资源描述
精选资料The Law of Contract（新加坡合同法）SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 导论8.1.1 Contract law in Singapore is largely based on the common law of contract in England. Unlike its neighbours Malaysia and Brunei, following Independence in 1965, Singapores Parliament made no attempt to codify Singapores law of contract. Accordingly, much of the law of contract in Singapore remains in the form of judge-made rules. In some circumstances, these judge-made rules have been modified by specific statutes.新加坡的合同法基本上是以英国关于合同的普通法为范式而构建的。与它的邻居马来西亚和文莱不同的是，新加坡在1965年独立之后并没有试图编纂新加坡的合同法，因此新加坡的合同法仍保持判例法规则的模式。在某些情况下，判例法的规则已经被特定的成文法所修改。8.1.2 Many of these statutes are English in origin. To begin with, 13 English commercial statutes have been incorporated as part of the Statutes of the Republic of Singapore by virtue of s 4 of the Application of English Law Act (Cap 7A, 1993 Rev Ed). These are listed in Part II of the First Schedule of this Act. Other statutes, eg the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act (Cap 53B, 2002 Rev Ed), are modelled upon（仿效） English statutes. There are also other areas where statutory development based on non-English models has taken place, eg the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (Cap 52A, 2004 Rev Ed) (which was largely drawn from fair trading legislation enacted in Alberta and Sasketchewan).许多此类立法起源于英国。首先来说，有13个英国商事法律根据英国法律适用法（Application of English Law Act) 第四节（Cap 7A, 1993年修订）的规定直接成为新加坡共和国的立法。这些立法罗列在该法的第二部分的第一附表里。其他立法，如合同第三方权利法（Contracts( Rights of Third Parties) Act）(Cap 53B, 2002 修订)，系模仿英国立法制定的。在某些领域也有立法采用非英国模式的情形，比如消费者保护（公平交易）法(Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act)（Cap 52A, 2004年修订）。该法大致上参照加拿大阿尔伯塔与萨卡其万两省的公平交易法制定。8.1.3 The rules developed in the Singapore courts do, nevertheless, bear a very close resemblance to those developed under English common law. Indeed, where there is no Singapore authority specifically on point, it will usually be assumed that the position will, in the first instance, be no different from that in England.即使是新加坡的法庭本身所发展出的规则也同英国普通法的同类规则有非常大的相似性。如果关于某个问题新加坡本身没有权威规则时，人们就会理所当然地首先假定新加坡的立场同英国法的立场没有什么区别.SECTION 2 OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE要约和承诺Agreement协议8.2.1 A contract is essentially an agreement between two or more parties, the terms of which affect their respective rights and obligations which are enforceable at law. Whether the parties have reached agreement, or a meeting of the minds, is objectively ascertained from the facts. The concepts of offer and acceptance provide in many, albeit not all, cases the starting point for analysing whether agreement has been reached.合同在本质上是双方或者多方之间的协议，该协议条款涉及到当事人各自的权利义务并且具有法律约束力。至于当事人之间是否达成协议，或合意（consensus ad idem）, 应通过对事实的客观分析而确定。在大多数但并非所有的情况下，要约与承诺的概念是分析当事人是否达成协议的起点。Offer要约8.2.2 An offer is a promise, or other expression of willingness, by the offeror to be bound on certain specified terms upon the unqualified acceptance of these terms by the person to whom the offer is made (the offeree). Provided the other formation elements (ie consideration and intention to create legal relations) are present, the acceptance of an offer results in a valid contract.一个要约即是“要约人”发出的一项允诺或其他形式的自愿意思表示，表明经“受要约人”无条件承诺某些确定的条款，“要约人”即受这些条款的约束。如合同成立的其他要素亦得满足（如对价和设立法律关系的意旨），对要约的承诺会导致一个有效的合同。8.2.3 Whether any particular statement amounts to an offer depends on the intention with which it is made. An offer must be made with the intention to be bound. On the other hand, if a person is merely soliciting offers or requesting for information, without any intention to be bound, at best, he or she would be making an invitation to treat. Under the objective test, a person may be said to have made an offer if his or her statement (or conduct) induces a reasonable person to believe that the person making the offer intends to be bound by the acceptance of the alleged offer, even if that person in fact had no such intention.一个特定的表述是否构成要约有赖于表述的意旨。