新加坡合同法--最新中英文

1、The Law of Contract(新加坡合同法)SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 導(dǎo)論1.1.1 Contract law in Singapore is largely based on the common law ofcontract in England. Unlike its neighbours Malaysia and Brunei, following Independence in 1965, Singapore sParliament madeno attempt to codify Singapore s law of contract. Accordi

2、ngly, 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國關(guān)于合同的普通法為范式而構(gòu)建的。與它的鄰居馬來西亞和文萊不同的是，新加坡在1965年獨立之后并沒有試圖編纂新加坡的合同法，因此新 加坡的合同法仍保持判例法規(guī)則的模式。在某些情況下，判例法的規(guī)則已經(jīng)被特定的成文 法所修改。1

3、.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 theApplication of English Law Act (Cap 7A, 1993Rev Ed). These are listed in Part II of the First Schedule o

4、f 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

5、 Rev Ed) (which was largely drawn from fair trading legislation enacted in Alberta and Sasketchewan).許多此類立法起源于英國。首先來說，有 13個英國商事法律根據(jù)英國法律適用法 (Application of English Law Act) 第四節(jié)(Cap 7A, 1993 年修訂)的規(guī)定直接成為新加坡共和國的立法。這些立法羅列在該法的第二部分的第一附表里。其他立法，如合 同第三方權(quán)利法(Contracts( Rights of Third Parties) Act) (Cap 53B, 20

6、02 修訂)， 系模仿英國立法制定的。在某些領(lǐng)域也有立法采用非英國模式的情形，比如消費者保護(公平交易)法(Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act) (Cap 52A, 2004年修訂)。 該法大致上參照加拿大阿爾伯塔與薩卡其萬兩省的公平交易法制定。1.1.3 The rules developed in the Singapore courts do, nevertheless, beara very close resemblance to those developed under English commornaw. Indeed, where t

7、here 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發(fā)展出的規(guī)則也同英國普通法的同類規(guī)則有非常大的相似 性。如果關(guān)于某個問題新加坡本身沒有權(quán)威規(guī)則時，人們就會理所當(dāng)然地首先假定新加坡的立場同英國法的立場沒有什么區(qū)別.SECTION 2 OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE勺和承諾Agreeme

8、nt 協(xié)議2.2.1 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

9、 of offer and acceptance provide in many, albeit not all, cases the starting point for analysing whether agreement has been reached.合同在本質(zhì)上是雙方或者多方之間的協(xié)議， 該協(xié)議條款涉及到當(dāng)事人各自的權(quán)利義務(wù)并且具有法律約束力。至于當(dāng)事人之間是否達成協(xié)議，或合意( consensus ad idem ) , 應(yīng) 通過對事實的客觀分析而確定。在大多數(shù)-但并非所有的情況下，要約與承諾的概念是分析當(dāng)事人是否達成協(xié)議的起點。Offer 要約2.2.2 An offer i

10、s a promise, or other expression of willingness, by theofferor to be bound on certain specified terms upon the unqualified acceptanceof these terms by the person to whom the offer is made (the offeree ). Providedthe other formation elements (ie consideration and intention to create legal relations)

11、are present, the acceptance of an offer results in a valid contract.一個要約即是“要約人”發(fā)出的一項允諾或其他形式的自愿意思表示， 表明經(jīng)“受要約人”無條件承諾某些確定的條款， “要約人”即受這些條款的約束。 如合同成立的其他要素亦得滿足(如對價和設(shè)立法律關(guān)系的意旨)，對要約的承諾會導(dǎo)致一個有效的合同。2.2.3 Whether any particular statement amounts to an offer depends on theintention with which it is made. An offer

12、 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 tohave madean offer if

13、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.一個特定的表述是否構(gòu)成要約有賴于表述的意旨。 要約必須具有受拘束的意旨。 如果某 人只是引誘他人作出要約，或者只是詢問情況，而并沒有受拘束的意旨，那他或她最多只是在作出

