FIDIC Major Benefits Of Attending You Will Be

FIDIC 管理课程宣传 • Major Benefits Of Attending - You Will Be Able To: • KNOW how FIDIC fits together and the inter-relation of the • • • Clauses and Sub-Clauses UNDERSTAND the rights and obligations, as Employer, Contractor or Engineer under these contracts MASTER the understanding of FIDIC dispute management and the tools required to properly bring, defend avoid disputes DISCOVER the tools and guidelines required to recognise when you have a claim, how to bring it, and how to manage it GAIN improved ability to evaluate, agree and resolve claims OBTAIN an understanding of payments, guarantees and retention money under the FIDIC contracts

合约履行与终止（ PERFORMANCE AND TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT)

合约的终止 • 合约履行完毕 (Discharge by performance) • 双方同意的终止（Discharge by agreement） • 合约受阻的终止 (Frustration) • 违约/毁约令合约终止 (Discharge by breach)

合约受阻（FRUSTRATION）

11/2/2020 合约受阻（Frustration） • 合约受阻的权威说法： • Lord Simon in National Carriers Ltd. v. Panalpina (Northern) Ltd. (1981) AC 675 : “Frustration of a contract takes place when there supervenes an event (without fault of either party and for which the contract makes no sufficient provision) which so significantly changes the nature (not merely the expense or onerousness) of the outstanding contractual rights and/or obligations from what the parties could reasonably have contemplated at the time of its execution that it would be unjust to hold them to the literal sense of its stipulations in the new circumstances; in such case the law declares both parties to be discharged from further performance. ”

违约/毁约（REPUDIATION）

11/2/2020 单方面履行合约赚取对价（或部分对价） • 针对买卖合约条文与做法的不同， 1979年《货物销售法》 之Section 49(2)规定说： “ 49 Action for price… (2)Where, under a contract of sale, the price is payable on a day certain irrespective of delivery and the buyer wrongfully neglects or refuses to pay such price, the seller may maintain an action for the price, although the property in the goods has not passed and the goods have not been appropriated to the contract. ” • Stocznia v. Latco (1996) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 132先例中，作为无辜 方的船厂可以通过安放龙骨赚取 20%预付船价，并之后才接 受违约/毁约。相比之下，最后交船时船价的支付则涉及双 方合作了。 • CIF/CFR买方已经开出信用证，但在装货前告知卖方不要货

11/2/2020 善意与诚实误解 • Wright勋爵在T D Baily Son & Co v. Ross T Smyth & Co Ltd (1940) 67 Lloyd’s Rep 147先例中说：“Repudiation is a serious matter, not to be lightly found or inferred. … a mere honest misapprehension, especially if open to correction, does not justify a charge of repudiation. ” • Woodar Investment Development Ltd v. Wimpey Construction UK Ltd (1980) 1 WLR 277先例与The "Nanfri" (1979) 1 Lloyd's Rep. 201先例的冲突

11/2/2020 没有接受违约就被视为确认合约有效的危险 • 由于违约方拒绝履行合约通常与市场不利有关，所以无辜 方常常不会马上接受，而是会劝说或是施加压力迫使违约 方继续履行，这就有构成确认合约有效的危险，不能之后 改变接受违约/毁约并终止合约，除非有新的违约/毁约出现。 • 最后通牒的作用 • W. E. Cox Toner (International) Ltd v Crook (1981) IRLR 443先例 的传统说法： “Affirmation of the contract can be implied. Thus, it the innocent party calls on the guilty party for further performance of the contract, he will normally be taken to have affirmed the contract since his conduct is only consistent with the continued existence of the contractual obligation. Moreover, if the innocent party himself does acts which are only consistent with the continued existence of the contract, such act will normally show affirmation of the contract…”

11/2/2020 没有接受违约就被视为确认合约有效的危险 • Yukong Line Ltd. of Korea v. Rendsburg Investment Corporation (1996) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 604先例，Moore-Bick大法官警告说法 院或仲裁庭不应该太僵化（unduly technical approach）地解 释无辜方的言行是否构成确认合约： “… the Court should generally be slow to accept that the injured party has committed himself irrevocably to continuing with the contract in the knowledge that if, without finally committing himself, the injured party has made an unequivocal statement of some kind on which the party in repudiation has relied, the doctrine of estoppel is likely to prevent any injustice being done. ”

弃权（WAIVER）

11/2/2020 构成弃权的要件 • 弃权要求弃权人知道自己的权利： Evans v. Bartlam (1937) AC 473; Kammins Ballroom Co Ltd v. Zenith Investments (Torquay) Ltd (1971) AC 850; HIH Casualty & General Ins. Ltd v. Axa Corp Solutions (2002) EWCA Civ 1253; etc. • Peyman v. Lanjani (1984) 3 All ER 103先例 : “no binding election to affirm a contract without knowledge but where A acts so as to lead B to believe that he will exercise that election in a certain way, and B relied on his detriment, A may be estopped from denying a binding election. ”

禁反言（ESTOPPEL）

11/2/2020 禁反言的权威说法 • 《Chitty on Contracts》, 31 st Ed (2012), Par. 3 -086: “For the equitable doctrine to operate there must be a legal relationship giving rise to rights and duties between the parties; a promise or a representation by one party that he will not enforce against the other his strict legal rights arising out of that relationship; an intention on the part of the former party that the latter will rely on the representation; and such reliance by the latter party. Even if these requirements are satisfied, the operation of the doctrine may be excluded if it is …, not ‘equitable’ for the first party to go back on his promise. The doctrine most commonly applies to promises not to enforce contractual rights, but it also extends to certain other relationships. ”

