合约生效日期及还款担保.doc

合约生效日期及还款担保1. SAJ与NEWBUILDCON的相关条文这方面在SAJ标准格式合约是Article XIX如下：“This Contract shall become effective as from the date of execution hereof by the BUYER and the BUILDER.However, in the event that Export license and Construction Permit for the Vessel shall not have been issued by the Japanese Government with (日子) days from the date of this Contract, then, in such case, this Contract shall automatically become null and void, unless otherwise mutually agreed in writing between the parties hereto, and the both parties hereto shall be immediately and completely discharged from all of their obligations to each other under this Contract as though this Contract had never been entered into at all”在NEWBUILDCON，有关的内容是在Clause 44如下：“44Effective date of Contract(a)This Contract shall become effective when the conditions stated in Box 25 have been satisfied. If no conditions are stated in Box 25 then the effective date of the Contract shall be the date stated in Box 1. The parties shall immediately notify each other when the conditions stated in Box 25 relevant to that Party have been satisfied.(b)If any of the conditions referred to above have not been satisfied within the number of days stated in Box 26 after the date of this Contract stated in Box 1, this Contract shall be deemed null and void and both Parties shall immediately be relieved of any obligations or liabilities to the other party under this Contract.”2. 先决条件与后续条件的介绍有许多的合约，双方当事人在他们之间的谈判完结并且已经是双方签署了合约后，实际上可以说已经达成协议，互相约束，甚至可以开始履行，但有各种原因无法或者不愿意无条件受到约束，而希望有一个脱身的机会，针对如果在某一些剩下的重要要求如果办不成或者是不满意。在造船合约而言，这种重要的要求会是船厂把船东需要他们公司董事局的批准（特别是一个大企业，这要求会是真正需要），或是双方需要得到银行的融资（船厂会需要建造船舶的融资，因为船东分期付款通常是不足够满足在造船期间流动资金的需要，另需要银行提供还款担保，而船东则需要银行融资去支付船价），或者是需要政府的批准与出口许可证（例如日本以前就需要政府签发出口证，这个要求现在已经取消，但仍然需要交通部现在改名为Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport签发一份批文）等。上述重要的工作都有一个可能存在问题，是无法去预先准备，去进行只能是整个造船合约已经是在一份完整的文件中确定与正式记录了。换言之是船东或船厂不能尚在谈判的时候，对最后能达成什么结果没有底，就去进行例如向中国进出口银行申请还款担保。即使达成了造船合约，去进行的时候也不能把双方整个谈判过程存在大量文件往来去交出，让董事局、银行或者政府当局去慢慢找出双方到底同意些什么条文/内容，而必须是去把这些谈判中的文件往来整理出一份完整的造船合约。这一来，希望解释了为什么船厂与船东谈判与签署造船合约后，还有一个脱身的机会。因为船厂需要取得出口证才能去合法建造船舶，或船东取得银行融资才能去支付船价，但如果不成功，显然该造船合约无法生效或者履行下去。这一来，去在造船合约中提供给双方在一份签署了的合约中有一个合法脱身的机会就是本章所要介绍的合约有效日期条文（Effective Date of Contract Clause）。它也可以用其他的标题，例如是AWES标准格式第16条名为“令合约生效的条件”（Conditions for the Contract to Become Effective）。在该些条文中，会清楚规定了是有哪一些重要的要求或条件必须去进行。它也会去规定一段时间，例如是一、两个月不等，如果办不成就可让船厂与船东从该造船合约中脱身。去规定一个时间是为了避免双方去无止境的受到造船合约的约束或是不肯定，例如在Total Gas v. Arco British (1998) 2 Lloyds Rep. 209。去让双方脱身的文字/措辞可以是令该造船合约从来不生效或是令已经生效的造船合约变为是无效，前者可称为是先决条件（condition precedent）后者则是后续条件（condition subsequent）。它们如果出现在一个已经谈判完结与签署了的造船合约，会是差别不大，反正合约就是有条件（conditional）才能生效下去。前者会是针对双方什么都不用做，只去等待先决条件的满足的情况。而后者会是订约双方要去做一些造船合约规定的事情，例如是船东支付5%的船价，然后等待后续条件的满足。如果办不成，就存在船厂要归还船东已经支付了的船价。在造船合约，NEWBUILDCON的第44条文与AWES的第16条文在文字/措辞上显然是先决条件，但SAJ之Article XIX显然是后续条件。但已经是说过，它们之间带来的后果差别不大。总而言之，“条件”（condition）一词是可以有许多的解释：Wickman v. Schuler (1973) 2 Lloyds Rep. 53。笔者比较喜欢的名称是如果一个合约是有条件，不论是先决还是后续条件，这可被称为是“可能发生的条件”（contingent condition），条件发生双方就可以从合约脱身，不存在违约索赔。另一种可被称为是“承诺的条件”（promissory condition），是订约一方向另一方作出承诺。这一来如果做不到就会构成违约，并根据它们的轻重分为保证条文（warranty）与条件条文（condition）。这方面可以参阅Total Gas v. Arco British (1998) 2 Lloyds Rep. 209。2.1 先决条件的定义在这里不妨先给出先决条件与后续条件权威的定义。