14、要約邀請。按照客觀標(biāo)準，如果某人的表述(或者行為)致使一個通情達理的人 相信發(fā)出要約者具有在該要約被承諾后接受拘束的意旨，則即使該人實際上沒有此種意 旨，他也被認為是發(fā)出了一項要約。Termination of Offer 要約終止2.2.4 An offer may be terminated by withdrawal at any time prior to itsacceptance, provided there is communication, of the withdrawal to the offeree, whether by the offeror or through

15、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 stipulationas to time, an offerwill lapse after a reasonable time. What this amounts to depends on the particular facts o

16、f the case. Death of the offeror, if known to the offeree, would renderthe offer incapable of being accepted by the offeree. Even in the absence of suchknowledge, death of either party terminates any offer which has a personal element. 要約在承諾之前的任何時候都可以撤回， 只要由要約人親自或者通過其他可信的渠道向受要約人發(fā)出撤回通知。 對要約的拒絕導(dǎo)致要約失效，

17、 這包括發(fā)出反要約或者改變原要約的條款。如要約對時效沒有明確規(guī)定，則該要約在合理時間之后失效。這種情況到底何所指，這要根據(jù)案件的具體事實來分析。如果要約人死亡且此事實已為受要約人知曉，則要約就不能夠被后者接受。任何一方死亡的事實，即使不為他方知曉，也會導(dǎo)致任何具有人 身因素的要約消滅。Acceptance 承諾2.2.5 An offer is accepted by the unconditional and unqualified assentto its terms by the offeree. This assent maybe expressed through words or

18、conduct, but cannot be inferred from mere silence save in very exceptional circumstances.受要約人對要約條款無條件和無保留的同意構(gòu)成對要約的承諾。 同意可由言語或行為來 表示，但除非在極其例外的情況下，緘默不能被認為是同意。2.2.6 As a general rule, acceptance must be communicated to the offeror,although a limited exception exists where the acceptance is sent by post

19、 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.一個總的原則是承諾應(yīng)該被通知到要約人， 但如

20、果承諾是通過郵寄方式且此種方式被認為是或者明確或者默示地許可的，則構(gòu)成一項例外。這個例外被稱為“投郵承諾規(guī)則”，它規(guī)定承諾信一經(jīng)付郵，無論要約人是否實際上收到，承諾均告生效。Certainty 確定性2.2.7 Before the agreement may be enforced as a contract, its terms mustbe sufficientlycertain. At the least, the essential terms of the agreement shouldbe specified.Beyond this, the courts may resolv

21、e apparent vagueness oruncertainty by reference to the acts of the parties, a previous course of dealing between the parties, trade practice or to a standard of reasonableness. Onoccasion, statutory provision of contractual details may fill the gaps. For more on implication of terms, see Paragraphs

22、to below.在協(xié)議被作為合同執(zhí)行以前，它的條款必須足夠確定。至少，協(xié)議的關(guān)鍵條款應(yīng)予明確規(guī)定。在此之外，法庭可以通過訴諸當(dāng)事方的行為、當(dāng)事方之間已有的習(xí)慣作法、貿(mào)易慣例或者合理標(biāo)準來解決協(xié)議條款含糊不清或不確定的問題。 某些情況下， 關(guān)于合同細節(jié)的成文法規(guī)定也可以用來填補協(xié)議條款的空白。關(guān)于條款的問題，可進一步參見第節(jié) 和 8.節(jié)。Completeness 完整性2.2.8 An incomplete agreement also cannot amount to an enforceablecontract. Agreements made subject to contract ma

23、y 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 isreached.不完整的協(xié)議不能構(gòu)成具有執(zhí)行力的合同。 如果協(xié)議規(guī)定“以合同為準”， 且由事實可推斷出的當(dāng)事方的意旨表明在正式合同或者進一步的協(xié)議達成之前， 當(dāng)事方無意受到法律 拘束，則該協(xié)議為不完整的協(xié)議。Electron

