新加坡合同法(The Law of Contract)--最新中英文版(ACCA考生整理)

1、The Law of Contract（新加坡合同法）SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 導(dǎo)論 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, Singapore´s Parliament made no attempt to codif

2、y Singapore´s 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(dú)立之后并沒有試圖編纂新加坡的合同法，因此

3、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。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). The

4、se 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 Consum

5、er Protection (Fair Trading) Act (Cap 52A, 2004 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(gè)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(

6、 Rights of Third 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(fèi)者保護(hù)（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 r

7、esemblance 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(gè)問題新加坡本身沒有權(quán)威規(guī)則

8、時(shí)，人們就會(huì)理所當(dāng)然地首先假定新加坡的立場(chǎng)同英國法的立場(chǎng)沒有什么區(qū)別. SECTION 2 OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE要約和承諾 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 p

9、arties 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

10、當(dāng)事人之間是否達(dá)成協(xié)議，或合意（consensus ad idem）, 應(yīng)通過對(duì)事實(shí)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(dá)成協(xié)議的起點(diǎn)。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 acceptance of these terms by the p

11、erson 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. 一個(gè)要約即是“要約人”發(fā)出的一項(xiàng)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

12、要素亦得滿足（如對(duì)價(jià)和設(shè)立法律關(guān)系的意旨），對(duì)要約的承諾會(huì)導(dǎo)致一個(gè)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

13、 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

14、bound by the acceptance of the alleged offer, even if that person in fact had no such intention. 一個(gè)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要約邀請(qǐng)。按照客觀標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，如果某人的表述（或者行為）致使一個(gè)通情達(dá)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(shí)際上沒有此種意旨，他也被認(rèn)為是發(fā)出了一項(xiàng)要約。Termination of Offer要約終止8.2.

15、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

16、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 o

17、f being accepted by the offeree. Even in the absence of such knowledge, death of either party terminates any offer which has a personal element. 要約在承諾之前的任何時(shí)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(duì)要約的拒絕導(dǎo)致要約失效，這包括發(fā)出反要約或者改變?cè)s的條款。如要約對(duì)時(shí)效沒有明確規(guī)定，則該要約在合理時(shí)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(shí)來分析。如果要約人死亡且此事實(shí)已為受要約人

18、知曉，則要約就不能夠被后者接受。任何一方死亡的事實(shí)，即使不為他方知曉，也會(huì)導(dǎo)致任何具有人身因素的要約消滅。Acceptance承諾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 ex

19、ceptional circumstances. 受要約人對(duì)要約條款無條件和無保留的同意構(gòu)成對(duì)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(rèn)為是同意。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

20、 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(gè)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(rèn)為是或者明確或

21、者默示地許可的，則構(gòu)成一項(xiàng)例外。這個(gè)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(shí)際上收到，承諾均告生效。Certainty確定性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 res

22、olve 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, see P

23、aragraphs 8.5.5 to 8.5.8 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(zhǔn)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(xì)節(jié)的成文法規(guī)定也可以用來填補(bǔ)協(xié)議條款的空白。關(guān)于條款的問題，可進(jìn)一步參見第8.5.5節(jié)和8.5.8節(jié)。Completeness完整性8.2.8     An incomplete agreement also cannot am

24、ount 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. 不完整的協(xié)議不能構(gòu)成具有執(zhí)行力的合同。如

25、果協(xié)議規(guī)定“以合同為準(zhǔn)”，且由事實(shí)可推斷出的當(dāng)事方的意旨表明在正式合同或者進(jìn)一步的協(xié)議達(dá)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。Electronic Transactions Act電子交易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

26、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 parti

27、es 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). 電子交易法（Cap 88, 1999年修正）闡明，電子記錄可

28、用來在合同訂立過程中表述要約或者對(duì)要約的承諾（見第11條），但是這不適用于對(duì)遺囑、流通票據(jù)、債券、委托聲明或授權(quán)書、不動(dòng)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 CONSIDERATION  對(duì)價(jià) Definition定義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

29、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 coul

30、d 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. 一項(xiàng)允諾，如果不為對(duì)價(jià)支持或者不由書面蓋印作出，則不具法律執(zhí)行力。對(duì)價(jià)是（法律界定的）某種價(jià)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(duì)前項(xiàng)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

31、承受的某種損害。這種利益/損害可以表現(xiàn)為對(duì)待允諾或者已完成的行為。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

32、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(duì)價(jià)要求之中的是互惠關(guān)系這一原則，它要求對(duì)價(jià)和允諾之間有某種原因關(guān)系。因此，對(duì)價(jià)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(yán)格地忠實(shí)于這種以時(shí)間先后為準(zhǔn)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

33、 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 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 commensur

34、ate 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 promisor´s promise. The performance of an existing obligation that is owed contract

