新加坡合同法(The Law of Contract)--最新中英文版(ACCA考生整理(2)

当事人在家庭或社会交往中所作出的安排一般被推定为不具有产生法律后果的意图。

SECTION 5 TERMS OF THE CONTRACT合同条款

Express Terms明示条款

8.5.1 The 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 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 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.

合同缔约方的权利义务首先应通过认定合同的条款来确定，其次通过对条款的解释来确定。在确定合同条款是有时有必要认定某一个表述到底是合同条款还是仅仅是一般陈述，尤其是当合同尚未见诸书面时。某项表述是否具有合同性质有赖于客观认定的当事方的意图，而这是一个事实问题。在确定当事人的意图时，法庭要考虑诸多因素，包括表述作出时交易所进行到的阶段，受表述人对该表述所赋予的重要性，以及当事人各自具有的相对于表述标的有关知识和技能。

8.5.2 Once the terms of a contract have been determined, the court applies an objective test in construing or interpreting the 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 within which the contract was made, as this would assist in determining how a reasonable man would have understood the language of the document.

合同条款一经确定，法庭会适用一个客观标准解释条款的含义。在这种情况下，重要的不是某个当事方对合同用语所赋予的含义，而是一个通情达理的人如何理解这些条款。在这方面，新加坡的法庭一贯地注重当事人订立合同时所处的事实网络，因为这能帮助确定一个通情达理的人会如何理解合同语言。

8.5.3 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 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 may 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 exhaustive statement of all exceptions to the rule, or whether other common law exceptions not explicitly covered in s 94 continue to be applicable.

如当事人已将合同表诸书面，无论是口头还是书面作出的某个特定表述是否是合同的组成部分有赖于依口头证据规则做出的判断。这一普通法规则及其例外由《证据法》（Cap 97, 1997 年修正）第93节和94节来规范。第93节规定，“如合同条款…已经被书写为…文件形式…, 则除文件本身外，其他证据不能用来证明合同条款。”因此，任何口头协议或表述都不能被作为证据去推翻、改变、增加或者减少书面合同的条款。然而，次要证据如果根据《证据法》第94节属于口头证据规则的例外，就可以被接受。但是现在对于第94节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节明确提到的例外是否可继续适用还是很有争议的。

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.

应该提到的事，第93条和94条的适用范围在某些情况下被国会有所限制。见第 章与《消费者保护（公平交易）法》（Cap 52A, 2004 修正）第17条有关的消费者保护规则。

Implied Terms默示条款

8.5.5 In addition to those expressly agreed terms, the court may sometimes imply terms into the contract.

在上述明确表示的条款之外，法庭有时还可以为合同添加默示条款。

8.5.6 Generally, any term to be implied must not contradict any express term of the contract. 总的来说，任何默示条款均不得与合同的明示条款相抵触。

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 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 for the implication, as the courts will not re-write the contract for the parties.

如果某个条款被默示出来的目的是为了填补合同的空白以体现推定出来的当事人的意图，这个条款即属于事实上的默示条款，其内容之确定要考虑合同的用语以及周遭情况。只有当情况如此必须而当事人必然曾经考虑将某个条款纳进合同时，该条款才会被默示进来。仅仅因为如果将某个条款包括进合同是合乎情理的这个事实还不足以使它成为默示条款，因为法庭不会为当事人重写合同。

8.5.8 Terms may also 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, whilst 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.

默示条款的成立也可以是因为成文法的要求，或者是出于公共政策的考虑。《货物买卖法》（Cap 393, 1994修正版）提供了前一类范例（例如第12节（1）规定的买方有权出售货物）。至于后一类，虽然现在尚无具体的权威依据，但如果新加坡法院像他们的英

国同业那样将一些“缺省”条款默示进合同以保持公共政策对合同关系的限制，这也并非不可想象的。

Classification of Terms合同条款的分类

8.5.9 The terms of a contract may be classified into conditions, warranties or intermediate (or innominate) terms. Proper classification is important as it determines whether the contract may be discharged or terminated for breach [as to which see Paragraphs 8.8.11 to 8.8.12 below]. 合同条款可以分为条件 (conditions)，担保 (warranties)，和中间（或无名）条款(intermediate/innominate terms)。条款的恰当分类很重要，因为这将决定合同是否已被履行或者因为违约而解除（见下文8.8.11 和 8.8.12）。

