合同风险管控--国际商事活动中英美合同法的运用培训

1、2015年5月19日北京杨良宜10/16/2021国际商业与英美合同法/商法孙子兵法攻谋篇：“知己知彼，百战不殆；不知彼而知己，一胜一负；不知彼不知己，每战必殆。”10/16/2021国际商业与英美合同法/商法什么是“彼”？10/16/2021国际商业与英美合同法/商法英美合同法/商法全面、合理、合乎逻辑、配合实际与有可行性、肯定性以及可预测性的游戏规则培养出一套适合商贸活动的有组织的常识与思维10/16/2021国际商业与英美合同法/商法Senator Linie GMBH & Co KG v Sunway Line, Inc., 291 F 3d 145 (2d Cir. 2002), S

2、otomayor 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.10/16/202110/16/2021默示条文法律的默示法律的默示事实的默示事实的默示其他 的名称General default rules（这名称也显示了它是一般适用在某一个类别的合约，而且是在没有明示条文针对的情况下）Ad hoc gap-f

3、illers（这名称也显示了它是随意去填补个别合约中的漏洞，随意也表示了不是一般适用而只是在个别合约中的不同情况）适用普遍适用在某种类别的合约关系，例如是货物买卖（1979年货物销售法与一些普通法的默示）或是房东与住客之间（Liverpool City Council v. Irwin 1977 A.C. 239 等先例），仲裁协议的机密（ AliShipping Corporation v. Shipyard Trogir 1998 1 Lloyds Rep 643等先例）。假设双方应该有的订约意图但没有在合约内明示规定或针对的情况，法院/仲裁庭必须小心不去改写合约，而只有满足了一些严格的考

4、验才去能作出默示。这只能是适用在个别的合约而不能去普遍性的适用在同样类别的合约关系。考验标准不是根据双方的订约意图，也不要求“必须”（necessary） 令个别合约有“商业效力”（business efficacy） 而是根据一些较“广泛的考虑”（wider consideration）例如是政策考虑或从整体看是合理。通常订约方如果不喜欢某一个法律默示的条文，可去以明示条文否定或超越。要求“必须”（necessary）去增加这一个事实默示才能令合约有一个完整的说法与可以顺利履行，即给予“商业效力”（business efficacy）。光是合理或不合理是不足去作出这一种默示。案例Eichho

5、lz v. Bannister (1864) 144 ER 284; Liverpool City Council v. Irwin (1977) A.C. 239等The “Moorcock” (1889) 14 P.D. 64等10/16/2021明示条文与默示条文的关系明示条文超越默示条文以明示条文改变默示地位，除非涉及公共政策10/16/2021事实的默示合理时间履行的时间履行的期限有关中国的重要案件履行的做法：要求一方作出通知（例如商品买卖合约下的装港通知/派船通知等，备妥装货通知，不可抗力事项通知等）10/16/2021法律的默示：货物/商品买卖合约付运买卖合约下运输风险的转移卖方

6、拥有出售的有关货物的主权与转移给买方货物没有债务与押记买方可宁静地占有该货物货物是否对版、满意质量与适合买方用途时间规定默示是重要：Bunge v Tradax (1980)10/16/2021The 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 contr

7、acts, and 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, Insuranc

8、e, Freight)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 (班轮运输); Extended FOB等不同做法In Straight FOB, it is the duty of the buyer to collect the goods at the loading

9、port or place 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 tr

10、ansport it to the buyer (F for freight).卖方以付运文件去作出证明，并尽快交出给买方。James Finlay & Co. v Kwik Hoo Tong HM (1929) 1 KB 400先例，Scrutton大法官说：“ 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 Carrier

11、CPTCarriage 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买卖合约下作出的承诺的法律默示地位合约下作出的承诺是绝对的责任：Pa

12、radine v Jane (1647) 85 ER 897合约承诺是严格责任的说法：合约受阻（frustration）Taylor v Caldwell (1863) 122 ER 309英国法律不认同不可抗力可以不履行或延误履行合约的说法，除非有明示条文才会去解释合约并给与双方订约意图.这方面的详尽解释可参阅合约的解释：规则与应用的第十三章。不可抗力条文伦敦食糖商会拟定的标准格式合约Refined Sugar Association Contract之第17条的不可抗力条文如下：“Force MajeureShould EEC legislation, government interve

13、ntion, ice, 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

14、 in the contract: (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 eq

15、ual character 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 thro

16、ugh the circumstances 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.”不可抗力条文上述条文对卖方无法在付运期内提供货物作出保障，但不针对买方无法履行的情况，例如买方无法开出信用证或进口有

