布莱曼诉扎帕塔近海公司案案例援引分析

1、最高法院关于公共政策的观点之一驳Insurance Co. v. Morse.的引用上诉院的观点：区法院根据： agreements in advance of controversy whose object is to oust the jurisdiction of the courts are contrary to public policy and will not be enforced.这一美国法院的传统观点驳回Unterweser关于管辖权异议的动议。上诉院在维持的同时，引出形成该传统观点的重要案例Insurance Co. v. Morse.最高院的观点：But the h

2、olding of that case was only that the State of Wisconsin could not by statute force a foreign corporation to agree to surrender its federal statutory right to remove a state court action to the federal courts as a condition of doing business in Wisconsin. 保险公司案的判决仅仅是在说明：威斯康辛州不能通过让一个外州公司以放弃将州法院诉讼移交联邦

3、法院的联邦法定权利为条件，而在威州展开业务。 Thus, the case is properly understood as one in which a state statutory requirement was viewed as imposing an unconstitutional condition on the exercise of the federal right of removal. 因此，该案从根本上来讲只是一个排除违宪性的问题。也即，上诉院的理论依据并不适用本案的情形。最高法院还谈到：The argument that such clauses are imp

4、roper because they tend to oust a court of jurisdiction is hardly more than a vestigial legal fiction. It appears to rest at core on historical judicial resistance to any attempt to reduce the power and business of a particular court and has little place in an era when all courts are overloaded and

5、when businesses once essentially local now operate in world markets. It reflects something of a provincial attitude regarding the fairness of other tribunals. No one seriously contends in this case that the forum-selection clause ousted the District Court of jurisdiction over Zapatas action.最高法院关于公共

6、政策的观点之二驳Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp.的引用上诉院主要观点回顾：The Court of Appeals suggested that enforcement would be contrary to the public policy of the forum under Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp., 349 U.S. 85 (1955), because of the prospect that the English courts would enforce the clauses of the towage c

7、ontract purporting to exculpate Unterweser from liability for damages to the Chaparral.上诉院认为执行本案中的法院选择条款会违反Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp., 349 U.S. 85 (1955)一案中所确立的公共政策，因为英国可能会执行拖船合同中意在排除德方对于Chaparral的损害责任的条款。A contractual choice of forum clause should be held unenforceable if enforcement would con

8、travene a strong public policy of the forum in which suit is brought, whether declared by statute or by judicial decision.而如合同中法院选择条款之履行，将造成对法院地重大公共政策（成文规定者与司法判决确立者兼有之）的侵害，则该条款将不被履行。最高法院的观点：1、效力范围不可任意扩张It is clear, however, that whatever the proper scope of the policy expressed in Bisso, 17 it does

9、not reach this case. Bisso rested on considerations with respect to the towage business strictly in American waters, and those considerations are not controlling in an international commercial agreement.无论在Bisso案中公共政策的适当范围如何，都不能及于本案。Bisso案中的观点是严格基于美国水域内部的拖船合同的，而这种观点不能在国际商事合同中适用。 Dixilyn Drilling Cor

10、p. v. Crescent Towing & Salvage Co., 372 U.S. 697 (1963) (per curiam), merely followed Bisso and declined to subject its rule governing towage contracts in American waters to indeterminate exceptions based on delicate analysis of the facts of each case. 紧随Bisso案之后的Dixilyn Drilling Corp. v. Crescent

11、Towing & Salvage Co.案，拒绝将Bisso案中效力范围只及于美国领水之内的拖船合同，推广至基于对每个案件事实浅显分析而得出的不确定的例外中。2、Bisso案合同缔结瑕疵We should be careful not to over-emphasize the strength of the Bisso policy. . . . Two concerns underlie the rejection of exculpatory agreements: that they may be produced by overweening bargaining power; an

12、d that they do not sufficiently discourage negligence. . . .我们不应该过分考虑Bisso案的所传达的政策，该案中对于双方排他性约定的拒绝适用，其实另有隐情这些合意的达成可能是显失公平或者没有充分阻却过错的。the uncertainties and dangers in the new field of transoceanic towage of oil rigs were so great that the tower was unwilling to take financial responsibility for the r

13、isks, and the parties thus allocated responsibility for the voyage to the tow. It is equally possible that the contract price took this factor into account. I conclude that we should not invalidate the forum selection clause here unless we are firmly convinced that we would thereby significantly enc

