新加坡規(guī)定合同法

1、The Law of Contract(新加坡合同法)SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION導論8.1.1 Con tract law in Sin gapore is largely based on the com mon law ofcon tractin En gla nd. Un like its n eighbours Malaysia and Brun ei,followi ngIn depe ndence in 1965, Sin gapore ' s Parliame nt made no attempt to codify Sin gapore 's

2、law of con tract.Accord in gly,muchof the law of con tract in Sin gapore rema insin the form of judge-made rules . In some circumstances, these judge-made rules have bee n 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

3、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。8.1.2 Many of these statutes are En glish in origi n. To beg in with, 13 En glishcommercial statutes have been incorporated as part of the Statutes of the Republic of Si ngapore by virtue of s 4 of theApplication of En glish Law Act (Cap 7A, 1993Rev Ed). These are listed in

4、 Part II of the First Schedule of this Act. Otherstatutes, eg the Con tracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act (C ap 53B, 2002 Rev Ed), are modelled upon(仿效)En glish statutes. There are also other areas wherestatutorydevelopment based on non-English models has taken place, eg the ConsumerProtection (Fai

5、r Trading) Act (Cap 52A, 2004 Rev Ed) (which was largely drawn from fair tradi ng legislatio n en acted in Alberta and Sasketchewa n).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 Th

6、ird Parties) Act)(Cap 53B, 2002 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。8.1.3 The rules developed in the Singapore courts do, nevertheless, bear a very close resembla nee to those developed un der

7、En glish commorhaw. In deed, where there is no Singapore authority specifically on point, it will usually be assumed that the position will, in the first instanee, 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.SECTI

8、ON 2 OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE約和承諾Agreement 協(xié)議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 asc

9、ertained 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)議條款涉及到當事人各自的權(quán)利義務(wù)并 且具有法律約束力。至于當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

10、析當事人是否達成協(xié)議的起點。Offer 要約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 acceptanee of these terms by the person to whomthe offer is made(the 'offeree ' ). Provided the other formation elements

11、 (ie consideration and intention to create legal relations) 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)，對要約的承諾會導致一個有效的合同。8.2.3 Whether any particular statement amounts to an of

12、fer depends on the intention with which it is made. An offer must be made with the intention to bebound. 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 o

13、bjective test, a person may be said tohave madean 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.一個特定的表述是否構(gòu)成要約有賴于表述的意旨。 要約

14、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 是在作出要約邀請。按照客觀標準，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8.2.4 An offer may be terminated by withdrawal at any time prior to its acceptance, provided there is communication, of the

15、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 reasonabl

16、e 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 kno wledge, death of either party term in ates any offer which has a pers onal eleme

17、 nt.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。對要約的拒絕導致要約失效，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，也會導致任何具有人 身因素的要約消滅。Acceptanee 承諾8.2.5 An offer is accepted by the uncon diti onal and unq ualified asse ntto

18、 its terms by the offeree. This asse nt maybe expressed through words or con duct, but cannot be in ferred from mere sile nee save in very excepti onal circumsta nces.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。8.2.6 As a gen eral rule, accepta nee must be com muni cated to the

19、offeror,although a limited exception exists where the acceptanee is sent by post and this method of com muni cati on is either expressly or impliedly authorised. This exception, known as the 'postal acceptanee rule' , stipulates that acceptaneetakes place at the point whe n the letter of acc

20、epta nee is posted, whether or notit 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。Certai nty 確定性8.2.7 Before the agreeme nt may be en forced as a eon tract, its terms mustbe sufficientlycertain. At th

21、e least, the essential terms of the agreement should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事方的行為、當事方之間已有的習慣作法、貿(mào)易慣 例或者合理標準來解決協(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)和節(jié)。Completeness 完整性8.2.8 An in complete agreeme nt also cannot amount to an en forceableeon tr

22、act. Agreeme nts made'subject to contract ' may be eon sidered in complete 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 推斷出的當事方的

23、意旨表明在正式合同或者進一步的協(xié)議達成之前， 當事方無意受到法律 拘束，則該協(xié)議為不完整的協(xié)議。Electronic Transactions Act 電子交易829The 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

24、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 mayalso be madein the form of an electronic

25、record (s 12). The ETAalso 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).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

26、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( 1 1)條)等文件的書面或簽字要求。SECTION 3 CONSIDERATION 對價Definition 定義8.3.1 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), reque

27、sted 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 somebenefit received by the promisor, or somedetriment to th

28、e promisee. This benefit/detrimentmayconsist of a counterpromise or a completed act.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8.3.2 The idea of reciprocity that u

29、nderlies 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 courtsdo not always adopt a strict chronologica

30、l 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8.3.3 Whether the

31、 consideration provided is sufficient is a question of law, and the court is not, as a general rule, concerned with whether the valueof 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