17、关货物（例如在2004年中国禁止进口巴西红豆事件，导致大量中国进口商被国际贸易商在伦敦起诉并索赔庞大金额，多家进口商倒闭）。这种情况即使涉及天意或政府干预，也通常不会令买卖合约受阻。运输风险转移的法律默示地位涉及付运买卖合约的运输风险是在买方(一连串买卖就是最后一位买方）头上，通常货物装船后卖方对货物的风险就转移给买方。这法律默示地位是根据商人的惯常做法（由买方投保去转移风险或CIF买卖由卖方交出正本保单）、合理性、可行性与肯定性: Fragano v. Long (1825) 4 B&C 219。相关的法律默示条文之一相关的法律默示条文之一：CIF卖方必须提供给买方一个持续性的文件保障，这文

18、件包括了全程保单或保险证明与承运人要负责的全程提单，仍让买方可去向保险人或承运人索赔损失运输所造成的损失。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.”运输风险转移的法律默示地位相关的法律默示条文之二相关的法律默示条文之二：CIF卖方必须提供给买方

19、一份惯常（usual）的全程保单，不论买方是否需要。什么是惯常保单是根据有关的买卖与贸易，例如只是投保货物全损会对某些货物是惯常但对大部分货物并不足够。对惯常保单的要求也导致其他的不明确，例如是否包括战争险。会有情况是付运时并非是惯常投保战争险，但航次中或卖方交出文件时变了惯常：C Groom Ltd v Barber (1915) 1 KB 316。相关的法律默示条文之三相关的法律默示条文之三：CFR与FOB买卖下卖方有严格责任去及时通知买方货物装船，让买方及时投保，否则风险不转移。Wimble, Sons & Co. v Rosenberg (1913) 3 KB 743; 1979年货物

20、销售法之Section 32(3)相关的法律默示条文之四相关的法律默示条文之四：即使货物主权仍是由卖方保留，风险的转移足够让买方有投保利益。运输风险转移的法律默示地位相关的法律默示条文之五相关的法律默示条文之五： 持续性的文件保障针对付运的要求是：(1) 正常的航次与习惯性航线；(2)适合的船舶；(3)买方有法律的权利去针对承运人。CIF卖方必须准备有关货物与租用一艘适合的船舶可以在一个正常的航次与一般的情况下令货物能够维持可商售情况（在1979年货物销售法改为满意情况）直到卸港。在Evanhelinos v Leslie & Anderson (1920) 4 Ll L Rep 17先例，法

21、院判是：“The sellers 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.”运输风险转移的法律默示地位但这个默示地位必须与由买方承担运输风险的法律地位协调，因此在The Mercini Lady (2011) 1 Lloyds Rep 442先例，上

22、诉庭判：“ the 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.”这表示CIF卖方只要租用一艘适合船舶 (The Rio Sun 1985 1 Lloyds Rep.350)，交货时估计货物可以安全抵达卸港运输中货物的变质仍是买

23、方的风险。什么是习惯性航线? 买卖合约要求直航但提单有广泛的自由条文或绕航条文，会可让买方拒单。但买卖合约没有明示要求的情况下，地位不明确。有说法是普通法与海牙规则已明确针对不合理绕航，没有必要再去让买方拒单。运输风险转移的法律默示地位相关的法律默示条文之六相关的法律默示条文之六: 即使在运输途中货物已经知道全损或失去，买方还是必须向卖方支付货款: Manbre Saccharine Co. Ltd. v. Corn Products Co. Ltd. (1919) 1 KB 198; The Salem (1982) 1 Lloyds Rep.369。明示条文改变风险转移带来的争议例子一例子

24、一：条文说货价的支付最终以卸港的交货量作出调整（Seng v Glencore Grain 1996 1 Lloyds Rep 396）或是卸港发生短卸，卖方要退还有关货款（Produce Brokers New Company 1924 Ltd v Wray, Sanderson & Co. Ltd 1931 39 TLR 257）等。例子二例子二：合约规定了货物抵达卸港日期（The “Wise” 1989 1 Lloyds Rep 96），甚至使用了卖方保证等措辞（The “Julia” 1949 82 Lloyds Rep 270），或订明货物到达卸港才支付全部或余额货款（Dupont

