SECTION 9 MISTAKE誤解

　　Introduction簡介

　　9.1 If one or both parties enter into a contract under a misapprehension of its basis, or of an important aspect of the transaction, the contract may either be completely void, or voidable. In the latter case, the contract is valid until it is rescinded (or set aside) by the mistaken party. This distinction is critical for determining third party rights - seeParagraph 9.12 below. Whether a mistake has the effect of rendering a contract void or voidable depends on the manner in which the mistake arises.

　　如果一方或雙方當時訂立合同是基于對合同基礎(chǔ)或者對交易一個重大方面的誤解，則合同或者是完全無效，或者是可撤銷的。如為可撤銷情形，合同在被受誤解影響一方撤銷以前仍為有效。這個區(qū)別對確定第三方的權(quán)利至關(guān)重要。見下文第9.12節(jié)。一個誤解是否能導致合同無效或可撤銷要根據(jù)誤解產(chǎn)生的情形來判斷。

　　Mutual Mistake相互誤解

　　9.2 If A contracts with B believing that he is purchasing X but B is in fact intending to sell Y to A, there is no contract between A and B because they have failed to reach any agreement on the subject matter of the contract. Mistakes of this nature are commonly referred to as `mutual mistakes´. A `contract´ entered into under a mutual mistake (relating to a fundamental aspect of the contract) is void.

　　如果A與B訂立合同，A確信他是購買甲物，而B事實上是打算售乙物予B，則在A和B之間不存在合同，因為他們對合同的標的物沒有達成協(xié)議。此種性質(zhì)的誤解一般稱為相互誤解。相互誤解(關(guān)系到合同的一個根本方面)之下訂立的合同為無效合同。

　　Common Mistake共同誤解

　　9.3 A `common mistake´ arises when an agreement is reached on the basis of a mistaken assumption or belief shared by both parties. This occurs, for instance, when A contracts to sell a consignment of goods to B but unknown to both parties, the goods had been destroyed by the time the contract was formed. In this situation, owing to the destruction or non-existence of the subject matter, the contract may justifiably be regarded as invalid and void even though it is otherwise properly formed.

　　共同誤解產(chǎn)生的情形是協(xié)議的達成是基于雙方均有的誤解假設或信念。比如，當A與B簽訂合同出售一票在途貨物與B，為雙方所均不知曉的是，貨物在上述合同訂立前已經(jīng)被毀滅。這種情況下，鑒于標的物已經(jīng)滅失或不存在，合同就可被正當?shù)卣J為是無效的，盡管若非如此該合同原可以被恰當履行。

　　9.4 The more problematic situation arises when the common mistake relates to a less fundamental matter, such as the quality of a subject matter of the contract (as opposed to its existence). Here, the law has to strike an appropriate balance between doing justice to the party disadvantaged by the mistake and protecting the counter party´s legitimate expectation that the contractual bargain would be upheld. The common law and equity respond to this problem in different ways (on the distinction between common law and equitable rules, see [Chapters 1 and 18- Singapore Legal System and Trusts]).

　　更為成問題的情形是共同誤解只是牽涉到不是很基本的事項，例如合同標的物的質(zhì)量(而不是其存在與否)。在這里，法律不得不在給因誤解而陷入不利境況的當事人帶來正義和保護相對方的對合同得到恰當履行的合法期待之間維持一個恰當?shù)钠胶狻Ｆ胀ǚㄅc衡平法對這個問題提供了不同的解決方式。關(guān)于普通法與衡平規(guī)則的區(qū)別，見第一章合第十八章關(guān)于新加坡法律制度/信托。

　　Common Mistake at Common Law普通法上的共同誤解

　　9.5 At common law, precedence is given to upholding bargains. Thus, a common mistake as to quality would not, generally, render a contract void unless the mistake has the effect of rendering the subject matter of the contract essentially and radically different from what the parties believed it to be. The ambit of the common law doctrine is therefore extremely narrow, having little application outside cases involving non-existent or destroyed subject matter.

　　普通法上的先例是對談稱的成交條件傾向予以肯定。故此，關(guān)于質(zhì)量的共同誤解一般不會使合同無效，除非誤解使得合同的標的物本質(zhì)上和重大地不同于當事人當初所認為的標的物。見Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd [1932] AC 61。因此普通法理論在這方面非常狹隘，在超出標的物不存在或滅失的情形之外很少適用。

　　Common Mistake in Equity衡平法上的誤解

　　9.6 Equity, in comparison, permits a more liberal approach: even if a mistake is not sufficiently fundamental to render a contract void at common law, it may still be set aside provided that the mistake is sufficiently serious.

