合同解释(杨2)

这一段话带来争议，买方认为双方已经达成买卖合约，但卖方没有交货。卖方认为双方并没有达成买卖合约，因为上述的一段文字太不肯定。结果上诉庭是判这一句话的最后几个加黑的字无法给任何解释，因为根本没有这回事。Denning大法官是这样说： “This case raises a short, but important, point which can be stated quite simply. There was a contract for the sale of 3000 tons of steel reinforcing bars, and the seller broke his contract. When the buyer claimed damages the seller set up the defence that, owing to one of the sentences in the letters which constituted the contract, there was no contract at all. The material words are: ?We are in agreement that the usual conditions of acceptance apply.‘ There were no usual conditions of acceptance at all, so the words are meaningless. There is nothing to which they can apply. On that account it is said that there was never a contract at all between the parties.”。

另一个先例可举的是The “Iran Vojdan”（1984）2 Lloyd‘s Rep. 380。该先例所涉及的一份提单中对于适用的法律有如下条款：

“2 (a) … all disputes arising hereunder or in connection therewith shall in the option of the carrier to be declared by him on the merchant‘s request be governed either by Iranian law with the exclusive jurisdiction the courts in Teheran, by German law with the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Hamburg or by English law with the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of London.”。

这种浮动的适用法律条文被视为是太不肯定，因为合约在一开始履行就应该稳定受某一个适用法管辖。如果半途可以任由一方改变为另一种适用法，就会导致本来正确的做法变了不正确。这进一步令订约双方无所适从，所以被Bingham大法官判是上述的条文是没有意思与无法理解而无效，说：

“I find this, as I feel bound to say, an extremely unattractive clause, introducing maximum complexity and difficulty into what could and should be a simple matter. It is nonetheless the duty of the Court to give a sensible meaning so far as possible to what the parties as unintelligible….”。

11.1.2 不肯定种类之二：有太多可能的解释

这种情况通常是双方同意的条文/文字有太多可能的解释，而每一种解释都与合约其他条文没有矛盾，变了是法官/仲裁员无法去作出一个比较合理的选择。这一来，就会是以不肯定为由判是无效，不论这无效的后果是双方还没有达成协议或是不肯定的条文/文字本身是无效。这种案例有不少，如：

（一）这可去举贵族院的先例：Scammell & Nephew Ltd v. Ouston (1941) A.C. 251 HL。它涉及了一个小货车的买卖，但双方说明以市场取得到的租用买卖条文为准（subject to

hire-purchase terms being available）的形式买卖。但事后发觉市场上有好几种不同版本的租用买卖条文，每一份都可以适用，难以去确定以哪一个版本为准。结果贵族院判合约无效。

（二）在British Electrical and Associated Industries (Cardiff), Ltd v. Patley Pressings, Ltd. (1953) 1 W.L.R. 280，有关不肯定的条文/文字也是被McNair大法官判是在行业中有很多不同版本的force majeure条文，无从去确定是哪一份说：

“The terms of a contract note in relation to a sale of steel contained the following clause: ?Subject to force majeure conditions that the government restricts the export of the material at the time of delivery.‘ There was a variety of force majeure conditions in the trade, and no evidence that any particular ones had been agreed on. The buyers relied on that note as evidencing a contract.”。

（三）另一个有相似判法的先例是The ―Agios Lazaros‖ (1976) 2 Lloyd‘s Rep. 47，高院的Donaldson大法官也是以有太多“首要条文” 版本可选择，难以确定，虽然这一个判决最后被上诉庭推翻。以下对这一个先例有详论，在此不作重复。

（四）在Lovelock, Ltd. v. Exportles (1968) 1 Lloyd‘s Rep. 163，该案例中的CIF买卖合约是英国买方从俄罗斯卖方进口木材。双方有了争议，争议之一是交货数量不足，二是所交的货物质量有问题。英国买方在英国高院出了告票，但俄罗斯卖方就去高院申请中止诉讼并强制该争议去俄罗斯仲裁。但该买卖合约有两条仲裁条文，一是英国仲裁，另是俄罗斯仲裁。这一来就存在一个问题是可否对这两条具有同样效力的条文去进行协调，令两条仲裁条文都能够有一定解释。其中提出了有5个建议去解释：1、先去英国仲裁，失败后去俄罗斯仲裁；2、英国仲裁针对的是金钱上的索赔，俄罗斯仲裁针对的是与非金钱上的争议；3、英国仲裁针对货物在英国交货所产生的争议，俄罗斯仲裁针对交货之前的争议，例如买卖合约的执行与否；4、英国仲裁针对议定金额的索赔，俄罗斯仲裁针对非议定金额的索赔；5、英国仲裁针对货物运送去英国的争议，俄罗斯仲裁针对货物运送去其他国家的争议。

但这些解释都不被上诉庭接受，认为太牵强与不合理。结果这两条条文被判是无法协调，造成不肯定的情况而被判是无效。Denning勋爵是这样说：

“So all five suggestions seem to me to be untenable. I am forced to the conclusion that the clause is so uncertain that the Court cannot give effect to it. The clause is divided into two parts which are inconsistent with one another: and it is impossible to reconcile them. The first part of this arbitration clause would send ?Any dispute and/or claim‘ to arbitration in England. The second part of the clause would send ?Any other dispute‘ to arbitration in Russia. It is beyond the wit of man – or at any rate beyond my wit – to say which dispute comes within which part of the clause. I think I can see how it has come about. The parties have taken

separate clauses from two separate forms and bundled them both together into one clause without stopping to think how they could be applied.