首先，先决条件是在Chitty on Contracts第29版之2-145段中写到：“Effects of agreements subject to contingent conditions precedent: in general. Where an agreement is subject to a contingent condition precedent, there is, before the occurrence of the condition, no duty on either party to render the principal performance promised by him: for example, a seller is not bound to deliver and a buyer is not bound to pay. Nor, in such a case, does either party undertake that the condition will occur. But an agreement subject to such a condition may impose some degree of obligation on the parties or on one of them. Whether it has this effect, and if so what degree of obligation is imposed, depends on the true construction of the term specifying condition. Various possible degrees of obligation are discussed in ”。另在12-028也说：“Condition precedent. The liability of one or both of the contracting parties may become effective only if certain facts are ascertained to exist or upon the occurrence or non-occurrence of some further event. In such a case the contract is said to be subject to a condition precedent. The failure of a condition precedent may have one of a number of effects. It may, in the first place, suspend the rights and obligations of both parties, as, for instance, where the parties enter into an agreement on the express understanding that it is not to become binding on either of them unless the condition is fulfilled. Secondly, one party may assume an immediate unilateral binding obligation, subject to a condition. From this he cannot withdraw, but no bilateral contract, binding on both parties, comes into existence until the condition is fulfilled. Thirdly, the parties may enter into an immediate binding contract, but subject to a condition, which suspends all or some of the obligations of one or both parties pending fulfillment of the condition. These conditions precedent are, however, normally contingent and not promissory, and in such a case neither party will be liable to the other if the condition is not fulfilled.”。Chitty on Contracts接下去也讲到根据该先决条件的文字/措辞又会有几种可能性程度不同的解释。一种可能性就是双方都可以随时脱身，令一个文书的合约变为“根本不是一个合约”（not an agreement at all）：Pym v. Campbell (1856) 6 E & B 370。另一个可能的解释是如果有关的要求或者条件可以满足，但时间还没有到，双方不可以脱身。但如果是规定的时间过了，或者是明确该条件不能满足，双方就可以脱身。这一来，所谓的先决条件事实上等于一个后续条件，这是Chitty on Contracts在2-147段所说：“ However, if it becomes clear that the condition has not occurred, or that it can no longer occur, within the time specified in the contract, the parties will be under no further obligations under the contract. In such a case, the effect of the non-occurrence of the condition is that the parties are no longer bound by the contract, or that the contract is discharged. What the parties have called a condition precedent can thus operate as, or have the effect of, a condition subsequent.”。第三种可能的解释是在该要求或者条件满足之前，双方都不能做任何事情去对该条件的满足造成障碍：“A third possibility is that, before the event occurs, the main obligations have not accrued; but that in the meantime neither party must do anything to prevent the occurrence of that event. ”。2.2 后续条件的定义至于后续条件在Chitty on Contracts中的定义是在12-030段如下：“The obligation of one or both parties may be made subject to a condition that it is to be immediately binding, but if certain facts are ascertained to exist or upon the occurrence or non-occurrence of some further event, then either the contract is to cease to bind or one or both parties are to have the right to avoid the contract or bring it to an end. In such a case the contract is said to be subject to a condition subsequent. An example is provided by the case of Head v. Tattersall (1871) LR 7 Ex 7 where A bought a horse from B which B warranted to have been hunted with the Bicester hounds. If it did not answer to its description, A was to have the right to return it by a certain day. The horse did not answer its description and A accordingly returned it before the day. In the meantime, however, the horse had been injured without As fault. It was held that the injury did not cause A to lose his right to return the horse and he could recover the purchase price paid.”