　　比較而言，衡平法的進路更為自由：即使一個誤解尚不能充分具有根本的性質(zhì)而使合同在普通法上無效，但只要誤解足夠嚴重，衡平法也允許使合同因此得以終止。見Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671。

　　9.7 Distinguishing between the different degrees of `fundamental´ mistakes that are operative at common law and in equity is a difficult task. Nevertheless, the Singapore Court of Appeal´s recent observations appear to favour the retention of this two-prong approach (Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR 502). This may be contrasted with the position in England, where the more flexible equitable rule appears to have been abolished (Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd [2003] QB 679).

　　對分別在普通法和衡平法上的根本誤解的不同程度加以區(qū)分是一件很難的任務。雖然如此，新加坡的上訴法庭(Court of Appeals)最近的一些判例觀點仍然堅持維持這個二元模式。見Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR 502。這與英國法現(xiàn)在的立場已有顯著不同，因為在英國衡平法規(guī)則已被廢除。見Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd [2003] QB 679。

　　Unilateral Mistake單方誤解

　　9.8 A contract may also be affected by a `unilateral mistake´, that is when only one party is acting under a mistake. For purposes of discussion, it is convenient to distinguish between the following two cases: (a) where the mistake relates to the identity of a contracting party, and (b) those where the mistake relates to a term of the contract.

　　合同也可能被單方誤解影響。為研討方便之目的，應對以下兩類情形加以區(qū)分：(a)誤解涉及到合同一方的身份;及(b)誤解涉及到合同條款。

　　Unilateral Mistake as to Identity關(guān)于身份的單方誤解

　　9.9 First, unilateral mistakes as to identity typically involve cases where one party´s consent to an agreement is procured by deception. If A agrees to sell his car to B (who has deceived A into believing that B is C), the contract is affected by A´s unilateral mistake as to B´s true identity provided that it is clear that B´s identity is material, ie an important factor which induced the contract. As between A and B, it is not essential to determine whether such a mistake renders the contract void or voidable, since A, the mistaken party, would have the right to set aside the contract in either case. However, the distinction becomes critical if B has sold the car to T (an innocent third party who acquires the car without notice of B´s deception ) before A discovers the fraud. If the mistake has the effect of rendering the contract between A and B void, A will be able to recover the car from T because B, not having acquired any property right in the car, has nothing to sell to T. In the converse situation where the contract between A and B is merely voidable, B would have acquired property rights in the car, which he could subsequently transfer to T. A is therefore unable to recover against T in this instance.

　　首先，關(guān)于身份識別的單方誤解通常涉及到一方的對協(xié)議的同意是被欺騙所引致的。如A同意把他的車賣給B(而B實際上是通過欺騙使A認為B就是C)，如情形很清楚B的身份事關(guān)重大(例如是誘使合同成立的重要因素)，則A關(guān)于B的真實身份的單方誤解會影響合同。在A和B之間，確定誤解是合同無效還是可撤銷并不關(guān)鍵，因為在任何一種情況下，A，作為有誤解認知的一方，都有權(quán)使合同歸于終止。然而，如果B在欺詐被揭示之前已經(jīng)把車賣給了T(T是不知B的欺詐行為的善意第三方)，這個區(qū)別就很關(guān)鍵了。如果誤解的效力是使得A和B之間的合同歸于無效，A就能夠從T手里去回車輛，這是因為B自己沒有取得車輛的任何財產(chǎn)權(quán)，因而就沒有什么東西能賣給T。如果情形只是A和B之間的合同是可撤銷的，B已經(jīng)獲得了車輛的財產(chǎn)權(quán)，他可以隨后將之轉(zhuǎn)移給T，A也因此不能從T出取回車輛。

　　9.10 Disputes involving mistakes as to identity are invariably `hard´ cases that are not amenable to simple analyses because they often require the court to prefer one of two innocent parties. Nevertheless, it may be observed that the general approach in these cases requires examination of the facts to ascertain whether there is in fact an agreement between the mistaken party and the (fraudulent) counter party. Thus, if A intends to sell his car only to C, then no agreement is reached between A and B when B attempts to purchase the car by pretending to be C. Such intention may, for instance, be inferred from the fact that A´s offer is expressly addressed to C, or where there is a written contract purportedly made between A and C (although fraudulently signed by B on C´s behalf). However, where A and B transact face-to-face, there is a presumption that they intend to deal with the physical person present, in which case A is presumed to have intended to contract with B, the fraudster. Such a presumption may, however, be rebutted by clear evidence to the contrary.