8.5.10 The parties may expressly stipulate in the contract how a particular term is to be classed. This is not, however, conclusive unless the parties are found to have intended the technical meaning of the classifying words used. In the absence of express stipulation, the courts will look objectively at the language of the contract to determine how, in light of the surrounding circumstances, the parties intended a particular term to be classed. There are also instances where statutes may stipulate whether certain kinds of terms are to be treated as conditions or warranties, in the absence of any specific designation by the contracting parties. 当事人可以在合同中明确约定某个条款的性质分类，但除非他们所用的分类语言能清楚明确地表明其意图，否则分类不属最后决定性的。如无明确的合同规定，法庭会客观地审视合同的语言，以期确定当事人在当时情况下可能如何决定某个条款的分类。另有些情况下，如果当事人没有明确条款的性质，成文法也会直接规定某些条款应被当作条件或担保。

Exception Clauses免责条款

8.5.11 Exception clauses that seek to exclude or limit a contracting party′s liability are commonly, but not exclusively, found in standard form agreements. The law in Singapore relating to such clauses is essentially based on English law. The English Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which either invalidates an exception clause or limits the efficacy of such terms by imposing a requirement of reasonableness, has been re-enacted in Singapore as the Unfair Contract Terms Act (as Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed).

试图排除或限制当时一方责任的免责条款在格式合同中使用很普遍，但其使用范围不限于此。新加坡有关免责条款的法律本质上是基于英国法的。1977年的英国《不公平合同条款法》通过一个“合理性要求”来使免责条款无效或者限制其功效。这个法律被全盘照搬为新加坡的《不公平条款法》（Cap 396, 1994年修正）。

Incorporation纳入

8.5.12 Whether an exception clause will have its intended effect depends on a number of factors. The threshold requirement is that the clause must have been incorporated into the contract. There are generally three ways in which such incorporation may occur. Where a party has signed a contract which contains an exception clause, the signatory is bound by the clause, even if he or she had not read or was unaware of the clause. An exception clause may also be incorporated, in the absence of a signed contract, if the party seeking to rely on the clause took reasonably sufficient steps to draw the other party′s attention to the existence of the clause. The determination of this issue is heavily dependent on the facts of the particular case. Finally, exception clauses may be incorporated because there has been a consistent and regular course of dealing between the parties on terms that incorporate the exception clause. Even if no steps were

taken to incorporate the clause in a particular contract between such parties, it may have been validly incorporated by the parties′ prior course of dealing.

一个免责条款是否能产生其意图的效果有赖于众多因素。基本的标准是该条款必然已经被纳入合同。这种纳入一般采取如下三种方式。如一方已经在包含免责条款的合同上签字，则即使签字人没有读过或者不知晓该条款，他也受条款约束。设使不存在签字的合同，如果试图利用免责条款的一方采取足够合理的措施提请另一方注意条款的存在，该条款就可被认为是并入了合同。这种情形之确定非常依赖个案的具体事实。最后，免责条款之被纳入合同也可能是因为当事人之间的经常一贯的交易方式是将免责条款包括在内的。就算当事人没有采取任何措施将免责条款纳入合同，他们先前的交易习惯也可将此类条款有效纳入。

Construction合同解释

8.5.13 The next consideration is one of construction (or interpretation). This is necessary to determine if the liability, which the relevant party is seeking to exclude or restrict, falls within the proper scope of the clause. Here, the courts adopt the contra proferentum rule of construction, and will construe exception clauses strictly against parties seeking to rely on them. Nevertheless, the Singapore courts appear to construe clauses which seek to limit liability more liberally than those which seek to completely exclude liability.

下一个问题是合同的解释，这对确定合同责任是否被某个条款涵盖是很有必要的，而有关当事方总是试图排除或限制这种责任。在此，法庭总是采取“不利于起草条款的一方”（contra proferentum）的解释原则，且对试图依赖免责条款一方作严格解释。尽管如此，新加坡法庭表现出的倾向是对那些限制责任的条款的解释总是比那些完全免责的条款的解释来的宽松一些。

Unfair Contract Terms Act不公平合同条款

8.5.14 Finally, the limits placed by the Unfair Contracts Terms Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed) (the `UCTA′) on the operation and efficacy of exceptions clauses must be considered. It should be noted that the UCTA generally applies only to terms that affect liability for breach of obligations that arise in the course of a business or from the occupation of business premises. It also gives protection to persons who are dealing as consumers. Under the UCTA, exception clauses are either rendered wholly ineffective, or are ineffective unless shown to satisfy the requirement of reasonableness. Terms that attempt to exclude or restrict a party′s liability for death or personal injury resulting from that party′s negligence are rendered wholly ineffective by the UCTA, while terms that seek to exclude or restrict liability for negligence resulting in loss or damage other than death or personal injury, and those that attempt to exclude or restrict contractual liability, are subject to the requirement of reasonableness. The reasonableness of the exception clause is evaluated as at the time at which the contract was made. The actual consequences of the breach are therefore, in theory at least, immaterial.