（已经马上约束双方的其中一方所作出的承诺是以一个条件为准，如果该条件的事实被确认是存在或是一些将来应该会发生的事情没有发生，合约就变得不再约束双方或双方有权去避免该合约或去中断。一个著名的先例是Head v. Tattersall，案情涉及了A向B购买一匹马，它有经验与猎犬一起打猎。合约并说明了如果该匹马并非有该经验，A就有权在某天前把它退还给B。结果是该匹马并没有这种经验，A就马上把它退还给B。但该匹马受了伤，而受的伤并非是A的过错引致上面已经讲过如果一方有过错就可能不适用，因为合约已经存在，或是A作为该马匹的托管人至少会有赔偿损失的责任。法院判A有权退还该匹马并取回已经支付的钱）。3. 有条件合约下的默示地位上述的有条件合约（conditional contract）或可能发生的条件（contingent condition），通常都会有一个默示条件就是双方都不能去做一些事情阻止有关要求或者条件的满足。这实际上是与另一个默示的大道理是一致，就是任何人不能以他的过错去取巧（no man can take advantage of his own wrong）。了解这一个默示地位对造船合约是十分重要，因为这种合约的签订通常是有条件的，加上去满足这些要求或者条件往往需要时间。但由于船价市场有非常大的波动，所以就会有其中的一方在对他而言市场逆转的时候去取巧。加上，造船合约会同意一些同样船价的“造船选择权协议”（optional agreement），并允许选择权在很后期去行使，这更加会造成相隔多年后，船价市场变了与造船合约的船价是有天壤之别：Gyllenhammar v. Split (1989) 2 Lloyds Rep. 403。例如，船厂故意不去申请针对船东选择增加建造船舶的出口许可证、批文或者是还款担保，等。笔者更加见过船厂主动对船东说：“除非你去抬高10%的造船合约的船价，否则我不继续申请与取得还款担保”。这一来，船厂是否是违约，毕竟是已经解释过，还款担保应该只属于可能发生的条件而不是一个承诺的条件。如果造船合约去多加了一句说明：“船厂必须行使它最大的努力去取得还款担保”（the builder shall use best endeavour to procure refund guarantee）。这等于去多加了一个承诺的条件，可以令船厂如果没有去做到就构成违约，令船东可以提出索赔。但如果造船合约没有去多加一个承诺的条件，这就要看英国法律默示的地位了，以下去介绍有关的先例：3.1 案例之一：New Zealand Shipping Co. Ltd v. Societie des Ateliers et Chantiers de France这里第一个先例是New Zealand Shipping Co. Ltd v. Societie des Ateliers et Chantiers de France (1919) A.C.1。案情有关一个法国的船厂，他在1913年同意了一个造船合约，承诺了完工日期是1915年1月3日。造船合约中有一条允许延长交船日期的条文，就是针对一些船厂无法控制的情况所导致的延误。造船合约也另有一条说明是如果延长交船日期超出原来约定的日期18个月，该合约就变为无效，船厂并要归还船东预付的船价。换言之，该条文是写作一个后续条件。后来由于法国卷入第一次世界大战导致延误超出了18个月，到了该天，1916年7月30日就有了争议是船厂能否去中断该造船合约。贵族院判在这样的情况下，船厂没有过错（延误是属于可允许的延误），所以不影响船厂去以后续条件中断合约。Atkinson勋爵曾说有过错或者因他的行为而导致的一方不能去依赖后续条件去中断合约：“If the contract shall be void on the happening of an event which one or either of them can by his own act or omission bring about, then the party, who by his own or omission brings that event about, cannot be permitted either to insist upon the stipulation himself or to compel the other party, who is blameless, to insist upon it, because to permit the blamable party to do either would be to permit him to take advantage of his own wrong.”。另Finlay勋爵也说：“ The decisions on the point are uniform, and are really illustrations of the very old principle laid down by Lord Coke that a man shall not be allowed to take advantage of a condition which he himself brought about. In the present case the builder was in no way responsible for the non-completion within eighteen months, and there is no reason why clause 12 should not be interpreted according to the natural meaning of the words so as to render the contract void.”。Wrenbury勋爵是说该后续条件是令造船合约变为是一个“可以变为无效”（voidable）的合约，但变为无效并不属于任何其中一方的权利，而是针对一个可能发生的情况，就是战争的发生令交船日期超出了18个月，这情况也不能是任何订约方的过错所引起的。他说：“ Here the contract is, in my opinion, voidable at the option of either party provided always that he is not seeking to avoid it in his own wrong. The contingency of war lasting more than eighteen months is a contingency not within the control of either party. The contract is void as against each, or, if you like so to express it, is voidable at the option of either, if the contingency occurs.”。3.2 案例之二：Cheall v. Association of Professional Executive Clerical and Computer Staff在New Zealand Shipping先例后，另有两个非造船的案例进一步明确这一个默示的地位，它们是：Cheall v. Association of Professional Executive Clerical and Computer Staff (1983) 2 AC 180与Thompson v. ASDA-MFI plc (1988) 1 Ch. 241。