　　關(guān)于身份識別的爭端不可避免地屬于艱難的案例，不是簡單的分析所能言說的，這是因為這種爭端通常需要法庭優(yōu)待兩個無辜方中的一方。盡管如此，可以認為解決此類案件的總的進路要求審視案件事實以確定在有誤解認知的一方和實施了欺詐的另一方是否事實上存在一個協(xié)議。因此，如果A意圖將他的車賣給C，那么當B試圖假扮C而購得該車時，在A和B之間就沒有協(xié)議。這種意圖也可以-比如說-從A的要約是明示發(fā)給C的這一事實中，或者從從一個本意是成立于A和B之間的書面合同(而B欺詐性地代C簽了名)推定出來。然而，當A和B做面對面的交易時，就存在一個假定，即他們意圖與出現(xiàn)在現(xiàn)場的人交易，在這種情形下A被推定為有意圖與欺詐者B訂立合同。但是這個假定可以被清楚的相反證據(jù)所推翻。

　　Unilateral Mistake as to a Term關(guān)于條款的單邊誤解

　　9.11 Secondly, there is the category of unilateral mistakes as to terms of the contract. If A enters into a contract under a misapprehension as to a particular important term (other than the identity of the other party, B), and the mistake is known to B, such a mistake may render the contract void at common law. The Singapore Court of Appeal has recently clarified (in Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR 502) that this common law doctrine is confined to cases where the non-mistaken party, B, has actual knowledge of A´s mistake. In addition, if a case does not fall within the ambit of the common law doctrine (because, for instance, it has not been established that B has actual knowledge of A´s mistake), the court may nevertheless exercise its equitable power to set the contract aside if B is guilty of unconscionable conduct. This may arise where B suspects that A is labouring under a mistake but consciously omits to disabuse A of his error.

　　第二類是關(guān)于條款的單邊誤解。如果A基于對某個重要條款(并非另一方當事人B的身份)的誤解，而B知曉此項誤解，在普通法上該誤解可以使合同歸于無效。新加坡上訴法院最近澄清，上述普通法原則只適用于B(作為無誤解認識的一方)實際上知曉A有了誤解的情形。此外在某個案件不屬于上述普通法涵蓋的范圍的情況下(比如因為不能證明B實際上知曉A有誤解)，如果B卷入顯失公平行為，法庭可以行使它在衡平法上的權(quán)力解除合同。見Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR 502。這種情形可產(chǎn)生于B相信A正在產(chǎn)生誤解但卻有意不去糾正A的誤解。

　　Documents Mistakenly Signed因誤解而簽字的文件

　　9.12 Generally, a person of full age and understanding who has signed a written contract is bound by it even if he or she has not read it. Exceptionally, a signatory to a contract may be able to set it aside if it is fundamentally or radically different from what the signatory believed it to be, as may occur if the signatory´s understanding is limited by some innate incapacity, or when he or she has been tricked into signing it. This defence cannot, however, be invoked by a person who has been negligent in signing the document.

　　總的來說，如果一方在書面合同上簽名他就受其約束，即使他/她并沒有讀過合同。例外情形下，如果合同從根本上和極大地區(qū)別于簽字人當初所確信的合同內(nèi)容，比如簽字人的理解被某些固有的能力不足所局限，或者他/她因被設陷阱而簽字等，簽字人可以將合同終止。這一抗辯不能被因疏忽而簽約的人所援引。

　　Documents Mistakenly Recorded因誤解而記載的文件

　　9.13 If a written contract does not, by reason of a mistake, accurately record the agreement between the parties, the court may rectify the contract so as to give effect to the parties´ true intention. Originally, the remedy of rectification was only available in cases where the mistake is shared by both parties, but was subsequently extended to situations where only one party is mistaken, and such mistake is known to the other party.

　　如果書面合同由于誤解的原因沒有準確記載當事方達成的協(xié)議，法庭可以修正合同以給與當事人的真實意圖以法律效力。最初，司法修正這一救濟措施只適用于雙方都有誤解的情形，但后來它被延伸到只有單方有誤解且誤解已被另一方知曉的情形。

　　SECTION 10 MISREPRESENTATION虛假陳述

　　Representation陳述

　　10.1 A contract which is induced by a misrepresentation may be set aside, and may give rise to an action for damages. A misrepresentation occurs when one party to a contract makes a false statement of fact to the other contracting party which induces the latter to enter into the contract. To be operative, the false representation must relate to a past or present fact. It follows that a vague or exaggerated statement that is in the nature of a `puff´ does not suffice. Generally, a statement of a party´s intention or opinion is also not a sufficient ground for relief. However, if the representor does not honestly hold such intention or opinion, there is a misrepresentation of fact as to the representor´s state of mind. A statement of opinion may also be actionable if it is made by a person who professes to have special skill or knowledge in the matter stated. Statements of law appear still to be excluded from the ambit of operative representations, although the correctness of this position must now be doubted in light of the abolition of this distinction in the context of mistakes (see [Chapter 19 on Restitution - Mistaken Payments]).