要约必须具有受拘束的意旨。如果某人只是引诱他人作出要约，或者只是询问情况，而并没有受拘束的意旨，那他或她最多只是在作出要约邀请。按照客观标准，如果某人的表述（或者行为）致使一个通情达理的人相信发出要约者具有在该要约被承诺后接受拘束的意旨，则即使该人实际上没有此种意旨，他也被认为是发出了一项要约。Termination of Offer要约终止8.2.4 An offer may be terminated by withdrawal at any time prior to its acceptance, provided there is communication, of the withdrawal to the offeree, whether by the offeror or through some reliable source. Rejection of an offer, which includes the making of a counter-offer or a variation of the original terms, terminates the offer. In the absence of an express stipulation as to time, an offer will lapse after a reasonable time. What this amounts to depends on the particular facts of the case. Death of the offeror, if known to the offeree, would render the offer incapable of being accepted by the offeree. Even in the absence of such knowledge, death of either party terminates any offer which has a personal element.要约在承诺之前的任何时候都可以撤回，只要由要约人亲自或者通过其他可信的渠道向受要约人发出撤回通知。对要约的拒绝导致要约失效，这包括发出反要约或者改变原要约的条款。如要约对时效没有明确规定，则该要约在合理时间之后失效。这种情况到底何所指，这要根据案件的具体事实来分析。如果要约人死亡且此事实已为受要约人知晓，则要约就不能够被后者接受。任何一方死亡的事实，即使不为他方知晓，也会导致任何具有人身因素的要约消灭。Acceptance承诺8.2.5 An offer is accepted by the unconditional and unqualified assent to its terms by the offeree. This assent may be expressed through words or conduct, but cannot be inferred from mere silence save in very exceptional circumstances.受要约人对要约条款无条件和无保留的同意构成对要约的承诺。同意可由言语或行为来表示，但除非在极其例外的情况下，缄默不能被认为是同意。8.2.6 As a general rule, acceptance must be communicated to the offeror, although a limited exception exists where the acceptance is sent by post and this method of communication is either expressly or impliedly authorised. This exception, known as the postal acceptance rule, stipulates that acceptance takes place at the point when the letter of acceptance is posted, whether or not it was in fact received by the offeror.一个总的原则是承诺应该被通知到要约人，但如果承诺是通过邮寄方式且此种方式被认为是或者明确或者默示地许可的，则构成一项例外。这个例外被称为“投邮承诺规则”，它规定承诺信一经付邮，无论要约人是否实际上收到，承诺均告生效。Certainty确定性8.2.7 Before the agreement may be enforced as a contract, its terms must be sufficiently certain. At the least, the essential terms of the agreement should be specified. Beyond this, the courts may resolve apparent vagueness or uncertainty by reference to the acts of the parties, a previous course of dealing between the parties, trade practice or to a standard of reasonableness. On occasion, statutory provision of contractual details may fill the gaps. For more on implication of terms, seeParagraphs 8.5.5to8.5.8below.在协议被作为合同执行以前，它的条款必须足够确定。至少，协议的关键条款应予明确规定。在此之外，法庭可以通过诉诸当事方的行为、当事方之间已有的习惯作法、贸易惯例或者合理标准来解决协议条款含糊不清或不确定的问题。某些情况下，关于合同细节的成文法规定也可以用来填补协议条款的空白。关于条款的问题，可进一步参见第8.5.5节和8.5.8节。Completeness完整性8.2.8 An incomplete agreement also cannot amount to an enforceable contract. Agreements made subject to contract may be considered incomplete if the intention of the parties, as determined from the facts, was not to be legally bound until the execution of a formal document or until further agreement is reached.不完整的协议不能构成具有执行力的合同。如果协议规定“以合同为准”，且由事实可推断出的当事方的意旨表明在正式合同或者进一步的协议达成之前，当事方无意受到法律拘束，则该协议为不完整的协议。Electronic Transactions Act电子交易8.2.9 The Electronic Transactions Act (Cap 88, 1999 Rev Ed) (ETA) clarifies that, except with respect to the requirement of writing or signatures in wills, negotiable instruments, indentures, declarations of trust or powers of attorney, contracts involving immovable property and documents of title (s 4(1), electronic records may be used in expressing an offer or acceptance of an offer in contract formation (s 11). A declaration of intent between contracting parties may also be made in the form of an electronic record (s 12). The ETA also clarifies when an electronic record may be attributed to a particular person (s 13) and how the time and place of despatch and receipt of an electronic record are to be determined (s 15).电子交易法（Cap 88, 1999年修正）阐明，电子记录可用来在合同订立过程中表述要约或者对要约的承诺（见第11条），但是这不适用于对遗嘱、流通票据、债券、委托声明或授权书、不动产合同以及所有权凭证（见第4（11）条）等文件的书面或签字要求。