25、v British South Africa Co. 1901 18 TLR 24）。例子三例子三：合约规定在卸港对货物进行共同检查。货物主权转移的法律默示地位1979年货物销售法之Section 12(1)默示卖方有权去出售货物，显示了卖方必须有货物主权。Section 12(2)(a)与Section 12(4)默示货物没有订约前不告诉买方的押记与债务。Section 12(2)(b)与Section 12(5)默示买方可以宁静享用货物。货物主权转移的重要性：对货物的权利（rights in rem)与对人的权利（rights in personam)的分别。针对侵占货物的立法：1977年

26、Torts (Interference with Goods) Act。买卖双方破产带来的风险。英国法律没有刻意去针对买卖双方其中一方欺诈的风险。货物主权转移的法律默示地位1979年货物销售法之Section 17针对现货，货物主权从卖方转移去买方是完全根据双方的订约意图。保留货权条文之“Romalpa Clause”。Section 18 Rule 5针对将来货物（付运买卖的货物）主权转让：(1)Where there is a contract for the sale of unascertained or future goods by description, and goods o

27、f that description 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 gi

28、ven either 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 dis

29、posal, he is to be taken to have unconditionally appropriated the goods to the contract.货物主权转移的法律默示地位付运买卖的卖方通过签发不记名提单显示他保留处置货物的权利。1979年货物销售法之Section 19(2)规定 “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 faci

30、e to be taken to reserve the right of disposal.” 卖方通常只会在信用证结汇或向买方交单时可以取得货款才会在提单背书与交出货物主权给买方。FOB买卖下签发不记名提单也有同样结果: Mitsui & Co. Ltd v Flota Mercante Grancolombiana SA (1988) 1 WLR 1145。付运买卖下货物风险的转移与货物主权的转移并不一致。付运买卖如果卖方签发记名提单或海运单会被视为是无条件划归（unconditionally appropriated）并把货物主权转移给买方。卖方会需要在买卖合约中有Romalpa Cl

31、ause才能保留货权。货物是否对版、质量与适合性的默示法律地位/条文针对现货，法律默示地位是买方自己小心（caveat emptor）。这是因为除非卖方涉及了误述或其他不法行为（这法律另有默示地位针对），买家自己小心是合理与实际的说法。针对将来货物，法律默示地位是卖方将来交付货物时有针对货物是否对版、质量与适合性的以下保证或默示条件条文：1979年货物销售法之Section 13(1)：“Where there is a contract for the sale of goods by description, there is an implied that the goods will

32、correspond with the description.” Section 13(2)对根据样品进行买卖有同样的要求。货物是否对版、质量与适合性的默示法律地位针对将来货物，法律默示地位是卖方将来交付货物时有针对货物是否对版、质量与适合性的以下保证或默示条件条文：1979年货物销售法之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 satisfa

33、ctory quality.(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

34、this Act, 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 defe

35、cts,(d)safety, 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

36、 that examination 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.货物是否对版、质量与适合性的默示法律地位针对将来货物，法律默示地位是卖方将来交付货物时有针对货物是否对版、质量与适合性的以下保证或默示条件条文：1979年货物销售法之Section 14(3): Where the seller sells goods in the course

37、of a business 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

38、 bought, there 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 t

39、he skill or judgment of the seller or credit-broker.货物是否对版、质量与适合性的默示法律地位为减低默示条件条文的苛刻性，1979年货物销售法加入了“de minimis”的说法，但这也带来一定程度的不肯定。Section 15A (1)-(3)规定：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

40、 part of the seller of a term implied by section 13, 14 or 15（这是针对将来货物以样品买卖） 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 breac

41、h of warranty.(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.货物是否对版、质量与适合性的默示法律地位条件条文（不论是明示或默示）苛刻性在于受害方（买方）可以索赔损失外，另有选择权去终止合约。由于商品买卖涉及高昂的金额与市场波动很大，导致精明的买方有了权力去终止合

42、约肯定会在适当时机（主要是市场下跌或是卖方可以欺负）去行使。条件条文除了在1979年货物销售法的规定外，在普通法不存在进一步的“de minimis”的区分。精明的买方在适当时机去终止合约通常就是通过拒货，拒货的理由主要是卖方违反了上述的默示条件条文。例如买方可以根据倒签提单（即使已经顺利结汇，这会是买方还不知道倒签，或结汇时商品市场还是平稳）为由拒货，因为货物不符合描述：Bowes v Shand (1877) 2 App. Cas. 455.货物是否对版、质量与适合性的默示法律地位但是通常货物是否有满意质量与适合性是需要提供买方一个合理机会检查货物才能确定。这一个默示法律地位是在1979年

