly Insulting Monarchy”. Huffington Post. 27 May 2011.

^ “住在泰国的科罗拉多人Joe Gordon涉嫌侮辱君主被捕”。Huffinton邮报。2011年5月27日。

[37] ^ “Freedom Alert: American arrested in Thailand, accused of criticizing monarchy”. Freedom House.

^ “自由警报:美国人在泰国被指责批评君主被捕”。自由之家。

[38] ^ “Joe Gordon pleads guilty to lese majeste charges”. Asian Correspondent. AP. 10 October 2011. “BANGKOK (AP) – Hoping for a lenient sentence, a shackled U.S. citizen pleaded guilty Monday to charges of defaming Thailand’s royal family, a grave crime in this Southeast Asian kingdom that is punishable by up to 15 years in jail.”

^ “Joe Gordon为冒犯君主罪认罪”。亚洲通讯,太平洋,2011年10月10日。“曼谷(太平洋)—希望轻判,戴上镣铐的美国公民在星期一因为被控毁谤泰国王室而认罪,这个重大罪名可以在这个东南亚的王国里被判处最长15年的徒刑”。

[39] ^ “Thai Computer Programmer Detained After Criticizing Monarchy on Facebook”. Freedom House.

^ “泰国电脑程序员在脸书上批评君主之后被拘留”。自由之家。

[40] ^ SMH.com.au ^ 澳洲SMH网站

[41] ^ “Justice Committee Official Report (see column 2942)”. Scottish Parliament. 20 April 2010. Retrieved Feb 2011.

^ “公正委员会官方报告(见2942栏)”。苏格兰国会,2010年4月20日。2011年2月索取资料。


Categories  分类

  • Crimes  罪行
  • Monarchy  帝制
  • French legal terms  法国法律名词

 

——- END ——

 

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

Translated by > BlogHost — hkTan

Word Count > approx. 2900 words in English

 

Romalpa Clause 罗马巴条款

June 12, 2012 Leave a comment

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

June 6, 2012 Leave a comment

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.

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

June 1, 2012 Leave a comment

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

 

%d bloggers like this: