1、2015年5月19日北京楊良宜2/12/2022國際商業與英美合同法/商法孫子兵法攻謀篇：“知己知彼，百戰不殆；不知彼而知己，一勝一負；不知彼不知己，每戰必殆。”2/12/2022國際商業與英美合同法/商法什么是“彼”？2/12/2022國際商業與英美合同法/商法英美合同法/商法全面、合理、合乎邏輯、配合實際與有可行性、肯定性以及可預測性的游戲規則培養出一套適合商貿活動的有組織的常識與思維2/12/2022國際商業與英美合同法/商法Senator Linie GMBH & Co KG v Sunway Line, Inc., 291 F 3d 145 (2d Cir. 2002), Sotom

2、ayor Circuit Judge said：in matters of commercial law our decisions should conform to the English decisions, in the absence of some rule of public policy which would forbid.2/12/20222/12/2022默示條文法律的默示法律的默示事實的默示事實的默示其他 的名稱General default rules（這名稱也顯示了它是一般適用在某一個類別的合約，而且是在沒有明示條文針對的情況下）Ad hoc gap-fillers

3、（這名稱也顯示了它是隨意去填補個別合約中的漏洞，隨意也表示了不是一般適用而只是在個別合約中的不同情況）適用普遍適用在某種類別的合約關系，例如是貨物買賣（1979年貨物銷售法與一些普通法的默示）或是房東與住客之間（Liverpool City Council v. Irwin 1977 A.C. 239 等先例），仲裁協議的機密（ AliShipping Corporation v. Shipyard Trogir 1998 1 Lloyds Rep 643等先例）。假設雙方應該有的訂約意圖但沒有在合約內明示規定或針對的情況，法院/仲裁庭必須小心不去改寫合約，而只有滿足了一些嚴格的考驗才去能作出

4、默示。這只能是適用在個別的合約而不能去普遍性的適用在同樣類別的合約關系。考驗標準不是根據雙方的訂約意圖，也不要求“必須”（necessary） 令個別合約有“商業效力”（business efficacy） 而是根據一些較“廣泛的考慮”（wider consideration）例如是政策考慮或從整體看是合理。通常訂約方如果不喜歡某一個法律默示的條文，可去以明示條文否定或超越。要求“必須”（necessary）去增加這一個事實默示才能令合約有一個完整的說法與可以順利履行，即給予“商業效力”（business efficacy）。光是合理或不合理是不足去作出這一種默示。案例Eichholz v.

5、Bannister (1864) 144 ER 284; Liverpool City Council v. Irwin (1977) A.C. 239等The “Moorcock” (1889) 14 P.D. 64等2/12/2022明示條文與默示條文的關系明示條文超越默示條文以明示條文改變默示地位，除非涉及公共政策2/12/2022事實的默示合理時間履行的時間履行的期限有關中國的重要案件履行的做法：要求一方作出通知（例如商品買賣合約下的裝港通知/派船通知等，備妥裝貨通知，不可抗力事項通知等）2/12/2022法律的默示：貨物/商品買賣合約付運買賣合約下運輸風險的轉移賣方擁有出售的有關貨物

6、的主權與轉移給買方貨物沒有債務與押記買方可寧靜地占有該貨物貨物是否對版、滿意質量與適合買方用途時間規定默示是重要：Bunge v Tradax (1980)2/12/2022The importance of the international sale contract The sale contract and its terms (express 明示 or imply 默示) will determine:1) The type of transportation, the terms of that transportation contract or contracts, and

7、the identity of the charterer.2) The payment method3) The insurance and the terms of insurance contract or policyTypes of contracts of shipment sale/documentary salesThere are many different types of contract of sale. The following are examples:Ex ShipFOB (Free On Board)CIF (Cost, Insurance, Freight

8、)Ex ShipIt is the duty of the seller to provide the goods and to assume the cost and risk of transportation to the buyers place of receipt.FOB (Free On Board)Straight FOB; Classic FOB (班輪運輸); Extended FOB等不同做法In Straight FOB, it is the duty of the buyer to collect the goods at the loading port or pl