14、ourage negligent conduct within the boundaries of the United States.“跨洋拖运钻井平台这样一个新领域是极具风险的，这就使得拖船公司不愿承担财务风险责任，这样的情况下，双方当事人设定了拖运航程的责任负担问题，因而把这种因素考虑到合同运费中也是有可能的。因此，我们不应该（基于Bisso案的公共政策保留理论）而确认本案的法院选择条款无效，否则我们必须清楚，我们有在美国范围内对于（缔结合同时）过错情形疏于考虑的做法加以鼓励之嫌。最高法院关于非方便原则的观点驳Carbon Black Export, Inc. v. The Monros

15、a（“炭黑”案）的引用上诉法院的观点：1、关于非方便原则对于法院选择条款效力的影响Courts have also suggested that a forum clause, even though it is freely bargained for and contravenes no important public policy of the forum, may nevertheless be unreasonable and unenforceable if the chosen forum is seriously inconvenient for the trial of t

16、he action.即便是在自由协商且并无损于公共政策的情形下，法院选择条款也可能由于审判不方便而不合理或不宜执行。对于法院方便与否的权衡结果如不绝对支持被告一方，则原告的法院选择不应被妨碍最高法院的观点：（1）作为国际商事主体，双方在订立合同时已经对包括“非方便”的问题进行了充分磋商Of course, where it can be said with reasonable assurance that at the time they entered the contract, the parties to a freely negotiated private internationa

17、l commercial agreement contemplated the claimed inconvenience, it is difficult to see why any such claim of inconvenience should be heard to render the forum clause unenforceable.就本案事实来讲，可以保证的是，双方当事人在订立合同时，即在这份平等主体间的国际商务合同中对所谓“不方便问题”进行了自由协商，因此基于与此相关的事由而认为法院选择条款不宜实行是难以被认同的。As noted, selection of a Lo

18、ndon forum was clearly a reasonable effort to bring vital certainty to this international transaction and to provide a neutral forum experienced and capable in the resolution of admiralty litigation. Whatever inconvenience Zapata would suffer by being forced to litigate in the contractual forum as i

19、t agreed to do was clearly foreseeable at the time of contracting.前文已提到，对于伦敦法院的选择明显是为了确保国际交易中至关重要的确定性问题，并在海事诉讼的解决上提供一个经验能力丰富的中立法院的合理行为。无论Zapata公司在诉讼时面临何种“非方便”，均为其在合同签订时可见并同意的。（2）排除了“非方便”因素，达成的法院选择条款对于异国当事人的效力很强，推翻者须负举证责任We are not here dealing with an agreement between two Americans to resolve their

20、 essentially local disputes in a remote alien forum. In such a case, the serious inconvenience of the contractual forum to one or both of the parties might carry greater weight in determining the reasonableness of the forum clause这里并非是在处理两个美国当事人选择远方外国法院来处理本质为本地纠纷（即指Bisso案）的协议。对于本案的一方或双方当事人来说，合同条款中的严

21、重不方便问题，在讨论法院选择条款合理性问题时有着更为重要的意义。The remoteness of the forum might suggest that the agreement was an adhesive one, or that the parties did not have the particular controversy in mind when they made their agreement; yet even there the party claiming should bear a heavy burden of proof.对于一个远方法院的选择条款可能表

22、明了这一合意的粘合性，或者说当事人在缔约时关于此问题上没有特别的争议之处；即便当时存在着争议，也应该由争议的提出者负举证责任。（如前文对举证责任分配的）On rare occasions, the state of the forum may be a substantially more convenient place for the trial of a particular controversy than the chosen state. If so, the present clause would permit the action to proceed. This resul

23、t will presumably be in accord with the desires of the parties.仅在少数情况下，对于一个特定争议的审理，受诉法院会比选择的法院更具有实质性的方便。因此，本案的法院选择条款应该被允许实行。这一结果大概与当事人的想法更相符。In such circumstances it should be incumbent on the party seeking to escape his contract to show that trial in the contractual forum will be so gravely difficu

24、lt and inconvenient that he will for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in court. Absent that, there is no basis for concluding that it would be unfair, unjust, or unreasonable to hold that party to his bargain.在此种（本案的）情况下，力图逃脱合同规制的当事人必须证明在合同条款下进行的审判将极为困难和不便，以至于出于实用目的，他在法庭中的影响力将会被削弱。否则，认为