　　因被虛假陳述引誘而訂立的合同可被結(jié)束，并可導致?lián)p害賠償之訴。為發(fā)生效能，假的陳述必須是關(guān)于一個過去或現(xiàn)在的事實。因此一個含糊的或夸張性的陳述屬于言過其實的吹噓，不足以成為虛假陳述。一般來講，因為一項對一方意圖或意見的陳述也不足以尋求法律救濟的理由。然而，如果陳述者沒有誠實地持有此種意圖或想法，可以說這是對他的心理狀態(tài)這一事實的虛假陳述。對于意見的陳述如果是由一個自稱具有某一事項的專業(yè)技能或知識的人作出，該陳述即可引起控訴。對法律的表述仍被排除在可發(fā)生虛假陳述效能的陳述之外。對此能否作出更正，尚是個值得懷疑的問題，特別是鑒于在誤解的情形下這兩者之間的區(qū)別已被廢除。

　　10.2 A representation may be express, or it may be inferred from the representor´s conduct. On its own, silence or non-disclosure does not usually constitute a representation. There are, however, exceptions to this general rule. If a party makes a positive but incomplete disclosure, the omitted disclosure may amount to a misrepresentation if it has the effect of distorting the truth of the information disclosed. Similarly, a failure to correct an earlier (and continuing) representation that was true at the time it was made but which has subsequently become incorrect is actionable. A failure to disclose material facts whilst negotiating contracts uberrimae fidei, such as insurance contracts, would also give rise to an action for misrepresentation.

　　陳述可以明示作出，或可從陳述人的行為中推定出來。陳述或者不批露本身通常不構(gòu)成陳述，對對此也有例外。如一方作出了積極的但又不完全的披露，被遺漏的信息如果對已披露的信息能造成扭曲，就構(gòu)成虛假陳述。相似地，在其先前作出時尚為準確的(持續(xù))陳述如果后來變得不正確，對其不作出更正就可能引致控訴。如果是協(xié)商一些最大誠信(uberrimae fidei) 合同如保險合同，失于披露重大事實就會引致虛假陳述之訴。

　　10.3 Generally, a misrepresentation must also be material, in the sense that it relates to a matter which would influence a reasonable person´s decision whether to enter into the contract. If a representation is ambiguous and may be interpreted in two (or more) ways, of which one is true and the other false, it is not a misrepresentation unless the representor has intended it to be understood in the sense that is false.

　　總的來說，虛假陳述也必須是重大的，這意味著它涉及到一個能夠影響一個通情達理的人決定是否簽訂合同的的事項。一果一項陳述含糊不清，可作兩種(或多種)解釋，但只有一種解釋是真實的而其他的都是虛假的，它就不是虛假陳述，除非陳述者意圖使其被理解為虛假的那種含義。

　　Inducement引誘

　　10.4 Misrepresentation is a ground for relief only where it has induced a contract. Clearly, if a person is unaware of the representation, or knows that it is untrue, or does not believe it to be true, he or she cannot reasonably have relied on, or be induced by, the representation to enter into the contract. Reliance may also be negated if the representee has independently verified the truth of the representation, although the failure to verify (when the opportunity to do so is available) is not in itself a bar to relief. If the misrepresentation has in fact induced the representee to enter into the contract, it does not matter that it is not the sole inducing factor. The persons who may rely on a representation are not confined to those directly addressed by the representor, but include any person whom the representor intends to reach and influence, even if such a person learns of the representation indirectly from a third party.

　　如果虛假陳述誘使了合同的成立，它就可以成為尋求法律救濟的理由。清楚的是，如果某人不知悉該陳述，或者知道它不是真實的，或者不相信它是真實的，他或她就不能合理地信賴該陳述或被其引誘而訂立合同。如果被陳述人已經(jīng)獨立驗證過陳述的真實性，這種信賴也可被否定，盡管(在有機會時)疏于驗證本身并不是尋求救濟的障礙。如果虛假陳述確實誘使被陳述人訂立合同，它是否是唯一的誘導因素就不重要了。信賴陳述的人并不限于陳述人的直接表述對象，還包括任何陳述人意圖致達和影響的人，即使該人是通過第三人間接地獲知陳述。

　　Rescission解除合同

　　10.5 Once it is established that a contract has been induced by a misrepresentation (whether innocent, negligent or fraudulent), the party induced may elect to rescind (ie set it aside) or affirm it. The effect of rescission is to release the parties from their contractual obligations, and to restore the parties to their respective positions prior to the making of the contract. The right to rescind will, however, be lost if: (a) the induced party has affirmed the contract; (b) innocent third parties have acquired (for value) rights in the subject matter of the contract; (c) it is no longer possible to restore the parties to their respective prior positions; and (d) (except in the case of fraud) an inordinate period of time has lapsed. It should also be noted that the court may, pursuant to s 2(2) of the Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed), award damages in substitution for the right to rescind.