24、ic Transactions Act 電子交易2.2.9 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 a

25、nd documents of title (s 4(1), electronic records may be used in expressing an offer or acceptance of an offerin contract formation (s 11). A declaration of intent between contracting parties mayalso be madein the form of an electronic record (s 12). The ETAalso clarifies when an electronic record m

26、ay 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).電子交易法( Cap 88, 1999 年修正)闡明，電子記錄可用來在合同訂立過程中表述要約或者對要約的承諾(見第 11 條)，但是這不適用于對遺囑、流通票據(jù)、債券、委托聲明或授權(quán)書、不動產(chǎn)合同以及所有權(quán)憑證(見第 4( 11)條)等文件的書面或簽字要 求。SECTION 3 CONSIDERATI

27、ON 對價Definition 定義3.3.1 A promise contained in an agreement is not enforceable unless itis supported by consideration or it is madein a written document madeunder seal. Consideration is something of value (as defined by the law), requested for by the party making the promise (the promisor ) and prov

28、ided 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 somedetriment to the promisee. This benefit/detriment mayconsist of a counter promise or a completed act.

29、一項允諾，如果不為對價支持或者不由書面蓋印作出，則不具法律執(zhí)行力。對價是(法律界定的) 某種價值， 為提出允諾的一方 (“允諾人”) 所要求， 并由接受允諾的一方 (“受 允諾人”) 所提供以用來交換對前項允諾的執(zhí)行。 故此， 它可以是允諾人收到的某種利益， 或者受允諾人承受的某種損害。這種利益/ 損害可以表現(xiàn)為對待允諾或者已完成的行為。Reciprocity 互惠3.3.2 The idea of reciprocity that underlies the requirement forconsiderationmeans that there has to be some causal

30、relation between theconsiderationand the promise itself. Thus, consideration cannot consist ofsomething that was already done before the promise was made. However, the courts do not always adopt a strict chronological approach to the analysis.體現(xiàn)于對價要求之中的是互惠關(guān)系這一原則，它要求對價和允諾之間有某種原因關(guān)系。因此，對價不能是允諾作出之前已經(jīng)完成的

31、事情。但是，法院并不總是嚴格地忠實于這種以時間先后為準的推論方式-參見Pao On v Lau Yiu Long 1980 AC 614, 該判例所確立的原則已經(jīng)被新加坡上訴法院在Sim Tony v Lim Ah Ghee t/a Phil Real Estate &Building Services (1995 2 SLR 466) 一案中明確采用 .Sufficiency 充足3.3.3 Whether the consideration provided is sufficient is a question oflaw, and the court is not, as a gene

32、ral 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 promiseedoes not, without more, constitute sufficient consideration in law to support the promisor s pr

33、omise. The performance of an existing obligation that is owed contractually to the promisor is capable of being sufficient consideration, ifsuch performance confers a real and practical benefit on the promisor. If the promisee performs or promises to perform an existing contractual obligation that i

34、s owedto a third party, the promisee will have furnished sufficient consideration at law to support a promise given in exchange.對價是否充足是個法律上的問題。 作為一般原則， 法庭并不關(guān)心對價的價值是否與允諾的價值相稱。 如無更多東西， 受允諾人履行或者承諾履行因公職而負擔(dān)的即存責(zé)任在法律上不能成為允諾人作出的允諾的充足對價。向允諾人履行既存的合同責(zé)任可以成為充足對價， 但條件是該履約行為可以為允諾人帶來真正實際的利益。 如果受允諾人履行或允諾履行既存合同項下對第三人

35、的義務(wù)，則認為受允諾人依法提供了支持允諾的充足對價。Promissory Estoppel 禁止反言3.3.4 Where the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies, a promise maybe 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, t