11/2/2020 禁反言的类别 • 陈述性禁反言（Estoppel by representation） • 承诺性禁反言（Promissory estoppel） • 共识性禁反言（Estoppel by convention） • 产权人禁反言（Proprietary estoppel） • 合约性禁反言（Contractual estoppel） • 一事不再审（Res Judicata）

承诺性禁反言（Promissory estoppel） • 衡平法宽限（equitable forbearance）/因宽限而弃权（ waiver by forbearance）/承诺性禁反言（promissory estoppel） ：Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd (1947) KB 130; Tool Metal Manufacturing Co v Tungsten Electric Co (1955) 1 WLR 761等先例。 • 难以区分陈述与承诺 • 针对的是没有约因/对价的承诺 • 衡平法宽限/承诺性禁反言不要求承诺方知道自己的权利： 贵族院The “Kanchenjunga” (1990) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 391 (HL)先例。

承诺性禁反言（Promissory estoppel） • 要件之一：双方有存在的合约关系或其他法律关系 • 合约外的其他法律关系的例子 • 同居或夫妻关系：Maharaj v Chand (1986) AC 898 (PC) 先例 • 公司顾客与公司董事：Durham Fancy Goods Ltd v Michael Jackson (Fancy Goods) Ltd (1968) 2 Lloyd's Rep. 98先例 • 规划局与申请人：Augier v Secretary of State for the Environment (1979) 38 P & CR 219先例 • 不正当影响的加害方与受害方：Goldsworthy v Brickell (1987) Ch 378 (CA)先例 • 房东与租客（即使他们之间不再存在合约关系）：Brikom Investments Ltd v Carr (1979) QB 467 (CA)先例 • 讨论强制收购计划的当地政府与土地所有人：Co-operative Wholesale Society v Chester le Street District Council (1997) 73 P & CR 111先例

11/2/2020 一事不再审（Res Judicata） • Virgin Atlantic Airways (2013) UKSC 46先例提到有5 类一事不再审： • 1. 诉因的禁反言（cause of action estoppel） • 2. 已胜诉的诉因再次起诉（plead former recovery） • 3. 吸收原则（doctrine of merger） • 4. 争端的禁反言（issue estoppel） • 5. 滥用程序（abuse of process）

11/2/2020 一事不再审（Res Judicata） • 滥用程序（abuse of process） • 间接攻击的滥用（collateral attack-abuse）：别有用心地 开始新诉讼以直接或间接推翻之前的判决。 • “Henderson v Henderson Rule”：在以前的审理中，合理 与应该提出却没有提出的争端或事情，除非有特殊情况， 否则不允许在后来再提起诉讼。Henderson v. Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100, 67 ER 313: “the plea of res judicata applies, except in special cases, not only to points upon which the court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which the parties exercising diligence might have brought forward at the times. ”

仲裁中的一事不再审 • 仲裁的机密性对争端的禁反言的影响：Ali Shipping Corporation v. • • Shipyard Trogir（1998）1 Lloyd’s Rep 643先例 约 50%的仲裁涉及多方合约或合约链，争端的禁反言的影响可以 很大 因为大陆法系没有争端的禁反言的说法，所以仲裁庭的背景会对 争端的禁反言是否适用有影响 现在国际仲裁中关于这方面问题的处理很混乱，讨论很热烈，可 见：《Interim Report on Res Judicata and Arbitration, Berlin Conference (2004)》与《Final Report on Res Judicata and Arbitration and Resolution No. 1/2006, Toronto Conference (2006)》 http: //www. ila-hq. org 法院执行也会受到影响：Shanghai Fusheng Soya-Food Co Ltd v Pulmuone Holdings Co Ltd (2014) HKCFI 894先例； 上海法院有关 上海国际仲裁中心（SHIAC）的案件

诉讼/仲裁中的弃权与禁反言 • 管辖权异议 • 《联合国示范法》之article 16/香港《仲裁条例》之section 34 (2)规定： “A plea that the arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction shall be raised not later than the submission of the statement of defence. A party is not precluded from raising such a plea by the fact that he has appointed, or participated in the appointment of, an arbitrator. . . ” • 1996年英国《仲裁法》之Section 31(1)： “An objection that the arbitral tribunal lacks substantive jurisdiction at the outset of the proceedings must be raised by a party not later than the time he takes his first step in the proceedings to contest the merits of any matter in relation to which he challenges the tribunal’s jurisdiction. A party is not precluded from raising such an objection by the fact that he has appointed or participated in the appointment of an arbitrator. . . ”

诉讼/仲裁中的弃权与禁反言 • 仲裁员不持偏见与没有利益冲突 • 诉讼程序不正常 • 1996年英国《仲裁法》之Section 73(1) ： “Loss of right to object. (1) If a party to arbitral proceedings takes part, or continues to take part, in the proceedings without making, either forthwith or within such time as is allowed by the arbitration agreement or the tribunal or by any provision of this Part, any objection— … (b) that the proceedings have been improperly conducted, …(d) that there has been any other irregularity affecting the tribunal or the proceedings, he may not raise that objection later, before the tribunal or the court, unless he shows that, at the time he took part or continued to take part in the proceedings, he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have discovered the grounds for the objection. ” • 受影响当事人的应对

法律意见特免权 • 法律意见提供者 • 英国法《Legal Service Act 2007》 • 不同地区的不同看法，如英国法与欧盟法针对公司律师 （Inhouse counsel ）的不同对待：Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd v. Commission (2011) 2 AC 338 • 客户 • 英国法下的狭窄定义：Three Rivers DC v. Bank of England (No. 5) (2003) QB 1556; SFO v. Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd (2017) EWHC 1017(QB)。 • 其他国家/地区有不同看法，如香港CITIC Pacific Limited v. Secretary for Justice and Commissioner of Police (2015) HKCA 293， “dominant purpose test”