最后，《不公平合同条款法》（UCTA）对免责条款的功效的限制也应予以考虑。应注意到UCTA总的来说只是适用于那些涉及到因商业活动或在商业场所所产生的合同责任违约的条款。它也对消费者提供保护。根据UCTA，免责条款或者完全无效，或者因不满足合理性标准（requirement of reasonableness）而失效。试图排除或限制因为疏忽而导致的死亡或人身伤害的责任的条款完全无效，而那些排除或限制因为疏误所导致的非人身性的财产灭失或损坏的责任的条款，以及那些试图排除或限制合同义务的条款，应受合理性标准约束。免责条款是否合理要依合同订立时的时间来判断。因此，至少在理论上，

违约的实际后果可能并非很重要。

SECTION 6 CAPACITY TO CONTRACT缔约能力

Minors未成年人

8.6.1 Under Singapore common law, a minor is a person under the age of 21. The validity of contracts entered into by minors is governed by the common law, as modified by the Minors′ Contracts Act (Cap 389, 1994 Rev Ed). 依新加坡的普通法，21岁以下为未成年人。根据修订后的《未成年人合同法》（Cap 389, 1994年修订）未成年人订立的合同由普通法管辖。

Contracts with Minors与未成年人订约

8.6.2 As a general rule, contracts are not enforceable against minors. However, where a minor has been supplied with necessaries (ie goods or services suitable for the maintenance of the station in life of the minor concerned: see also s 3(3), Sale of Goods Act (Cap 393, 1999 Rev Ed)), the minor must pay for them. Contracts of service which are, on the whole, for the minor′s benefit are also valid. The minor is also bound by certain types of contracts (ie contracts concerning land or shares in companies, partnership contracts and marriage settlements), unless the minor repudiates the contract before attaining majority at age 21 or within a reasonable time thereafter.

总的原则是未成年人订立的合同对他没有执行力。然而，如果未成年人购买的是生活必需品（例如适于维持他的生活条件的货物或服务；另参见《货物买卖法》第三条（3）），他就必须付款。服务合同（contract of services）如整体上是为了未成年人的利益，亦属有效。未成年人也受到某些其它类型合同的约束，例如涉及到土地或者公司股份、合伙或者离婚调解的合同，除非未成年人在21岁以前或再次之后一段合理期间内否认合同。

Minors′ Contracts Act 《未成年人合同法》 8.6.3 Under s 2 of the Minors′ Contracts Act, a guarantee given in respect of a minor′s contract, which may not be enforceable against the minor, is nevertheless enforceable against the guarantor. Section 3(1) of the Minors′ Contracts Act empowers the court to order restitution against the minor if it is just and equitable to do so.

根据《未成年人合同法》第2条，未成年人订立的合同虽不能针对他而执行，但他人对该合同作出的担保却对该担保人有执行力。该法第3（1）条授权法庭判令未成年人返还财产，如果法庭认为这样作是符合公平公正原则。

Mental Incapacity and Drunkards心智不健全者和醉酒者

8.6.4 A contract entered into by a person of unsound mind is valid, unless it can be shown that that person was incapable of understanding what he or she was doing and the other party knew or ought reasonably to have known of the disability. In this case, the contract may be avoided at the option of the mentally unsound person (assisted by a court-sanctioned representative where necessary). The same principle applies in the case of inebriated persons. Under s 3(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, persons incapacitated mentally or by drunkenness are required to pay a reasonable price for necessaries supplied.

心智不正常的人订立的合同也是有效的，除非能够证明该人在订立合同时并没有能力理解自己的所做所为且另一方当事人知晓或应该合理地知晓这种情形。心智不健全的人在这

百度搜索“77cn”或“免费范文网”即可找到本站免费阅读全部范文。收藏本站方便下次阅读，免费范文网，提供经典小说综合文库新加坡合同法(The Law of Contract)--最新中英文版(ACCA考生整理(2)在线全文阅读。