43、货物销售法之Section 34有规定：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 co

44、ntract for sale by sample, of comparing the bulk with the sample.在国际货物买卖，这合理机会通常只会在卸港而不在装港（例如货物有包装或要求买方去装港检查不合理与不实际）。但在卸港检查后被拒货，往往会给外国卖方带来巨大的损失，或被买方敲竹杠。因此国际货物买卖合约中越来越多会加入一条装港检查为终条文。这在合约的解释：规则与应用一书第十四章之1.5段有详细介绍。有不少国际贸易商作为卖方坚持这种条文。时间规定是否重要英国法律的默示地位是时间规定不视为是重要，不是条件条文，除非：合约明示规定是重要；合约的性质与周边环境显示时间是重要。这在合

45、约的解释：规则与应用一书第十章有详细介绍。在The “Hongkong Fir” (1961) 2 Lloyds Rep 478中，贵族院创立出一种新的中间条文，这使得时间规定是否重要变得更加不肯定。Bunge v Tradax SA (1981) 2 Lloyds Rep 1先例，贵族院明确了商业合约的时间规定被视为重要: In mercantile contracts, where it is of importance that the parties should know precisely what their obligations are and be able to act

46、with confidence in the legal results of their actions, the courts will readily construe a stipulation as to time as a condition of the contract。时间规定是否重要国际货物买卖合约中的时间规定被视为是重要：指定装港、卸港的时间： Bunge v Tradax (1981) 2 LLR 1指定船舶的时间货物付运的时间： Bowes v Shand (1877) 2 App. Cas. 455 ; Ashmore & Son v. C S Cox & Co.

47、(1899) 1 QB 436 (延长付运期条文的重要，倒签提单的恶习与愚蠢行为） 船舶预计抵达装港或卸港通知的时间 ：Nova Petroleum Intl Establishment v. Tricon Trading Ltd. (1989) 1 LLR 312开出信用证的时间：Bunge v. Vegetable Vitamin (1985) 1 LLR 613; Sohio Supply Co. v. Gatoil (1989) 1 LLR 588时间规定是否重要国际货物买卖合约中的时间规定被视为是重要：作出不可抗力事项（如果合约有不可抗力条文）通知的时间作出划归/装船通知的时间：Th

48、e Post Chaser (1981) 2 LLR 695提出货损时限与其他通知：Bremer v Vanden (1978) 2 LLR 109（时间规定是否重要的3个重要指引）交出合法与有效付运单证给买方或结汇的时间或法律默示的尽快交出: Sanders v. Maclean (1883) 11 QBD 317; Sharpe (C ) Co. Ltd. v. Nosawa (1917) 2 KB 814; Concordia v. Richco (1991) 1 LLR 475买卖合约时间规定是重要的例外1979年货物销售法有关买方支付货款的时间规定之Section 10(1)：“Un

49、less a different intention appears from the terms of the contract, stipulations as to time of payment are not of the essence of a contract of sale.”但根据Section 48(3)，卖方可以作出通知使得时间变为重要:“Where the goods are of a perishable nature, or where the unpaid seller gives notice to the buyer of his intention to

50、re-sell, and 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.”这方面的详尽解释可参阅合约的解释：规则与应用的第十章。买卖合约时间规定是重要的例外装卸时间的延误，很难想象法律会默示这是重要，因为是完全不合理、不现实与无法操作。现实

51、中买卖合约同意固定装卸时间，就会同时同意滞期费。滞期费是议定损失，这等于买卖双方已经约定了这种时间规定的违约的救济或后果。如果没有固定装卸时间规定，法律默示是FOB卖方或CIF买方必须在合理时间内完成装卸作业。至于合理时间是多长，这是根据事实的默示（implied by facts）。即使没有去同意滞期费，法律也不会默示超出了合理时间是重要，会只是作出延误损失赔偿的救济。Jupiter 条文对货源不稳定装港的重要性买卖合约的其他法律默示地位英国法律下无数的有关国际货物/商品买卖的先例对会出现的千变万化并且没有明示条文规定的情况都有了说法，这也就是法律默示的地位。例子一例子一：FOB买方派遣的船