In my opinion the whole clause is meaningless. It must be rejected. The Court cannot give effect to it. The dispute cannot be sent to arbitration. It must be decided by the Court. …‖

11.1.3 不肯定种类之三：协议去将来达成协议（agreement to agree）

11.1.3.1 协议去将来达成协议无效的原因

英国法律认为这种协议等于是协议去将来进行谈判一样，因为太不肯定而无效。主要的原因已经在较早时节录Denning勋爵在Courtney & Fairburn Ltd v. Tolaini Bros (Hotels) Ltd (1975) 1 W.L.R. 297所说的，就是如果在这种协议下违约，例如其中一方拒绝谈判，这种违约会带来什么损失是没有办法去确定与证明。因为难以知道双方谈判出什么结果才是大家可以接受。拒绝谈判一方大可以说“谈下去我也是坚持一分钱也不支付”，这一来，希望谈判的一方能够去索赔什么损失？

另在近期的Petromec Inc. v. Petrleo Brasileiro (2005) EWCA Civ. 891, Longmore大法官多给了几个为什么法律不承认协议去将来达成协议的原因，除了是不肯定之外，也没有办法知道双方是否是善意／诚意的去谈判。他说：

―The traditional objections to enforcing an obligation to negotiate in good faith are (1) that the obligation is an agreement to agree and thus too uncertain to enforce, (2) that it is difficult, if not impossible, to say whether, if negotiations are brought to an end, the termination is brought about in good faith or bad faith, and (3) that, since it can never be known whether good faith negotiations would have produced an agreement at all or what the terms of any agreement would have been if it would have been reached, it is impossible to assess any loss caused by breach of the obligation. ”。

就算是加了一些文字比方说要求双方订约方都去尽力（best endeavours）去谈判与同意，结果也是一样。这是Millett大法官在Little v. Courage Ltd (1994) 70 P. & C.R. 469说：“An undertaking to use one‘s best endeavours to try to agree, however, is not different from an undertaking to agree, to try to agree, or to negotiate with a view to reaching agreement; all are equally uncertain and incapable of giving rise to an enforceable legal obligation.”。

11.1.3.2 协议去将来达成协议有效的情况

虽然有这个大原则也不代表所有的协议去将来达成协议都是无效，这尤其是在有关的合约中被部分或全部履行了。在商业合约，这种去留待将来才达成协议的情况也是经常有，

这一来，法院如果能够去默示一个双方还没有约定的价格是公平价格（fair price），有关的协议就可以有效与被执行了：Corson v. Rhuddlan Borough Council (1990) 1 E.GLR. 255; Money v. Ven-Lu-Ree Ltd (1989) 3 N.Z.L.R. 129, PC。如果合约有一条仲裁条文，更有一个可以去在将来双方无法达成协议的时候让仲裁庭作决定的机制：The Queensland Electricity Generating Board v. New Hope Collieries Ltd (1989) 1 Lloyd‘s Rep. 205 ，The ―Didymi‖ [1988] 2 Lloyd‘s Rep. 108与Mamidoil – Jetoil Greek Petroleum Co v. Okta Crude Oil Refinery (2001) 2 Lloyd‘s Rep. 76。

在租船合约，尤其是长期的期租，也经常有条文针对一些留待将来去达成的协议，例如针对将来还船燃油的价格。在The ―Tropwind‖ (1982) 1 Lloyd‘s Rep. 232 CA，有关的条文是要求双方同意最后航次的时间以确定最后一期租金应支付的金额，Denning勋爵说： “We often have contracts which contain clauses as to price, time, or other things ?to be agreed‘. Such a provision does not render the clause null or void. We always seek to make it work by making an implication of some kind or other. As the House of Lords did in W. N. Hillas & Co. v. Arcos, (1932) 43 Ll.L. Rep. 359; (1932) 38 Com.Cas. 23. Clauses such as this are often found in charter-parties. According to the usual practice, the charterers estimate the time and make payment accordingly, deducting the estimated bunkers and disbursements. I cannot believe that the owners can frustrated all the estimates by saying, ?We do not agree‘. Nor by making an arbitrary or capricious refusal. It is necessarily implied that each party should act reasonably in endeavouring to reach an agreed time. As a corollary, I think it is to be implied that the owners cannot refuse a bona fide and reasonable estimate of the time necessary to complete the voyage. At any rate, they cannot refuse unless they put forward a bona fide and reasonable counter-proposal which the charterers cannot reasonably refuse. It is only by such implication that the clause can be made to work.”。

11.1.3.3 近期先例带来的不稳定

这是要去介绍贵族院在1992年的先例，名为Walford v. Miles (1992) 2 AC 128。有关的案情是有一个互锁合约（lock-out agreement），内容是说明在一个收购公司及其办公地点的交易中有一个独享的谈判权利。 互锁合约没有一个谈判的期限。买方在谈判的时候出价200万英镑，但卖方以同样的价格卖给了第三方。买方跳起来，因为他私下有内幕消息知道该收购的标的值300万英镑，但卖方自己却不知道。所以“走了宝”的买方向卖方索赔100万英镑的损失，因为卖方违反了互锁合约。买方也指卖方在该合约下，应该有默示要善意（good faith）去与他谈判，而不应该背后去找第三方。但贵族院判是英国法律对谈判没有善意的要求，因为这是与潜在的谈判地位起矛盾（inherently inconsistent with the position of a negotiating party）。这是人性，谈判双方为了各自的巨大的利益都只是为自己考虑，只要这是合法。在本案例，贵族院质疑如果有谈判必需是善意的默示要求，买方自己就有问题了，因为他应该把私下有的内幕消息告诉卖方，毕