9、ace of delivery nominated by the seller, to transport it to the discharge port and to insure it during the transportation.CIF (Cost, Insurance, Freight)It is the duty of the seller to provide the goods (C for cost), to provide insurance for it during the transit (I for insurance) and to transport it

10、 to the buyer (F for freight).賣方以付運文件去作出證明，并盡快交出給買方。James Finlay & Co. v Kwik Hoo Tong HM (1929) 1 KB 400先例，Scrutton大法官說：“ that the goods may be lost before the documents are tendered and before the property has passed.”INCOTERMS 2010Any Mode or Modes of TransportEXWEx WorksFCAFree CarrierCPTCarriag

11、e Paid ToCIPCarriage and Insurance PaidDATDelivered at TerminalDAPDelivered at Place (NB! Equivalent to DES)DDPDelivered Duty PaidSea and Inland Waterways Transport OnlyFASFree Alongside ShipFOBFree on BoardCFRCost and FreightCIFCost, Insurance and Freight買賣合約下作出的承諾的法律默示地位合約下作出的承諾是絕對的責任：Paradine v J

12、ane (1647) 85 ER 897合約承諾是嚴格責任的說法：合約受阻（frustration）Taylor v Caldwell (1863) 122 ER 309英國法律不認同不可抗力可以不履行或延誤履行合約的說法，除非有明示條文才會去解釋合約并給與雙方訂約意圖.這方面的詳盡解釋可參閱合約的解釋：規則與應用的第十三章。不可抗力條文倫敦食糖商會擬定的標準格式合約Refined Sugar Association Contract之第17條的不可抗力條文如下：“Force MajeureShould EEC legislation, government intervention, ice

13、, war, strikes, rebellion, political or labour-disturbance, civil commotion, fire, stress of weather, act of God or any cause of force Majeure (whether or not of like kind to these before mentioned) beyond the Sellers control prevent directly or indirectly within the delivery period stated in the co

14、ntract: (a) the supply or delivery in whole or in part of the sugar allocated or to be allocated by the Seller against the contract, or (b) the means of transport declared or to be declared for loading the sugar and the Seller or his agent be unable to supply other means of transport of equal charac

15、ter to enable him to effect delivery within the contract period,the Seller shall immediately advise the Buyer by cable or by teleprinter of such fact and the quantity so affected and the delivery period shall be extended by 45 days. If the Seller is prevented from advising immediately through the ci

16、rcumstances beyond his control he shall notify the Buyer as soon as possible. If the delivery is still prevented by the end of the extended period, the contract shall be void for such quantity without penalty payable or receivable.”不可抗力條文上述條文對賣方無法在付運期內提供貨物作出保障，但不針對買方無法履行的情況，例如買方無法開出信用證或進口有關貨物（例如在200

17、4年中國禁止進口巴西紅豆事件，導致大量中國進口商被國際貿易商在倫敦起訴并索賠龐大金額，多家進口商倒閉）。這種情況即使涉及天意或政府干預，也通常不會令買賣合約受阻。運輸風險轉移的法律默示地位涉及付運買賣合約的運輸風險是在買方(一連串買賣就是最后一位買方）頭上，通常貨物裝船后賣方對貨物的風險就轉移給買方。這法律默示地位是根據商人的慣常做法（由買方投保去轉移風險或CIF買賣由賣方交出正本保單）、合理性、可行性與肯定性: Fragano v. Long (1825) 4 B&C 219。相關的法律默示條文之一相關的法律默示條文之一：CIF賣方必須提供給買方一個持續性的文件保障，這文件包括了全程保單或保

18、險證明與承運人要負責的全程提單，仍讓買方可去向保險人或承運人索賠損失運輸所造成的損失。在Hansson v Hamel and Horley Ltd (1922) 2 AC 36先例，法院判是: “a cif seller must cover the buyer by procuring and tendering documents which will be available for his protection for shipment to destination.”運輸風險轉移的法律默示地位相關的法律默示條文之二相關的法律默示條文之二：CIF賣方必須提供給買方一份慣常（usual