其中在前一个先例，案情涉及了Cheall先生本来是另一个工会ACTSS的会员，但被APEX收为会员，这样做是违反了工会之间的协议（Trade Union Congress Bridlington Principles），就是工会之间大家不去抢对方的会员。接下去Trade Union Congress或TUC作出不利的决定后，APEX只能去根据他章程的第14条文（该条文说明APEX可根据TUC的决定给会员6个星期的通知去中断他的会员资格）去中断Cheall先生的会员资格。这导致了Cheall先生把这一个争议一直打到贵族院，但最终是败诉。这方面的说法就是APEX与Cheall先生是合约关系，而APEX接收Cheall先生作为会员如果是一个错误的做法，他就不能去根据章程的第14条文（性质上等于是后续条件）去中断合约。但这里有一个重要的区分，也就是最终在贵族院Cheall先生败诉的理由。这就是APEX如果犯错（不论是故意犯错还是无意犯错），这是在TUC Bridlington Principles原则下针对其他工会的过错，而其他工会是第三者。至于APEX与Cheall先生之间，不存在谁对谁错，所以不影响APEX去根据章程行使中断会员资格的权力。这些关系可去节录Diplock勋爵所说如下： “Since rule 14 can only come into effect when there has been a breach by A.P.E.X. of the duty owed by it to another trade union under the Bridlington Principles, it is hopeless to argue that A.P.E.X. is debarred from relying on the rule to terminate the membership of a poached member, merely because it acted in breach of the Bridlington Principles in poaching him. So counsel for Cheall felt constrained to introduce the concept of a distinction to be drawn between a conscious and deliberate breach of the Bridlington Principles and a breach that was merely inadvertent. The former it was argued disentitled A.P.E.X., as a matter of law, ever to rely upon rule 14 to terminate the membership of the person in respect of whom the conscious and deliberate breach was committed, while an inadvertent breach did entitle it to do so.My Lords, I know of no principle of law which justifies this distinction. The New Zealand Shipping case 1919 AC 1, the only authority relied upon for it, contains no hint that any such distinction between deliberate and inadvertent breaches of duty is to be drawn in applying the rule that was the subject of discussion in that case. To attract the principle, whether it be one of contraction or one of law, that a party to a contract is not permitted to take advantage of his own breach of duty, the duty must be one that is owed to the other party under that contract; breach of a duty whether contractual or non-contractual owed to a stranger to the contract does not suffice. I have no hesitation in rejecting the argument based upon the supposed rule of law.”但本段最主要去表达的大精神还是与New Zealand Shipping一致，以下可去节录Diplock勋爵所说的如下：“ the rule of construction is that, except in the unlikely case that the contract contains clear express words to the contrary, it is to be presumed that it was not the intention of the parties that either party should be entitled to rely upon his own breaches of his primary obligations as bringing the contract to an end ”。（除非是在不寻常的情况下就是合约中另有不同的明示规定，否则就应该假设订约双方不会是有意图去允许其中对条件的满足是有责任的一方可以去依赖他自己的违约或者过错令一个合约中断。）3.3 案例之三：Gyllenhammar v. Split 接下来再回到有关造船合约的案例，这就是Gyllenhammar v. Split (1989) 2 Lloyds Rep. 403。该先例的案情与目前中国船厂经常遇到的困境十分接近，就是船厂（前南斯拉夫的国家船厂）在1986年6月12日订的造船合约（建造一艘巴拿马型散装船，Hull No. 358）去同时允许买方（挪威船东）多一个造船选择权协议，协议是以一封信函的形式由船厂给船东说明如下：“For the consideration aforesaid and subject as mentioned below, we hereby grant to your nominee an option to purchase a sister vessel (the Optional Vessel) to the vessel on identical terms to those in the Building Contract (including, without limitation, specification, price and payment terms) save that the delivery date in respect of such optional vessel shall not be after the date falling three (3) years after the exercise of such option. Such option shall be exercisable up to and including the actual delivery date of the vessel pursuant to the Building Contract, and may be exercised by written or telex notice to ourselves ”。在上述的协议中，显然是允许船东在原来的造船合约所针对Hull No. 358交船前任何时间行使选择权。结果是在造船合约后3年船东才去行使，显然时间隔了这么久市场上的船价有了很大的差别。这加上了前南斯拉夫当时的经济非常差劲与面对每年100%的高通胀。