　　一旦證明合同是因虛假陳述誘導而成立(不管是無辜、過失還是欺詐)，被誘導的一方可以選擇解除或確認合同。解除合同的后果是當事各方不再受合同義務約束，并使各方恢復到合同訂立以前的各自原狀。但是下列情況下解除合同的權(quán)利不再存在：(a)被誘導的一方已經(jīng)確認了合同;(b)無辜的第三方已經(jīng)(付出對價)取得了對合同標的的權(quán)利;(c)已經(jīng)不可能使當事各方恢復原狀;以及(d)(除欺詐情況外)過于長的一段時間已經(jīng)過去。還應該提到法庭可以根據(jù)《虛假陳述法》(Cap390, 1994修訂)第2(2)條判決以損害賠償代替解除合同。

　　Damages for Fraudulent Misrepresentation欺詐性虛假陳述的損害賠償

　　10.6 Whether damages may be awarded for misrepresentation depends on whether the misrepresentation is fraudulent, negligent or innocent. At common law, damages may be awarded for fraudulent misrepresentations. A fraudulent misrepresentation is a false representation that is made: (1) knowingly, (2) without belief in its truth, or (3) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false. In such a case, the representor would have committed the tort of deceit and the representee is permitted to recover for all losses incurred as a consequence of the fraudulent misrepresentation, even for losses which might not have been reasonably foreseeable.

　　是否能夠給與損害賠償要看虛假陳述的性質(zhì)是欺詐性的(fraudulent)，過失性的(negligent) 還是無辜性的(innocent)。在普通法上，因欺詐性陳述可被判令損害賠償。虛假陳述的虛假因素表現(xiàn)為：(1)蓄意地，(2)不相信其是真實的，或者(3)罔顧后果地或粗心大意地不在意其是真是假。見Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337, 374。這種情況下，陳述人即犯下欺騙性侵權(quán)行為，被陳述人被允許追回因為欺詐陳述所招致的各種損失，即使損失并非可以合理地預見到。

　　Common Law Damages for Negligent Misrepresentation過失虛假陳述的普通法損害賠償

　　10.7 Where an operative misrepresentation results from negligence, the party who has relied on it may obtain damages by commencing an action in the tort of negligence. This requires proof that there is a `special relationship´ between the parties which places the representor under a duty to take reasonable care in furnishing information or advice to the representee, and that the representor has failed to do so. A more extensive survey of the legal principles relating to this branch of the law is contained in [See Chapter 20 on Tort - Negligence]. Recovery in such a case would, however, be restricted to losses which are reasonably foreseeable.

　　如發(fā)生功效的虛假陳述屬于過失引起，信賴它行事的一方可以通過提起侵權(quán)過失之訴而獲得損害賠償。這需要證明當事方之間有一種特殊關(guān)系，陳述人因之有責任盡到合理注意以給被陳述人提供信息或建議，但他卻沒能那樣做。(關(guān)于這個領(lǐng)域的法律原則的更深入的討論見下文第二十章過失侵權(quán)法。)然而這種情形下追償?shù)姆秶抻诤侠眍A見到的損失。

　　Statutory Damages for Negligent Misrepresentation過失虛假陳述的成文法賠償

　　10.8 Alternatively, a party who has contracted in reliance on a negligent misrepresentation may claim damages under 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed). In fact, where the issue arises as between contracting parties, this statutory action is generally the preferred route for recovering damages as its requirements are less onerous than those of the common law (tortious) action outlined in Paragraph 10.7 above. Under s 2(1), the claimant only has to establish that he or she has contracted in reliance on the other party´s misrepresentation, whereupon the latter has the onus of proving that he or she was not negligent in that he or she had reasonable ground for believing in the truth of the statement. In contrast, the claimant in a tortious action bears the burden of proof of all elements of the action, including the existence of a special relationship between the parties, as well as the other party´s negligence. The language of the provision suggests that the measure of damages under s 2(1) should be the same as that for fraudulent misrepresentations, which is more liberal than the measure which applies in contract cases [see Paragraph 13.10 below] or in cases based on the tort of negligence [see Paragraph 10.7 above]. As a matter of principle, however, the contract measure appears to be the more appropriate option.

　　作為另一種選擇，因信賴過失性虛假陳述而訂立合同一方也可以根據(jù)《虛假陳述法》第2(1)條提起損害賠償。實際上，當事人之間存在此種爭議時，總的來說依據(jù)成文法起訴以獲得損害賠償是一條更愿意選擇的路徑，這是因為它的基本要求比普通法上的侵權(quán)之訴(見上文10.7)要容易達到。根據(jù)第2(1)條，索賠人只要證明他本著對另一方的虛假陳述的信賴而訂立合同，而后者則有責任證明他沒有過失責任是因為他也有合理理由相信聲明是真實的。與之相對照，侵權(quán)之訴的索賠人有責任為訴訟的所有因素舉證，包括當事人之間的特殊關(guān)系，以及另一方的過失。本條奇特的立法語言表明，第2(1)條下的賠償措施應與欺詐性虛假陳述的措施相同，這比合同糾紛中的 [見下文13.11 ]和過失侵權(quán)的[見前文10.7]賠償措施更為寬松。然而從原則上講，合同措施更為適當。

　　Innocent Misrepresentations無辜的陳述

　　10.9 Misrepresentations may also be made innocently. In such a case, the claimant is not entitled to damages at common law, but where the claimant still has the right to rescind (and it appears beneficial to do so), the claimant may persuade the court to exercise its discretion under s 2(2) of the Misrepresentation Act to award damages in lieu of rescission. If the court is not so persuaded and the contract is rescinded, the claimant may be compensated for expenses incurred in performing the contract in the form of an `indemnity´.