SECTION 3 CONSIDERATION 对价Definition定义8.3.1 A promise contained in an agreement is not enforceable unless it is supported by consideration or it is made in a written document made under seal. Consideration is something of value (as defined by the law), requested for by the party making the promise (the promisor) and provided by the party who receives it (the promisee), in exchange for the promise that the promisee is seeking to enforce. Thus, it could consist of either some benefit received by the promisor, or some detriment to the promisee. This benefit/detriment may consist of a counter promise or a completed act.一项允诺，如果不为对价支持或者不由书面盖印作出，则不具法律执行力。对价是（法律界定的）某种价值，为提出允诺的一方（“允诺人”）所要求，并由接受允诺的一方（“受允诺人”）所提供以用来交换对前项允诺的执行。故此，它可以是允诺人收到的某种利益，或者受允诺人承受的某种损害。这种利益/损害可以表现为对待允诺或者已完成的行为。Reciprocity互惠8.3.2 The idea of reciprocity that underlies the requirement for consideration means that there has to be some causal relation between the consideration and the promise itself. Thus, consideration cannot consist of something that was already done before the promise was made. However, the courts do not always adopt a strict chronological approach to the analysis.体现于对价要求之中的是互惠关系这一原则，它要求对价和允诺之间有某种原因关系。因此，对价不能是允诺作出之前已经完成的事情。但是，法院并不总是严格地忠实于这种以时间先后为准的推论方式参见Pao On v Lau Yiu Long 1980 AC 614, 该判例所确立的原则已经被新加坡上诉法院在Sim Tony v Lim Ah Ghee t/a Phil Real Estate & Building Services (1995 2 SLR 466) 一案中明确采用.Sufficiency充足8.3.3 Whether the consideration provided is sufficient is a question of law, and the court is not, as a general rule, concerned with whether the value of the consideration is commensurate with the value of the promise. The performance of, or the promise to perform, an existing public duty imposed on the promisee does not, without more, constitute sufficient consideration in law to support the promisors promise. The performance of an existing obligation that is owed contractually to the promisor is capable of being sufficient consideration, if such performance confers a real and practical benefit on the promisor. If the promisee performs or promises to perform an existing contractual obligation that is owed to a third party, the promisee will have furnished sufficient consideration at law to support a promise given in exchange.对价是否充足是个法律上的问题。作为一般原则，法庭并不关心对价的价值是否与允诺的价值相称。如无更多东西，受允诺人履行或者承诺履行因公职而负担的即存责任在法律上不能成为允诺人作出的允诺的充足对价。向允诺人履行既存的合同责任可以成为充足对价，但条件是该履约行为可以为允诺人带来真正实际的利益。如果受允诺人履行或允诺履行既存合同项下对第三人的义务，则认为受允诺人依法提供了支持允诺的充足对价。Promissory Estoppel禁止反言8.3.4 Where the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies, a promise may be binding notwithstanding that it is not supported by consideration. This doctrine applies where a party to a contract makes an unequivocal promise, whether by words or conduct, that he or she will not insist on his or her strict legal rights under the contract, and the other party acts, and thereby alters his or her position, in reliance on the promise. The party making the promise cannot seek to enforce those rights if it would be inequitable to do so, although such rights may be reasserted upon the promisor giving reasonable notice. The doctrine prevents the enforcement of existing rights, but does not create new causes of action.即使没有对价支持，一项允诺也可能因为禁止反言原则的适用而具有拘束力。禁止反言原则适用于下列情况，即如果合同的一方当事人通过语言或行为做出了清楚明白的允诺来表明他或她不会严格坚持自己在合同项下的法律权利，而另一方本着对这个许诺的信赖而采取行动改变了自己的状况。如果因此可能导致不公平结果，作出许诺的一方不得再寻求执行合同权利，尽管经由许诺人做出合理通知后这些权利可以被重新主张。SECTION 4 INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATIONS设立法律关系的意旨Contractual Intention合同意旨8.4.1 In the absence of contractual intention, an agreement, even if supported by consideration, cannot be enforced. Whether the parties to an agreement intended to create legally binding relations between them is a question determined by an objective assessment of the relevant facts.如缺乏合同意旨，一个协议即使有对价支持，也不能被执行。协议的各当事方是否意图在彼此之间建立有法律约束力的关系应该通过对相关事实的客观评估而确定。