这一切令船厂如果依照原来造船合约的价格去建造会是严重亏损，高达合约船价的一倍。理所当然的是，船厂千方百计想去脱身，虽然在证据上没有显示。船厂与船东在1988年4月12日为船东行使了的选择权签了第二艘船舶的造船合约，船舶是Hull No. 365。根据造船选择权协议的内容，其他的条文也是与原来的造船合约一样。这就包括了第15（2）条文的船厂提供还款担保条文与第23条文的后续条件条文如下：“Article 15 Defaults By The Builder, Bank Guarantee(2) Bank GuaranteeThe Builder agrees to provide the Buyer with a Bank Guarantee from a Jugobanka Split in the form attached hereto marked Appendix F guaranteeing the refund as per paragraph (1) of this Article and it is hereby agreed that the entire cost for the Bank Guarantee shall be borne by the Builder.Article 23 Entering Into ForceThis Contract is subject to:(a) The Builder declaring by telex to the Buyer and the Bank that the Letter of Guarantee, as provided for in Article 15 (2) of the Contract, has been obtained and airmailed to the Bank at 9 King Street, London EC2V 6EA (telex 8812511) and that a copy thereof has been faxed to the Bank (fax no. 7268930).(b) The Builder declaring by telex to the Buyer and the Bank that all necessary permissions and approvals have been obtained.(c) The payment by the Buyer of the first instalment of per Article 5 (a) of the Contract.If (a) and (b) above are not obtained within thirty (30) days of the date of this Contract, or if the first instalment as per Article 5 (a) is not paid within ten (10) days of its due date of this Contract, unless otherwise mutually agreed, shall become null and void.”。以上的条文可指出的就是第15(2)条文是一个严格或绝对的承诺（absolute obligation），就是船厂提供一个还款担保。这一来，就与第23条文的后续条件，特别是(a)的条件，有了冲突。这个冲突就是船厂即使尽了很大的努力但还是拿不到还款担保，他还是违约，因为他有一个严格的责任去提供。这一来，岂非他根据第23条文以提供不了还款担保去中断造船合约的话，不管怎样他都是违反了一个严格的责任。变了是船厂去行使第23条文的后续条件，而如果又不能有过错的话，就有点说不通了。除非是解释起来，第23(a)条文是不理会船厂错还是没错，也就是说属于一条“fault-free”/ “no fault”的条文。案情再发展下去，的确也是证据显示了船厂在1988年5月6日向他的商业银行（Jugobanka）申请还款担保，但不被批准。这导致了在5月9日，船厂通知船东说取不到还款担保并要求船东给在造船合约的第23条文的最后一句去多延长30天时间。但到了1988年5月19日，Jugobanka还是拒绝了为船厂提供还款担保，这导致了船厂必须要根据造船合约的第23(a)条文去以后续条件为由中断合约。的确，在5月30日船厂给船东以下的通知，说：“Regretfully, we have to advise you that the conditions provided by Article 23 of the Shipbuilding Contract Entering into force have not been complied. Namely, the bank refused to approve the Contract, to accept the crediting of the subject transaction and to issue the letters of guarantee, despite to the fact that we made our best efforts to obtain such a banks approval. As such approval and crediting by the bank is a condition for obtaining the permissions and approvals by Yugoslav financial authorities, the above said prevents the obtaining of such approvals and permissions which form a condition precedent for the contract to enter into force. As a consequence thereof the contract for contraction of Hull No. 365 has become null and void as stipulated by Article 23 para. 2 of the said Contract.”这带来船东非常大的反应，说这是不能接受，并在6月2日发出以下的传真说：“We have received your telefax message of 30th May. Needless to say we are extremely surprised to hear that your bank has refused to approve the Contract and that, because of this, an application has not even been made to the Yugoslav financial authorities for their approval. It clearly makes a mockery of the original option granted by yourselves for a sister vessel to Hull No. 358. Gyllenhammar/Merckoll (船东) have followed the exact requirements of the Option Agreement and have concurred with all your requirements in relation to the Contract for the sister vessel. Now to be told that application has not even been made for the necessary Governmental approvals because your own bank has not approved the Contract is quite extraordinary and very unsatisfactory. Your bank must have been aware of the