19、）的全程保單，不論買方是否需要。什么是慣常保單是根據有關的買賣與貿易，例如只是投保貨物全損會對某些貨物是慣常但對大部分貨物并不足夠。對慣常保單的要求也導致其他的不明確，例如是否包括戰爭險。會有情況是付運時并非是慣常投保戰爭險，但航次中或賣方交出文件時變了慣常：C Groom Ltd v Barber (1915) 1 KB 316。相關的法律默示條文之三相關的法律默示條文之三：CFR與FOB買賣下賣方有嚴格責任去及時通知買方貨物裝船，讓買方及時投保，否則風險不轉移。Wimble, Sons & Co. v Rosenberg (1913) 3 KB 743; 1979年貨物銷售法之Sectio

20、n 32(3)相關的法律默示條文之四相關的法律默示條文之四：即使貨物主權仍是由賣方保留，風險的轉移足夠讓買方有投保利益。運輸風險轉移的法律默示地位相關的法律默示條文之五相關的法律默示條文之五： 持續性的文件保障針對付運的要求是：(1) 正常的航次與習慣性航線；(2)適合的船舶；(3)買方有法律的權利去針對承運人。CIF賣方必須準備有關貨物與租用一艘適合的船舶可以在一個正常的航次與一般的情況下令貨物能夠維持可商售情況（在1979年貨物銷售法改為滿意情況）直到卸港。在Evanhelinos v Leslie & Anderson (1920) 4 Ll L Rep 17先例，法院判是：“The s

21、ellers were under an obligation to ship the goods in such a condition as would enable the goods to arrive at their destination on a normal voyage, and under normal conditions, in merchantable condition.”運輸風險轉移的法律默示地位但這個默示地位必須與由買方承擔運輸風險的法律地位協調，因此在The Mercini Lady (2011) 1 Lloyds Rep 442先例，上訴庭判：“ the

22、implied condition of satisfactory quality applies only at the time of delivery, and is a fixed point or prospective warranty only, and not a continuing one, and that is how Mash & Murrell is to be understand.”這表示CIF賣方只要租用一艘適合船舶 (The Rio Sun 1985 1 Lloyds Rep.350)，交貨時估計貨物可以安全抵達卸港運輸中貨物的變質仍是買方的風險。什么是習慣

23、性航線? 買賣合約要求直航但提單有廣泛的自由條文或繞航條文，會可讓買方拒單。但買賣合約沒有明示要求的情況下，地位不明確。有說法是普通法與海牙規則已明確針對不合理繞航，沒有必要再去讓買方拒單。運輸風險轉移的法律默示地位相關的法律默示條文之六相關的法律默示條文之六: 即使在運輸途中貨物已經知道全損或失去，買方還是必須向賣方支付貨款: Manbre Saccharine Co. Ltd. v. Corn Products Co. Ltd. (1919) 1 KB 198; The Salem (1982) 1 Lloyds Rep.369。明示條文改變風險轉移帶來的爭議例子一例子一：條文說貨價的支付

24、最終以卸港的交貨量作出調整（Seng v Glencore Grain 1996 1 Lloyds Rep 396）或是卸港發生短卸，賣方要退還有關貨款（Produce Brokers New Company 1924 Ltd v Wray, Sanderson & Co. Ltd 1931 39 TLR 257）等。例子二例子二：合約規定了貨物抵達卸港日期（The “Wise” 1989 1 Lloyds Rep 96），甚至使用了賣方保證等措辭（The “Julia” 1949 82 Lloyds Rep 270），或訂明貨物到達卸港才支付全部或余額貨款（Dupont v British

25、South Africa Co. 1901 18 TLR 24）。例子三例子三：合約規定在卸港對貨物進行共同檢查。貨物主權轉移的法律默示地位1979年貨物銷售法之Section 12(1)默示賣方有權去出售貨物，顯示了賣方必須有貨物主權。Section 12(2)(a)與Section 12(4)默示貨物沒有訂約前不告訴買方的押記與債務。Section 12(2)(b)與Section 12(5)默示買方可以寧靜享用貨物。貨物主權轉移的重要性：對貨物的權利（rights in rem)與對人的權利（rights in personam)的分別。針對侵占貨物的立法：1977年Torts (Int