Commercial Arrangements商业安排8.4.2 In the case of agreements in a commercial context, the courts will generally presume that the parties intended to be legally bound. However, the presumption can be displaced where the parties expressly declare the contrary intention. This is often done through the use of honour clauses, letters of intent, memoranda of understanding and other similar devices, although the ultimate conclusion would depend, not on the label attached to the document, but on an objective assessment of the language used and on all the attendant facts.对商业情境中达成的协议，法庭一般都会推定当事人具有受法律约束力的意旨。然而这个推定可以被当事人明确宣示的相反意图所推翻。君子协定、意向书、备忘录和其他类似手段都可以表现这种意图。尽管如此，关于当事人意图的 最终结论仍有赖于对他们所用的语言和所有相关事实的客观评估，而不是文件的标签。Social Arrangements社会安排8.4.3 The parties in domestic or social arrangements are generally presumed not to intend legal consequences.当事人在家庭或社会交往中所作出的安排一般被推定为不具有产生法律后果的意图。SECTION 5 TERMS OF THE CONTRACT合同条款Express Terms明示条款8.5.1 The rights and obligations of contracting parties are determined by first, ascertaining the terms of the contract, and secondly, interpreting those terms. In ascertaining the terms of a contract, it is sometimes necessary, especially where the contract has not been reduced to writing, to decide whether a particular statement is a contractual term or a mere representation. Whether a statement is contractual or not depends on the intention of the parties, objectively ascertained, and is a question of fact. In ascertaining the parties intention, the courts take into account a number of factors including the stage of the transaction at which the statement was made, the importance which the representee attached to the statement and the relative knowledge or skill of the parties vis-vis the subject matter of the statement.合同缔约方的权利义务首先应通过认定合同的条款来确定，其次通过对条款的解释来确定。在确定合同条款是有时有必要认定某一个表述到底是合同条款还是仅仅是一般陈述，尤其是当合同尚未见诸书面时。某项表述是否具有合同性质有赖于客观认定的当事方的意图，而这是一个事实问题。在确定当事人的意图时，法庭要考虑诸多因素，包括表述作出时交易所进行到的阶段，受表述人对该表述所赋予的重要性，以及当事人各自具有的相对于表述标的有关知识和技能。8.5.2 Once the terms of a contract have been determined, the court applies an objective test in construing or interpreting the meaning of these terms. What is significant in this determination therefore is not the sense attributed by either party to the words used, but how a reasonable person would understand those terms. In this regard, Singapore courts have consistently emphasised the importance of the factual matrix within which the contract was made, as this would assist in determining how a reasonable man would have understood the language of the document.合同条款一经确定，法庭会适用一个客观标准解释条款的含义。在这种情况下，重要的不是某个当事方对合同用语所赋予的含义，而是一个通情达理的人如何理解这些条款。在这方面，新加坡的法庭一贯地注重当事人订立合同时所处的事实网络，因为这能帮助确定一个通情达理的人会如何理解合同语言。8.5.3 Where the parties have reduced their agreement into writing, whether a particular statement (oral or written) forms part of the actual contract depends on the application of the parol evidence rule. In Singapore, this common law rule and its main exceptions are codified in s 93 and s 94 of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed). Section 93 provides that where the terms of a contract.have been reduced .to the form of a document., no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract .except the document itself. Thus, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement may be admitted in evidence to contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from the terms of the written contract. However, secondary evidence is admissible if it falls within one of the exceptions to this general rule found in the proviso to s 94. Some controversy remains as to whether s 94 is an exhaustive statement of all exceptions to the rule, or whether other common law exceptions not explicitly covered in s 94 continue to be applicable.如当事人已将合同表诸书面，无论是口头还是书面作出的某个特定表述是否是合同的组成部分有赖于依口头证据规则做出的判断。这一普通法规则及其例外由证据法（Cap 97, 1997 年修正）第93节和94节来规范。第93节规定，“如合同条款已经被书写为文件形式, 则除文件本身外，其他证据不能用来证明合同条款。”因此，任何口头协议或表述都不能被作为证据去推翻、改变、增加或者减少书面合同的条款。然而，次要证据如果根据证据法第94节属于口头证据规则的例外，就可以被接受。但是现在对于第94节是否囊括了所有的例外以及在此之外普通法上的未被第94节明确提到的例外是否可继续适用还是很有争议的。