　　虛假陳述也可系無辜作出的。此種情形下，索賠人無權(quán)獲得普通法上的損害賠償，但當索賠人仍有權(quán)解除合同時(如果這樣做有益的話)，他可以說服法庭行使它在《虛假陳述法》地2(2)條下的自由裁量權(quán)，以判令損害賠償來代替解除合同。

　　Misrepresentations and Terms虛假陳述與合同條款

　　10.10 Misrepresentations are usually pre-contractual statements made to induce a person to contract with the representor. A pre-contractual statement which has induced a contract may also have been incorporated as a term of the contract. If so, the person who made the statement would now also be in breach of the contract if the statement turns out to be false. In such an event, damages for breach of contract may be claimed, and s 1 of the Misrepresentation Act makes it clear that the representee may still rescind the contract for misrepresentation. For the test for distinguishing between terms and representations, see Paragraph 5.1.

　　虛假陳述通常是一些引誘某人與陳述人訂立合同的先合同聲明。誘導合同成立的先合同聲明也可以被納入為合同的一個條款。這樣，如果聲明是虛假的，作出聲明的人現(xiàn)在也違反了合同。這種情況下，可以提起違約之訴?！短摷訇愂龇ā芬睬宄昝鞅魂愂鋈丝梢砸蛱摷訇愂龆獬贤?。關(guān)于條款和陳述的區(qū)別，見前文5.1.

　　Excluding Liability For Misrepresentation排出虛假陳述的責任

　　10.11 Parties to a contract may agree to contractual terms which exclude or limit their liability for misrepresentation, but s 3 of the Misrepresentation Act requires such a term to satisfy the test of reasonableness set out in s 11(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed). This test has been discussed inParagraph 5.14 above.

　　合同的各當事方可以同意以合同條款排除或限制他們的虛假陳述責任，但是《虛假陳述法》第3條要求此項條款符合《不公平合同交款法》第11(1)條規(guī)定的合理性標準。此標準在前文5.14已討論過。

　　SECTION 11 DURESS, UNDUE INFLUENCE & UNCONSCIONABILITY

　　脅迫，不當影響及顯失公平

　　Duress脅迫

　　11.1 If A enters into a contract with B as a result of B´s coercion (often taking the form of threats of unlawful acts), the contract may be set aside by A on the ground of duress. The types of unlawful or improper pressure that may have this effect include actual or threatened harm to a person, a person´s goods or his or her economic interests.

　　如果A與B訂立合同是出于B的強迫(表現(xiàn)為非法威脅)，A可以以脅迫為由廢止合同。有此類效果的非法的或不恰當?shù)膲毫Π▽σ粋€人的人身、貨物或經(jīng)濟利益的實際的或威脅的傷害。

　　11.2 The recognition that economic duress can suffice as a ground for avoiding a contract is a relatively recent development, justified by the concern to prevent a party with strong bargaining power from exploiting the weaker position of the counter party. However, it is not the case that economic duress arises whenever a contract is entered into between parties of unequal bargaining strength. The law recognises that a measure of commercial pressure is inherent in every transaction between such parties, and inequality in bargaining power is a well-accepted (and perhaps necessary) facet of modern commercial life. A plea of economic duress will therefore only succeed in the exceptional case, where a party has used his or her superior bargaining position a way that is illegitimate.

　　經(jīng)濟脅迫被認可為使合同無效的一個理由是合同法相當新的發(fā)展，其根據(jù)是防止據(jù)于強勢談判地位的一方已用另一方的不利地位。但并不是說只要合同是在兩個談判實力不相等的人中間就會有經(jīng)濟脅迫。法律承認當事人間的每一個交易中都會內(nèi)在地存在某種商業(yè)壓力，而談判力量不平等是現(xiàn)代商業(yè)生活中廣泛接受(且也許是必然)的現(xiàn)象，因此對經(jīng)濟脅迫的主張只有在一方以非法方式利用其優(yōu)越談判地位例外情形中才會勝出。

　　11.3 That said, the line between illegitimate pressure and mere commercial (and legitimate) pressure is extremely fine, and where it falls is often dependent on the particular facts of the case. In general, the reasonableness of the parties´ respective conduct appears to be an important consideration. For instance, a party who threatens to breach a contract with another if the latter does not agree to its request for increased payments is not exerting illegitimate pressure if, owing to acute financial conditions, that is the only course available to him. However, where the dominant party makes the same demand for no reason other than an opportunistic desire to exploit the counter party´s vulnerability for financial gain, such conduct is less likely to be viewed favourably.