26、erference with Goods) Act。買賣雙方破產帶來的風險。英國法律沒有刻意去針對買賣雙方其中一方欺詐的風險。貨物主權轉移的法律默示地位1979年貨物銷售法之Section 17針對現貨，貨物主權從賣方轉移去買方是完全根據雙方的訂約意圖。保留貨權條文之“Romalpa Clause”。Section 18 Rule 5針對將來貨物（付運買賣的貨物）主權轉讓：(1)Where there is a contract for the sale of unascertained or future goods by description, and goods of that des

27、cription and in a deliverable state are unconditionally appropriated to the contract, either by the seller with the assent of the buyer or by the buyer with the assent of the seller, the property in the goods then passes to the buyer; and the assent may be express or implied, and may be given either

28、 before or after the appropriation is made.(2)Where, in pursuance of the contract, the seller delivers the goods to the buyer or to a carrier or other bailee or custodier (whether named by the buyer or not) for the purpose of transmission to the buyer, and does not reserve the right of disposal, he

29、is to be taken to have unconditionally appropriated the goods to the contract.貨物主權轉移的法律默示地位付運買賣的賣方通過簽發不記名提單顯示他保留處置貨物的權利。1979年貨物銷售法之Section 19(2)規定 “where goods are shipped, and by the bill of lading the goods are deliverable to the order of the seller or his agent, the seller is prima facie to be ta

30、ken to reserve the right of disposal.” 賣方通常只會在信用證結匯或向買方交單時可以取得貨款才會在提單背書與交出貨物主權給買方。FOB買賣下簽發不記名提單也有同樣結果: Mitsui & Co. Ltd v Flota Mercante Grancolombiana SA (1988) 1 WLR 1145。付運買賣下貨物風險的轉移與貨物主權的轉移并不一致。付運買賣如果賣方簽發記名提單或海運單會被視為是無條件劃歸（unconditionally appropriated）并把貨物主權轉移給買方。賣方會需要在買賣合約中有Romalpa Clause才能保留貨權

31、。貨物是否對版、質量與適合性的默示法律地位/條文針對現貨，法律默示地位是買方自己小心（caveat emptor）。這是因為除非賣方涉及了誤述或其他不法行為（這法律另有默示地位針對），買家自己小心是合理與實際的說法。針對將來貨物，法律默示地位是賣方將來交付貨物時有針對貨物是否對版、質量與適合性的以下保證或默示條件條文：1979年貨物銷售法之Section 13(1)：“Where there is a contract for the sale of goods by description, there is an implied that the goods will correspond

32、 with the description.” Section 13(2)對根據樣品進行買賣有同樣的要求。貨物是否對版、質量與適合性的默示法律地位針對將來貨物，法律默示地位是賣方將來交付貨物時有針對貨物是否對版、質量與適合性的以下保證或默示條件條文：1979年貨物銷售法之Section 14(2):Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory qual

33、ity.(2A)For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.(2B)For the purposes of this Act,

34、the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods(a)fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied,(b)appearance and finish,(c)freedom from minor defects,(d)saf

35、ety, and(e)durability.The term implied by subsection (2) above does not extend to any matter making the quality of goods unsatisfactory(a)which is specifically drawn to the buyers attention before the contract is made,(b)where the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, which that exam

36、ination ought to reveal, or(c)in the case of a contract for sale by sample, which would have been apparent on a reasonable examination of the sample.貨物是否對版、質量與適合性的默示法律地位針對將來貨物，法律默示地位是賣方將來交付貨物時有針對貨物是否對版、質量與適合性的以下保證或默示條件條文：1979年貨物銷售法之Section 14(3): Where the seller sells goods in the course of a busin