36、hat 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 orher position, in reliance on the promise. The party making the promise cannot seek to enforce those rightsif it would be inequitable to do so, although such rightsma

37、y be reasserted upon the promisor giving reasonable notice. The doctrine prevents the enforcement of existing rights, but does not create new causes of action.即使沒有對價支持，一項允諾也可能因為禁止反言原則的適用而具有拘束力。禁止反言原則適用于下列情況，即如果合同的一方當(dāng)事人通過語言或行為做出了清楚明白的允諾來表明他或她不會嚴格堅持自己在合同項下的法律權(quán)利， 而另一方本著對這個許諾的信賴而采取行動改變了自己的狀況。 如果因此可能導(dǎo)致不公

38、平結(jié)果， 作出許諾的一方不得再尋求執(zhí)行合同權(quán)利，盡管經(jīng)由許諾人做出合理通知后這些權(quán)利可以被重新主張。SECTION 4 INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATIONS 法律關(guān)系的意旨Contractual Intention 合同意旨4.4.1 In the absence of contractual intention, an agreement, even ifsupported by consideration, cannot be enforced. Whether the partiesto an agreement intended to create l

39、egally binding relations between them is a question determined by an objective assessment of the relevant facts.如缺乏合同意旨，一個協(xié)議即使有對價支持，也不能被執(zhí)行。協(xié)議的各當(dāng)事方是否意圖在彼此之間建立有法律約束力的關(guān)系應(yīng)該通過對相關(guān)事實的客觀評估而確定。Commercial Arrangements 商業(yè)安排4.4.2 In the case of agreements in a commercial context, the courts will generally presu

40、me 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

41、 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.對商業(yè)情境中達成的協(xié)議， 法庭一般都會推定當(dāng)事人具有受法律約束力的意旨。 然而這個推定可以被當(dāng)事人明確宣示的相反意圖所推翻。君子協(xié)定、意向書、備忘錄和其他類似手段都可以表現(xiàn)這種意圖。盡管如此，關(guān)于 當(dāng)事人意圖的 最終結(jié)論仍有賴于對他們所用 的語言和所有相關(guān)事實的客觀評估，而不是文件的標(biāo)簽。Soc

42、ial Arrangements 社會安排4.4.3 The parties in domestic or social arrangements are generallypresumed not to intend legal consequences.當(dāng)事人在家庭或社會交往中所作出的安排一般被推定為不具有產(chǎn)生法律后果的意圖。SECTION 5 TERMS OF THE CONTRACT條款Express Terms 明示條款5.5.1 The rights and obligations of contracting parties are determinedby first, asc

43、ertaining 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. Whe

44、ther 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 impo

45、rtance which the representee attached to the statement and the relative knowledge or skill of the parties vis- avis the subject matter of the statement.合同締約方的權(quán)利義務(wù)首先應(yīng)通過認定合同的條款來確定， 其次通過對條款的解釋來確定。在確定合同條款是有時有必要認定某一個表述到底是合同條款還是僅僅是一般陳述，尤其是當(dāng)合同尚未見諸書面時。 某項表述是否具有合同性質(zhì)有賴于客觀認定的當(dāng)事方的意圖，而這是一個事實問題。在確定當(dāng)事人的意圖時，法庭要考慮諸多

46、因素，包括表述作出時交易所進行到的階段， 受表述人對該表述所賦予的重要性， 以及當(dāng)事人各自具有的相對 于表述標(biāo)的有關(guān)知識和技能。5.5.2 Oncethe 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 eit

47、her 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

48、 the language of the document.合同條款一經(jīng)確定，法庭會適用一個客觀標(biāo)準解釋條款的含義。在這種情況下，重要的不是某個當(dāng)事方對合同用語所賦予的含義， 而是一個通情達理的人如何理解這些條款。 在 這方面， 新加坡的法庭一貫地注重當(dāng)事人訂立合同時所處的事實網(wǎng)絡(luò)， 因為這能幫助確定一個通情達理的人會如何理解合同語言。5.5.3 Where the parties have reduced their agreement into writing,whether a particular statement （oral or written） forms part of th