35、ually 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

36、consideration at law to support a promise given in exchange. 對(duì)價(jià)是否充足是個(gè)法律上的問題。作為一般原則，法庭并不關(guān)心對(duì)價(jià)的價(jià)值是否與允諾的價(jià)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(fù)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(duì)價(jià)。向允諾人履行既存的合同責(zé)任可以成為充足對(duì)價(jià)，但條件是該履約行為可以為允諾人帶來真正實(shí)際的利益。如果受允諾人履行或允諾履行既存合同項(xiàng)下對(duì)第三人的義務(wù)，則認(rèn)為受允諾人依法提供了支持允諾的充足對(duì)價(jià)。Promissory Estoppel禁止反言8.3.4   &

37、#160; 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

38、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

39、reasonable notice. The doctrine prevents the enforcement of existing rights, but does not create new causes of action. 即使沒有對(duì)價(jià)支持，一項(xiàng)允諾也可能因?yàn)榻狗囱栽瓌t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(huì)嚴(yán)格堅(jiān)持自己在合同項(xiàng)下的法律權(quán)利，而另一方本著對(duì)這個(gè)許諾的信賴而采取行動(dòng)改變了自己的狀況。如果因此可能導(dǎo)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

40、這些權(quán)利可以被重新主張。 SECTION 4 INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATIONS設(shè)立法律關(guān)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 l

41、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(gè)協(xié)議即使有對(duì)價(jià)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(duì)相關(guān)事實(shí)的客觀評(píng)估而確定。Commercial Arrangements商業(yè)安排8.4.2 In the case of agreements in a commercial context, the courts will generally

42、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 ult

43、imate 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(duì)商業(yè)情境中達(dá)成的協(xié)議，法庭一般都會(huì)推定當(dāng)事人具有受法律約束力的意旨。然而這個(gè)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(duì)他們所用的語言和所有相關(guān)事實(shí)的客觀評(píng)估，而不是文件的標(biāo)簽。&#

44、160;Social Arrangements社會(huì)安排8.4.3     The parties in domestic or social arrangements are generally presumed not to intend legal consequences. 當(dāng)事人在家庭或社會(huì)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合同條款 Express Terms明示條款8.5.1     The

45、 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

46、 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

47、 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-à-vis 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(rèn)定合同的條款來確定，其次通過對(duì)條款的解釋來確定。在確定合同條款是有時(shí)有必要認(rèn)定某

48、一個(gè)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(shí)。某項(xiàng)表述是否具有合同性質(zhì)有賴于客觀認(rèn)定的當(dāng)事方的意圖，而這是一個(gè)事實(shí)問題。在確定當(dāng)事人的意圖時(shí)，法庭要考慮諸多因素，包括表述作出時(shí)交易所進(jìn)行到的階段，受表述人對(duì)該表述所賦予的重要性，以及當(dāng)事人各自具有的相對(duì)于表述標(biāo)的有關(guān)知識(shí)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 th

49、e 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 wi

50、thin 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(huì)適用一個(gè)客觀標(biāo)準(zhǔn)解釋條款的含義。在這種情況下，重要的不是某個(gè)當(dāng)事方對(duì)合同用語所賦予的含義，而是一個(gè)通情達(dá)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(shí)所處的事實(shí)網(wǎng)絡(luò)，因?yàn)檫@能幫助確定一個(gè)通情達(dá)理的人會(huì)如何理解合同語言。8.5.3  

51、  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

52、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 m

53、ay 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 exhausti

54、ve statement of all exceptions to the rule, or whether other common law exceptions not explicitly covered in s 94 continue to be applicable. 如當(dāng)事人已將合同表諸書面，無論是口頭還是書面作出的某個(gè)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（Cap 97, 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?，

55、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(duì)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(zhēng)議的。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. 應(yīng)該提到的事，

56、第93條和94條的適用范圍在某些情況下被國會(huì)有所限制。見第   章與消費(fèi)者保護(hù)（公平交易）法（Cap 52A, 2004 修正）第17條有關(guān)的消費(fèi)者保護(hù)規(guī)則。 Implied Terms默示條款8.5.5     In addition to those expressly agreed terms, the court may sometimes imply terms into the contract. 在上述明確表示的條款之外，法庭有時(shí)還可以為合同添加默示條款。8.5.6   

57、  Generally, any term to be implied must not contradict any express term 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。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

58、 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 f

59、or the implication, as the courts will not re-write the contract for the parties. 如果某個(gè)條款被默示出來的目的是為了填補(bǔ)合同的空白以體現(xiàn)推定出來的當(dāng)事人的意圖，這個(gè)條款即屬于事實(shí)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(gè)條款納進(jìn)合同時(shí)，該條款才會(huì)被默示進(jìn)來。僅僅因?yàn)槿绻麑⒛硞€(gè)條款包括進(jìn)合同是合乎情理的這個(gè)事實(shí)還不足以使它成為默示條款，因?yàn)榉ㄍゲ粫?huì)為當(dāng)事人重寫合同。8.5.8     Terms may al

60、so 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, whi

61、lst 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. 默示條款的成立也可以是因?yàn)槌晌姆ǖ囊?，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(jìn)合同以保持公共政策對(duì)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 t