37、ess and the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known(a)to the seller, or(b)where the purchase price or part of it is payable by instalments and the goods were previously sold by a credit-broker to the seller, to that credit-broker,any particular purpose for which the goods are being bought, t

38、here is an implied that the goods supplied under the contract are reasonably fit for that purpose, whether or not that is a purpose for which such goods are commonly supplied, except where the circumstances show that the buyer does not rely, or that it is unreasonable for him to rely, on the skill o

39、r judgment of the seller or credit-broker.貨物是否對版、質量與適合性的默示法律地位為減低默示條件條文的苛刻性，1979年貨物銷售法加入了“de minimis”的說法，但這也帶來一定程度的不肯定。Section 15A (1)-(3)規定：1) Where in the case of a contract of sale(a)the buyer would, apart from this subsection, have the right to reject goods by reason of a breach on the part of t

40、he seller of a term implied by section 13, 14 or 15（這是針對將來貨物以樣品買賣） above, but(b)the breach is so slight that it would be unreasonable for him to reject them, then, if the buyer does not deal as consumer, the breach is not to be treated as a breach of condition but may be treated as a breach of warra

41、nty.(2)This section applies unless a contrary intention appears in, or is to be implied from, the contract.(3)It is for the seller to show that a breach fell within subsection (1)(b) above.貨物是否對版、質量與適合性的默示法律地位條件條文（不論是明示或默示）苛刻性在于受害方（買方）可以索賠損失外，另有選擇權去終止合約。由于商品買賣涉及高昂的金額與市場波動很大，導致精明的買方有了權力去終止合約肯定會在適當時機（

42、主要是市場下跌或是賣方可以欺負）去行使。條件條文除了在1979年貨物銷售法的規定外，在普通法不存在進一步的“de minimis”的區分。精明的買方在適當時機去終止合約通常就是通過拒貨，拒貨的理由主要是賣方違反了上述的默示條件條文。例如買方可以根據倒簽提單（即使已經順利結匯，這會是買方還不知道倒簽，或結匯時商品市場還是平穩）為由拒貨，因為貨物不符合描述：Bowes v Shand (1877) 2 App. Cas. 455.貨物是否對版、質量與適合性的默示法律地位但是通常貨物是否有滿意質量與適合性是需要提供買方一個合理機會檢查貨物才能確定。這一個默示法律地位是在1979年貨物銷售法之Sect

43、ion 34有規定：Unless otherwise agreed, when the seller tenders delivery of goods to the buyer, he is bound on request to afford the buyer a reasonable opportunity of examining the goods for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are in conformity with the contract F34and, in the case of a contract for

44、 sale by sample, of comparing the bulk with the sample.在國際貨物買賣，這合理機會通常只會在卸港而不在裝港（例如貨物有包裝或要求買方去裝港檢查不合理與不實際）。但在卸港檢查后被拒貨，往往會給外國賣方帶來巨大的損失，或被買方敲竹杠。因此國際貨物買賣合約中越來越多會加入一條裝港檢查為終條文。這在合約的解釋：規則與應用一書第十四章之1.5段有詳細介紹。有不少國際貿易商作為賣方堅持這種條文。時間規定是否重要英國法律的默示地位是時間規定不視為是重要，不是條件條文，除非：合約明示規定是重要；合約的性質與周邊環境顯示時間是重要。這在合約的解釋：規則與應用

45、一書第十章有詳細介紹。在The “Hongkong Fir” (1961) 2 Lloyds Rep 478中，貴族院創立出一種新的中間條文，這使得時間規定是否重要變得更加不肯定。Bunge v Tradax SA (1981) 2 Lloyds Rep 1先例，貴族院明確了商業合約的時間規定被視為重要: In mercantile contracts, where it is of importance that the parties should know precisely what their obligations are and be able to act with confi

46、dence in the legal results of their actions, the courts will readily construe a stipulation as to time as a condition of the contract。時間規定是否重要國際貨物買賣合約中的時間規定被視為是重要：指定裝港、卸港的時間： Bunge v Tradax (1981) 2 LLR 1指定船舶的時間貨物付運的時間： Bowes v Shand (1877) 2 App. Cas. 455 ; Ashmore & Son v. C S Cox & Co. (1899) 1 Q