25、其遵守协议将造成不公平、不正义和不合理是无依据的。上诉法院观点：2、在受案法院进行审理更加方便（1）事故发生地离地区法院最近，并且接近证人，方便获取证词（2）航行准备工作和检查修理工作也在海湾附近。（3）英国在此案中没有利益相关。In the course of its ruling on Unterwesers second motion to stay the proceedings in Tampa, the District Court did make a conclusory finding that the balance of convenience was strongly

26、in favor of litigation in Tampa. 最高法院的观点：（1）关于取证问题It is not unusual for important issues in international admiralty cases to be dealt with by deposition. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals majority appeared satisfied that Unterweser could receive a fair hearing in Tampa by using deposi

27、tion testimony of its witnesses from distant places, and there is no reason to conclude that Zapata could not use deposition testimony to equal advantage if forced to litigate in London as it bound itself to do.国际海事案件中的重要事项，通过口供方式处理是常见的。区法院和上诉法院都满足于认为Unterweser 通过远程口供证言的方式可以被公正的审判，那么也就没有理由认为Zapata在其

28、身达成的约定下，以同样方式于伦敦法院受审不能获得公正的考量。 a substantial minority at least of witnesses are likely to be German. The tug was a German vessel and was, as far as I know, manned by a German crew . . . . Where they all are now or are likely to be when this matter is litigated I do not know, because the experience o

29、f the Admiralty Court here strongly points out that maritime witnesses in the course of their duties move about freely. The homes of the German crew presumably are in Germany. There is probably a balance of numbers in favour of the Americans, but not, as I am inclined to think, a very heavy balance.

30、（本案中）至少有少部分实质证人可能是德国人。拖船为德国籍且由德国船员操纵。本案进入诉讼程序后，他们现在身居何处不为人知，但是鉴于海事法院的经验，可以明确的是有关海事的证人在他们自己的职责范围内是行动自由的。德国船员的家大多在德国。（鉴于此）法院方便程度的衡量中美方是得到一定支持的，但是并不是很强的支持。 It should also be noted that if the exculpatory clause is enforced in the English courts, many of Zapatas witnesses on the questions of negligence

31、and damage may be completely unnecessary.另外需要注意的一点是，如果排除条款在英国法院被适用的话，许多关于过错与赔偿的Zapata方证人将完全是不必要的。（2）Zapata未能举出致伦敦法院诉讼对其造成的实质性影响的相关证据（Zapata在英诉讼比Unterweser在Tampa所造成的“不方便”更大）Moreover, the finding falls far short of a conclusion that Zapata would be effectively deprived of its day in court should it be

32、 forced to litigate in London Nevertheless, to allow Zapata opportunity to carry its heavy burden of showing not only that the balance of convenience is strongly in favor of trial in Tampa (that is, that it will be far more inconvenient for Zapata to litigate in London than it will be for Unterweser

33、 to litigate in Tampa), but also that a London trial will be so manifestly and gravely inconvenient to Zapata that it will be effectively deprived of a meaningful day in court, we remand for further proceedings上诉法院的观点： 法院选择条款不应该被解释为提供了专属性的排他性管辖，也不应该被解释为这种管辖同时包括了对物的诉讼。最高法院的观点：However, the language of

34、 the clause is clearly mandatory and all-encompassing; the language of the clause in the Carbon Black case was far different.但是本案中的法院选择条款是强制的和完全包含性的。其措辞与Carbon Black 案是迥然不同的。PS: “炭黑案”相关条款Clause 27 - Also, that no legal proceedings may be brought against the Captain or ship owners or their agents in

35、respect to any loss of or damage to any goods herein specified, except in Genoa, it being understood and agreed that every other Tribunal in the place or places where the goods were shipped or landed is incompetent, notwithstanding that the ship may be legally represented there. 本案的措辞any dispute ari

36、sing must be treated before the London Court of Justice.且根据359U.S.,at 180The Court held, however, that the writ had been improvidently granted because the provision, as construed against the drafter, could not be interpreted as limiting the maintenance of an action in rem. The writ was dismissed.美国联

37、邦法院对于“炭黑案”的判决中认为上诉院的令状是目光短浅的，因为相关条款不能违背缔结人意愿而解释为限制对于对物诉讼的适用。该令状已被驳回。最高法院关于Unterweser在弗罗里达起诉的观点Zapata的观点：Zapata has suggested that Unterweser was not in any way required to file its affirmative limitation complaint because it could just as easily have pleaded limitation of liability by way of defense in Zapatas initial action, either before or after the six