8.5.4 It should, however, be noted that the scope of s 93 and s 94 has been circumscribed by Parliament in certain circumstances.应该提到的事，第93条和94条的适用范围在某些情况下被国会有所限制。见第 章与消费者保护（公平交易）法（Cap 52A, 2004 修正）第17条有关的消费者保护规则。Implied Terms默示条款8.5.5 In addition to those expressly agreed terms, the court may sometimes imply terms into the contract.在上述明确表示的条款之外，法庭有时还可以为合同添加默示条款。8.5.6 Generally, any term to be implied must not contradict any express term of the contract.总的来说，任何默示条款均不得与合同的明示条款相抵触。8.5.7 Where a term is implied to fill a gap in the contract so as to give effect to the presumed intention of the parties, the term is implied in fact and depends on a consideration of the language of the contract as well as the surrounding circumstances. A term will be implied only if it is so necessary that both parties must have intended its inclusion in the contract. The fact that it would be reasonable to include the term is not sufficient for the implication, as the courts will not re-write the contract for the parties.如果某个条款被默示出来的目的是为了填补合同的空白以体现推定出来的当事人的意图，这个条款即属于事实上的默示条款，其内容之确定要考虑合同的用语以及周遭情况。只有当情况如此必须而当事人必然曾经考虑将某个条款纳进合同时，该条款才会被默示进来。仅仅因为如果将某个条款包括进合同是合乎情理的这个事实还不足以使它成为默示条款，因为法庭不会为当事人重写合同。8.5.8 Terms may also be implied because this is required statutorily, or on public policy considerations. The terms implied by the Sale of Goods Act (Cap 393, 1994 Rev Ed) (eg s 12(1) - that the seller of goods has a right to sell the goods) provide examples of the former type of implied terms. As for the latter, whilst there has been no specific authority on the point, it is not inconceivable that Singapore courts, like their English counterparts, may imply default terms into specific classes of contracts to give effect to policies that define the contractual relationships that arise out of those contracts.默示条款的成立也可以是因为成文法的要求，或者是出于公共政策的考虑。货物买卖法（Cap 393, 1994修正版）提供了前一类范例（例如第12节（1）规定的买方有权出售货物）。至于后一类，虽然现在尚无具体的权威依据，但如果新加坡法院像他们的英国同业那样将一些“缺省”条款默示进合同以保持公共政策对合同关系的限制，这也并非不可想象的。Classification of Terms合同条款的分类8.5.9 The terms of a contract may be classified into conditions, warranties or intermediate (or innominate) terms. Proper classification is important as it determines whether the contract may be discharged or terminated for breach as to which seeParagraphs 8.8.11to8.8.12below.合同条款可以分为条件 (conditions)，担保 (warranties)，和中间（或无名）条款(intermediate/innominate terms)。条款的恰当分类很重要，因为这将决定合同是否已被履行或者因为违约而解除（见下文8.8.11 和 8.8.12）。8.5.10 The parties may expressly stipulate in the contract how a particular term is to be classed. This is not, however, conclusive unless the parties are found to have intended the technical meaning of the classifying words used. In the absence of express stipulation, the courts will look objectively at the language of the contract to determine how, in light of the surrounding circumstances, the parties intended a particular term to be classed. There are also instances where statutes may stipulate whether certain kinds of terms are to be treated as conditions or warranties, in the absence of any specific designation by the contracting parties.当事人可以在合同中明确约定某个条款的性质分类，但除非他们所用的分类语言能清楚明确地表明其意图，否则分类不属最后决定性的。如无明确的合同规定，法庭会客观地审视合同的语言，以期确定当事人在当时情况下可能如何决定某个条款的分类。另有些情况下，如果当事人没有明确条款的性质，成文法也会直接规定某些条款应被当作条件或担保。Exception Clauses免责条款8.5.11 Exception clauses that seek to exclude or limit a contracting partys liability are commonly, but not exclusively, found in standard form agreements. The law in Singapore relating to such clauses is essentially based on English law. The English Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which either invalidates an exception clause or limits the efficacy of such terms by imposing a requirement of reasonableness, has been re-enacted in Singapore as the Unfair Contract Terms Act (as Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed).试图排除或限制当时一方责任的免责条款在格式合同中使用很普遍，但其使用范围不限于此。新加坡有关免责条款的法律本质上是基于英国法的。1977年的英国不公平合同条款法通过一个“合理性要求”来使免责条款无效或者限制其功效。这个法律被全盘照搬为新加坡的不公平条款法（Cap 396, 1994年修正）。Incorporation纳入8.5.12 Whether an exception clause wil
展开阅读全文