47、B 436 (延長付運期條文的重要，倒簽提單的惡習與愚蠢行為） 船舶預計抵達裝港或卸港通知的時間 ：Nova Petroleum Intl Establishment v. Tricon Trading Ltd. (1989) 1 LLR 312開出信用證的時間：Bunge v. Vegetable Vitamin (1985) 1 LLR 613; Sohio Supply Co. v. Gatoil (1989) 1 LLR 588時間規定是否重要國際貨物買賣合約中的時間規定被視為是重要：作出不可抗力事項（如果合約有不可抗力條文）通知的時間作出劃歸/裝船通知的時間：The Post Cha

48、ser (1981) 2 LLR 695提出貨損時限與其他通知：Bremer v Vanden (1978) 2 LLR 109（時間規定是否重要的3個重要指引）交出合法與有效付運單證給買方或結匯的時間或法律默示的盡快交出: Sanders v. Maclean (1883) 11 QBD 317; Sharpe (C ) Co. Ltd. v. Nosawa (1917) 2 KB 814; Concordia v. Richco (1991) 1 LLR 475買賣合約時間規定是重要的例外1979年貨物銷售法有關買方支付貨款的時間規定之Section 10(1)：“Unless a dif

49、ferent intention appears from the terms of the contract, stipulations as to time of payment are not of the essence of a contract of sale.”但根據Section 48(3)，賣方可以作出通知使得時間變為重要:“Where the goods are of a perishable nature, or where the unpaid seller gives notice to the buyer of his intention to re-sell, a

50、nd the buyer does not within a reasonable time pay or tender the price, the unpaid seller may re-sell the goods and recover from the original buyer damages for any loss occasioned by his breach of contract.”這方面的詳盡解釋可參閱合約的解釋：規則與應用的第十章。買賣合約時間規定是重要的例外裝卸時間的延誤，很難想象法律會默示這是重要，因為是完全不合理、不現實與無法操作。現實中買賣合約同意固定裝

51、卸時間，就會同時同意滯期費。滯期費是議定損失，這等于買賣雙方已經約定了這種時間規定的違約的救濟或后果。如果沒有固定裝卸時間規定，法律默示是FOB賣方或CIF買方必須在合理時間內完成裝卸作業。至于合理時間是多長，這是根據事實的默示（implied by facts）。即使沒有去同意滯期費，法律也不會默示超出了合理時間是重要，會只是作出延誤損失賠償的救濟。Jupiter 條文對貨源不穩定裝港的重要性買賣合約的其他法律默示地位英國法律下無數的有關國際貨物/商品買賣的先例對會出現的千變萬化并且沒有明示條文規定的情況都有了說法，這也就是法律默示的地位。例子一例子一：FOB買方派遣的船舶必須在抵達與備妥裝

52、貨時向賣方作出準備就緒通知（NOR），但形式不拘，賣方才有責任開始裝貨并在固定裝貨時間與付運期內完成裝貨。可參閱合約的解釋：規則與應用第七章之10.1段，履約需要對方先給通知。例子二例子二：FOB賣方或CIF/CFR買方不得不合作或犯錯導致對方無法履行。例如，船舶進不了裝港或卸港：The “Aello” (1960) 1 Lloyds Rep 623 。可參閱合約的解釋：規則與應用第七章之10.2與10.3段。買賣合約的其他法律默示地位例子三例子三：國際商會的Incoterms (2000 )(latest 2010)基本是與英國法律的默示地位一致，是否被明示合并在買賣合約并不重要，只要該買賣

53、合約的適用法是英國法，就會有更全面與詳盡的默示地位。針對FOB與CIF，Incoterms (2000)之A5條文有關風險轉移是“the seller must, subject to the provisions of B5, bear all risks of loss of or damage to the goods until such time as they have passed the ships rail at the named port of shipment.” 與B5條文（CIF）“the buyer must bear all risks of loss of o