　　盡管如此，非法壓力和純粹的商業(yè)壓力的界限是極端細微的，常常有賴于個案的事實?？傮w上，當事人各自行為的合理性是個重要考慮。例如，一方威脅說如果另一方不增加價款自己就要違反合同的行為不構(gòu)成施加非法壓力，如果根據(jù)他的艱難財力狀況，這是他唯一可以求助的方式。但是，如果據(jù)于支配地位的一方提出了同樣要求且其原因不過是想投機性地利用另一方的不利地位謀取利益，這類行為不大可能會被看好。

　　Undue Influence不當影響

　　11.4 The doctrine of undue influence guards against the victimisation of persons by those who exercise dominance or influence over them. The pressure so exerted is generally less direct and acute than that which occurs in cases involving duress. Traditionally, cases involving undue influence fall into two main categories.

　　不當影響理論保護那些因能支配或影響他們的人而受害的人。與脅迫相比，這一類的影響總的來說比較不直接不嚴重。傳統(tǒng)上，不當影響的情形可以分為兩類。

　　Actual Undue Influence實際的不當影響

　　11.5 Under the first category, a contract may be set aside if one utilises one´s dominant position over another to procure the latter´s consent to the contract. The victim has the burden of proving that the guilty party so dominates the victim´s will as to substantially undermine the victim´s independence of mind. It is, however, unnecessary to establish that such dominance arises out of a special relationship between the parties, nor that the resulting transaction is manifestly unfair to the victim.

　　第一類的情況是，如果一方利用自己對另一方的支配地位取得了對方對訂立合同的同意，這個合同可以被終止。受害者需證明有過錯的那方對受害者的意愿有支配性影響以致能實質(zhì)上削弱受害者的獨立意志。但是沒有必要證明這種支配是出于一種特殊關(guān)系，或者該交易對受害者來說明顯地不公平。

　　Presumed Undue Influence假定的不當影響

　　11.6 The second category is concerned with situations where, in the absence of proof of actual undue influence, a presumption that one party has acted under the undue influence of another arises. The effect of the presumption is to shift the burden to the defendant to prove that no undue influence has been exercised. The presumption arises in two situations. First, it arises automatically, as a matter of law, from the proof of the existence of certain relationships that are characterized by strong elements of confidence and influence. These include parent-child, guardian-ward, trustee-beneficiary, doctor-patient, lawyer-client, director-company, and religious adviser-disciple relationships. Secondly, although the parties´ relationship does not fall into the first-mentioned group, the presumption may nevertheless arise if the claimant is able to establish that he or she has in fact reposed trust and confidence on the other party. It is, however, unsettled as to whether the claimant would also have to establish that the transaction is one which is manifestly disadvantageous.

　　第二類涉及的是，如無證據(jù)證明實際的不當影響，假定一方受到另一方不當影響的情況。假定的目的是為了轉(zhuǎn)移不當影響的舉證責任。兩種情況下假定成立：第一，如能證明當事人之間存在著很強的信任與影響關(guān)系，則假定在法律上自動成立。這些包括(非窮盡性地)，父母-子女，監(jiān)護人-被監(jiān)護人，受托人-受益人，醫(yī)生-病人，律師-客戶，董事-公司，以及宗教上的導師-信徒等關(guān)系。第二，即使當事人的關(guān)系不屬于上述類型，如果請求人能夠證明它實際上對另一方寄以信任和信賴，假定也可成立。但是請求人是否亦需要證明交易明顯對他不利，這是個法律上尚未解決的問題(試比較Kushvinder Singh Chopra v Mooka Pillai Rajagopal [1996] 2 SLR 379 與Standard Chartered Bank v Uniden Systems (S) Pte Ltd [2003] 2 SLR 385兩個判例)。

　　Rebutting the Presumption對假定之反駁

　　11.7 The presumption may be rebutted by showing that the dominant party did not abuse his or her position and that the subservient party understood what he or she was doing and was in a position to exercise a free judgment based on full information. Generally, it would suffice to demonstrate that the subservient party had the opportunity to receive independent legal advice prior to making the contract.

　　支配方可以反駁假定，方式是示明他沒有濫用其地位，或者受其支配的一方知道該方自己的行為，也處于擁有充分信息能夠自由判斷的地位。一般講，這只需證明受支配方在訂立合同之前曾有機會接受獨立的法律咨詢。

　　Third Parties第三方

　　11.8 If A improperly influences B to contract with C (usually for the benefit of A), B may seek to set aside the contract on the ground of undue influence if it can be shown either (a) that A was acting as the agent of C; or that (b) C had either actual or constructive notice of A´s misconduct. If the transaction is one which is, on its face, disadvantageous to B, and C knows of reasons why B could have reposed trust and confidence in A (where, for instance, B is A´s wife), then C would be fixed with constructive notice of the improper influence, unless C has taken reasonable steps to ensure that B´s consent was in fact obtained independently. This will entail, at the very least, explaining the transaction to B in a private meeting, and advising her to seek independent legal advice.