49、e 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 EvidenceAct （Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed）. Section 93 provides that where the terms of a contract.have been reduced .to the form of a docum

50、ent., no evidence shallbe given in proof of the terms of such contract .except the document itselfThus, 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

51、 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 commonlaw exceptionsnot explicitly covered in s 94 continue to beapplicable.如當(dāng)事人已將合同表諸書面

52、， 無論是口頭還是書面作出的某個特定表述是否是合同的組成部分有賴于依口頭證據(jù)規(guī)則做出的判斷。 這一普通法規(guī)則及其例外由 證據(jù)法 （ Cap97, 1997年修正）第93節(jié)和94節(jié)來規(guī)范。第93節(jié)規(guī)定，”如合同條款已經(jīng)被書寫為文 件形式，則除文件本身外，其他證據(jù)不能用來證明合同條款?！币虼?，任何口頭協(xié)議或 表述都不能被作為證據(jù)去推翻、改變、增加或者減少書面合同的條款。然而，次要證據(jù)如果根據(jù)證據(jù)法第 94 節(jié)屬于口頭證據(jù)規(guī)則的例外，就可以被接受。但是現(xiàn)在對于第 94 節(jié)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 節(jié)明確提到的例外是否可繼續(xù)適用還是很有爭議的。5.5.4 It shoul

53、d, however, be noted that the scope of s 93 and s 94 hasbeen circumscribed by Parliament in certain circumstances.應(yīng)該提到的事， 第 93 條和 94 條的適用范圍在某些情況下被國會有所限制。 見第 章 與消費者保護（公平交易）法（ Cap 52A, 2004 修正）第 17 條有關(guān)的消費者保護規(guī) 則。Implied Terms 默示條款5.5.5 In addition to those expressly agreed terms, the court maysometimes

54、imply terms into the contract.在上述明確表示的條款之外，法庭有時還可以為合同添加默示條款。5.5.6 Generally, any term to be implied must not contradict any expressterm of the contract.總的來說，任何默示條款均不得與合同的明示條款相抵觸。5.5.7 Where a term is implied to fill a gap in the contract so as to giveeffect to the presumed intention of the parties,

55、the term is implied in fact and depends on a considerationof the language of the contract as well as thesurrounding 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

56、 term is not sufficient for the implication, as the courts will not re-write the contract for the parties.如果某個條款被默示出來的目的是為了填補合同的空白以體現(xiàn)推定出來的當(dāng)事人的意圖，這個條款即屬于事實上的默示條款，其內(nèi)容之確定要考慮合同的用語以及周遭情況。只有當(dāng)情況如此必須而當(dāng)事人必然曾經(jīng)考慮將某個條款納進合同時， 該條款才會被默示進來。 僅僅因為如果將某個條款包括進合同是合乎情理的這個事實還不足以使它成為默示條 款，因為法庭不會為當(dāng)事人重寫合同。5.5.8 Terms may also

57、 be implied because this is required statutorily, oron 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

58、 there has been no specific authority on the point, it is not inconceivable that Singapore courts, like their English counterparts, mayimply default terms into specific classes of contracts to give effect to policies that define the contractual relationships that arise out of those contracts.默示條款的成立也可以是因為成文法的要求，或者是出于公共政策的考慮。 貨物買賣法( Cap 393, 1994 修正版)提供了前一類范例(例如第 12 節(jié)( 1)規(guī)定的買方有權(quán)出 售貨物)。至于后一類，雖然現(xiàn)在尚無具體的權(quán)威依據(jù)，但如果新加坡法院像他們的英國 同業(yè)那樣將一些“缺省”條款默示進合同以保持公共政策對合同關(guān)系的限制，