52、舶必须在抵达与备妥装货时向卖方作出准备就绪通知（NOR），但形式不拘，卖方才有责任开始装货并在固定装货时间与付运期内完成装货。可参阅合约的解释：规则与应用第七章之10.1段，履约需要对方先给通知。例子二例子二：FOB卖方或CIF/CFR买方不得不合作或犯错导致对方无法履行。例如，船舶进不了装港或卸港：The “Aello” (1960) 1 Lloyds Rep 623 。可参阅合约的解释：规则与应用第七章之10.2与10.3段。买卖合约的其他法律默示地位例子三例子三：国际商会的Incoterms (2000 )(latest 2010)基本是与英国法律的默示地位一致，是否被明示合并在买卖合约

53、并不重要，只要该买卖合约的适用法是英国法，就会有更全面与详尽的默示地位。针对FOB与CIF，Incoterms (2000)之A5条文有关风险转移是“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.” 与B5条文（CIF）“the buyer must bear all risks of

54、 loss of or damage to the goods from the time they have passed the ships rail at the named port of shipment.”10/16/2021法律的默示：雇佣合约限制商贸/就业契约/条文（restrain covenant）商业竞争激烈一般不能执行，除非是合理有关的“约因/对价”（consideration）职务的高低双方的谈判力量10/16/2021法律的默示：雇佣合约机密义务Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler (1987) Ch. 117先例三类资料本质上轻微或是可以轻易

55、从公开资料找到，不会被当作是机密资料第二种类的资料是员工在职时，掌握这些资料时必须以机密对待，不得外泄，但一掌握后，这些资料也变了是该员工的“技术与知识”(skill and knowledge)一部份第三种类的资料是特定的商业机密/秘密，只能是由原雇主享有，则离职员工仍不能去外泄双方有一个“相互信任的关系”（trust of confidence）10/16/202110/16/2021合约责任：复原或赔偿大原则46履约指令 (Specific Performance)Compensatory Principle (restitutio in integrum): 复原或赔偿大原则第一合约责

56、任：履行合约承诺；第二合约责任：以赔偿金钱损失让受害方恢复至合约被履行的地位合约责任：复原或赔偿大原则47针对的是受害方的损失，而非违约方的利益交出利润（account for profit ）与返还性损失（restitutionary damages)返还性损失的先例：Attorney General v. Blake 2001 1 AC 268损失赔偿的范围48所有造成的损失均需要赔偿，但不必多赔，并只根据最低合约履行责任计算金钱损失。惩罚性赔偿/条文不被承认。损失赔偿的局限（i）损失的遥远性（remoteness of damages）之合理预见（reasonably foreseeab

57、le 或 within reasonable contemplation）（ii）损失的遥远性之因果关系（causation）（iii）减少损失的义务（mitigation）（i）损失的遥远性之合理预见49合约关系的先例：Hadley v. Baxendale 1854 9 Ex. 341；Victoria Laundry v. Newman Industries 1949 2 K.B. 528 订约时的应该知情：a)根据双方的行业与专业，双方都应该知道，或b)违约方确实知道并可视为是愿意接收风险，通常是通过受害方的告知（i）损失的遥远性之合理预见50侵权的先例： The “Wagon Mou

58、nd” 1961 1 Lloyds Rep 1“Egg-shell Skull + Shabby Millionaire Principle”贫穷（Poverty） (与因果关系也相关）（ii）损失的遥远性之因果关系51新介入事件或行为中断违约/侵权与损失的因果关系外来事件或行为与受害方行为的差异（ii）损失的遥远性之因果关系52有关先例a)产生货损但承租人不卸货导致额外的滞期费 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 UKS

59、C 17c)修理中罢工增加损失The “Mineral Transporter” 1985 2 Lloyds Rep 303（ii）损失的遥远性之因果关系53d)受害方受伤后作出冒险的行为或拒绝接受医疗或在医院受到感染 Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969) 1 QB 428(砒霜中毒）e)1990年海湾战争期间伊拉克对科威特公司飞机的侵占 Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company 2003 1 Lloyds Rep 448f)新加坡巴

60、林银行倒闭事件 Barings Plc (In Liquidation) v Coopers & Lybrand (A Firm) 2003 EWHC 1319 (Ch)因果不明的情况：英国的立法针对受害方患上“间皮瘤”（mesothelioma）（iii）减少损失的义务54宽松态度对待受害方的“责任”新要约（re-offer） 的好处受害方不需要扣减的的好处：a)受害方事前的投保b)受害方事前订立的合约c)第三人的帮助或馈赠对冲合约，Baltic Index，无论实际损失是增加还是减少，均予以考虑。明示条文/做法以限制责任55国际法上只有船舶的责任限制有限责任公司特殊目的机构/公司（SPV）