54、r damage to the goods from the time they have passed the ships rail at the named port of shipment.”2/12/2022法律的默示：雇傭合約限制商貿/就業契約/條文（restrain covenant）商業競爭激烈一般不能執行，除非是合理有關的“約因/對價”（consideration）職務的高低雙方的談判力量2/12/2022法律的默示：雇傭合約機密義務Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler (1987) Ch. 117先例三類資料本質上輕微或是可以輕易從公開資料找到，不會被當

55、作是機密資料第二種類的資料是員工在職時，掌握這些資料時必須以機密對待，不得外泄，但一掌握后，這些資料也變了是該員工的“技術與知識”(skill and knowledge)一部份第三種類的資料是特定的商業機密/秘密，只能是由原雇主享有，則離職員工仍不能去外泄雙方有一個“相互信任的關系”（trust of confidence）2/12/20222/12/2022合約責任：復原或賠償大原則46履約指令 (Specific Performance)Compensatory Principle (restitutio in integrum): 復原或賠償大原則第一合約責任：履行合約承諾；第二合約責

56、任：以賠償金錢損失讓受害方恢復至合約被履行的地位合約責任：復原或賠償大原則47針對的是受害方的損失，而非違約方的利益交出利潤（account for profit ）與返還性損失（restitutionary damages)返還性損失的先例：Attorney General v. Blake 2001 1 AC 268損失賠償的范圍48所有造成的損失均需要賠償，但不必多賠，并只根據最低合約履行責任計算金錢損失。懲罰性賠償/條文不被承認。損失賠償的局限（i）損失的遙遠性（remoteness of damages）之合理預見（reasonably foreseeable 或 within re

57、asonable contemplation）（ii）損失的遙遠性之因果關系（causation）（iii）減少損失的義務（mitigation）（i）損失的遙遠性之合理預見49合約關系的先例：Hadley v. Baxendale 1854 9 Ex. 341；Victoria Laundry v. Newman Industries 1949 2 K.B. 528 訂約時的應該知情：a)根據雙方的行業與專業，雙方都應該知道，或b)違約方確實知道并可視為是愿意接收風險，通常是通過受害方的告知（i）損失的遙遠性之合理預見50侵權的先例： The “Wagon Mound” 1961 1 Llo

58、yds Rep 1“Egg-shell Skull + Shabby Millionaire Principle”貧窮（Poverty） (與因果關系也相關）（ii）損失的遙遠性之因果關系51新介入事件或行為中斷違約/侵權與損失的因果關系外來事件或行為與受害方行為的差異（ii）損失的遙遠性之因果關系52有關先例a)產生貨損但承租人不卸貨導致額外的滯期費 The “Andra” 2 2012 Lloyds Rep.587b)撤船后的B/L履行 The “Tropwind” (No. 2) 1981 1 Lloyds Rep. 45 The “Kos” 2012 UKSC 17c)修理中罷工增加損

59、失The “Mineral Transporter” 1985 2 Lloyds Rep 303（ii）損失的遙遠性之因果關系53d)受害方受傷后作出冒險的行為或拒絕接受醫療或在醫院受到感染 Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969) 1 QB 428(砒霜中毒）e)1990年海灣戰爭期間伊拉克對科威特公司飛機的侵占 Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company 2003 1 Lloyds Rep 448f)新加坡巴林銀行倒閉事件 Baring

60、s Plc (In Liquidation) v Coopers & Lybrand (A Firm) 2003 EWHC 1319 (Ch)因果不明的情況：英國的立法針對受害方患上“間皮瘤”（mesothelioma）（iii）減少損失的義務54寬松態度對待受害方的“責任”新要約（re-offer） 的好處受害方不需要扣減的的好處：a)受害方事前的投保b)受害方事前訂立的合約c)第三人的幫助或饋贈對沖合約，Baltic Index，無論實際損失是增加還是減少，均予以考慮。明示條文/做法以限制責任55國際法上只有船舶的責任限制有限責任公司特殊目的機構/公司（SPV）中資公司面對的危機明示條文/