32、 not, without more, constitute sufficient consideration in law to support the promisor ' s promise. The performa nee of an exist ing obligati on that is owed contractually to the promisor is capable of being sufficient consideration, if sueh performanee eonfers a real and praetieal benefit on th

33、e promisor. If thepromisee performs or promises to perform an existing eontraetual obligation that is owedto a third party, the promisee will have furnished suffieient eonsideration at law to support a promise given in exehange.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

34、擔的即存責任在法律上 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8.3.4 Where the doetrine of promissory estoppel applies, a promise maybe binding notwithstanding that it is not supported by eonsideration. This doe

35、trine applies where a party to a eontraet makes an unequivoeal promise, whether by words or eonduet, that he or she will not insist on his or her striet legal rights under the eontraet, and the other party aets, and thereby alters his or her position, in relianee on the promise. The party making the

36、 promise eannot seek to enforee those rights if it would be inequitable to do so, although sueh rights may be reasserted upon the promisor giving reasonable notiee. The doetrine prevents the enforeement of existing rights, but does not ereate new eauses of aetion.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。

37、禁止反言 原則適用于下列情況， 即如果合同的一方當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。 如果因此可能導致不公平結(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 RELATION立 法律關(guān)系的意旨Contraetual Intention 合同意旨8.4.1 In the absenee of eontraetual intention, an agreement

38、, even ifsupported by eonsideration, eannot be enforeed. Whether the partiesto anagreement 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，一個協(xié)議即使有對價支持，也不能被執(zhí)行。協(xié)議的各當事方是否意圖 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。Comm

39、ercial Arrangements 商業(yè)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 o

40、f 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. 對商業(yè)情境中達成的協(xié)議， 法庭一般都會推定當事人具有受法律約束力的意旨

41、。 然而這個 推定可以被當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，而不是文件的標簽。Social Arrangements 社會安排8.4.3 The parties in domestic or social arrangements are generally presumed not to intend legal consequences.當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

42、 THE CONTRA合同條款Express Terms 明示條款The rights and obligations of contracting parties are determinedby 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 re

43、duced 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'inten ti on,the courts tak

44、e in to acco unt a nu mber of factors in cludi ng the stageof 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-a-vis the subject matter of the stateme nt.8.5.2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

45、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事方的意 圖，而這是一個事實問題。在確定當事人的意圖時，法庭要考慮諸多因素，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， 以及當事人各自具有的相對 于表述標的有關(guān)知識和技能。Oncethe terms of a contract have been determined, the court applies an objective test in construing or inte

46、rpreting the meaning of these terms. Whatis significant in this determination therefore is not the sense attributed byeither 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

47、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.合同條款一經(jīng)確定，法庭會適用一個客觀標準解釋條款的含義。在這種情況下，重要的 不是某個當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。8.5.3 Wh

48、ere 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 Evidenc

49、eAct (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 evidenee of any oral agreement or statement maybe admitte

50、d in evidenee 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 o

51、f all exceptions to the rule, or whether other common law exceptions not explicitly covered in s 94 continue to be applicable.如當事人已將合同表諸書面， 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。”因此，任何口頭協(xié)議或 表述都不能被作為證據(jù)去推翻

52、、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。8.5.4 It should, 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

53、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8.5.5 In addition to those expressly agreed terms, the court maysometimesimply 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。8.5.6 Gen erally, any term to be implied must not con tradict any express term of the con tract.總的來說，任何默示條款均

54、不得與合同的明示條款相抵觸。8.5.7 Where a term is implied to fill a gap in the con tractso as to giveeffect to the presumed in ten tio n of the parties, the term is implied in fact anddepe nds on a con siderati on of the Ian guage of the con tract as well as the surrounding circumstances. A term will be implied o

55、nly if it is so necessary that both parties must have in ten ded its in clusio n in the con tract. The fact that it would be reas on able to in clude the term is not sufficie nt for the implicati on, as the courts will not re-write the con tract 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)推定出來的當事人的意

56、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。 只有當情況如此必須而當事人必然曾經(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，因為法庭不會為當事人重寫合同。8.5.8 Terms may also be implied because this is required statutorily, or on public policy con sideratio ns. The terms implied by the Sale of Goods Act (Cap393, 1994

57、 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 Sin gapore courts, like their En glish coun terparts, may imp

58、ly 'default'terms into specific classes of con tracts to give effect to policies that defi ne the con tractual relatio nships that arise out of those con tracts.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

59、省”條款默示進合同以保持公共政策對合同關(guān)系的限制，這也并非不 可想象的。Classification of Terms合同條款的分類8.5.9 The terms of a con tractmay be classified intocon diti ons,warra nties or in termediate (or innomin ate)terms. Proper classificatio nisimporta nt as it determ ines whether the con tract may be discharged or termi nated合同條款可以分為條件(con ditio ns)，擔保(warra ntie