　　如果A不適當?shù)厥┘佑绊懯笲與C訂立合同(通常是為了A的利益)，如能證明下列情形，B可以尋求終止合同：(a)A是作為C的代理行事;或(b)C對A的不端行為實際知情或者推定知情。如果這項交易在表面上對B不利，而C知悉B對A寄以信任和信賴的原因(比如B是A的妻子)，則C對A的不當影響推定知情，除非C曾采取合理措施保證B的同意是獨立作出的。這要求B至少在私下場合向B解釋過此樁交易并且建議B尋求獨立的法律意見。

　　Effects of Duress and Undue Influence脅迫和不當影響的效果

　　11.9 Contracts that are procured by duress, undue influence or unconscionable conduct are voidable. In each case, the improper conduct must be a significant or decisive cause of the victim´s consent. This right to rescind may, however, be lost in certain circumstances (see Paragraph 10.5 above).

　　通過脅迫、不當影響、或者違背良心的行為訂立的合同為可撤銷的合同。在上述任何一種情況下，不端行為必須足夠重大或者是使受害人作出同意的決定性原因。然而在某些情況下撤銷權(quán)也會消滅。見前文10.5。

　　Unconscionable Bargains違背良心的合同

　　11.10 Apart from instances involving duress or undue influence, equity may also relieve parties from `unconscionable bargains´. Such bargains typically involve the exploitation of one party´s weakness, though the mere fact that the parties are of unequal bargaining power does not suffice. The exact ambit of this jurisdiction is unclear, but it has traditionally been applied narrowly to cases involving expectant heirs and improvident transactions.

　　脅迫或不當影響之外，衡平法也為當事方提供違背良心的合同的救濟。一種典型例子是一方利用另一方的弱點，但是雙方的談判地位不平等尚不足以成為根據(jù)。這一理論的范圍尚不是很清楚，但傳統(tǒng)上它只是被狹窄地適用于期待繼承人(expectant heirs)和大肆浪費的交易(improvident transactions)這些情形。

　　SECTION 12 ILLEGALITY AND PUBLIC POLICY非法性與公共政策

　　Statutory Illegality成文法上的非法性

　　12.1 A contract may be said to be `illegal´ in a number of different contexts. For example, there may be a statutory prohibition as to the formation of contracts which would entail carrying out certain socially undesirable activities.

　　在若干情形下一個合同可被稱之為非法。例如，成文法可能禁止那些涉及到不良社會后果的合同成立。

　　12.2 In such cases, the statute may clearly provide that the `illegal´ contract is void. That is to say, it is to be treated in law as if it had never been formed. If the statutory wording is clear, there is no need to go any further to ascertain the intention of the legislature as to the status of the contract.

　　這種情形之下，成文法可能清楚規(guī)定非法合同是無效合同。這即是說，它被法律認為自始不成立。如果成文法的語言清楚，則沒有必要進一步確定立法者關(guān)于合同地位的意圖。見Turquand, Young & Co v Yat Yuen Hong Co Ltd [1967]1 MLJ 291 at 292。

　　12.3 Difficulties arise, however, where the statutory wording is unclear, particularly where the statute in question does not clearly specify whether its object is to prohibit the formation of the contract, or the performance of the obligations under that contract. The true parliamentary intention underlying the statutory prohibition will have to be ascertained. In the former case, the contract is void.

　　當立法語言不夠清楚時問題就有點困難了，特別是當有關(guān)的成文法沒有明確規(guī)定其目的到底是禁止合同成立，還是合同義務的履行。對此要確定議會在立法的禁止性規(guī)范的之下的真實意圖。如果意圖是前者，合同無效。

　　Illegality at Common Law普通法上的非法性

　　12.4 At common law, certain strands of public policy prohibit the formation of certain types of contract.

　　在普通法上，某些公共政策禁止一些合同的成立。

　　12.5 Such contracts are completely void and examples include: (a) contracts prejudicial to the administration of justice - these include contracts to stifle prosecution, or contracts savouring of maintenance (where one person supports another in bringing or resisting an action - as by paying the costs of it - which is permissible only if the party providing the support has a legitimate and genuine interest in the result of the action and the circumstances are such as reasonably to warrant such support) or champerty (which is a species of maintenance where the maintainer seeks to make a profit out of another man's action - by taking the proceeds of it, or part of them, for himself or herself); (b) contracts to deceive public authorities; (c) contracts to oust the jurisdiction of courts (although contracts or agreements to arbitrate, or agreements to confer exclusive jurisdiction over a dispute in favour of a foreign court are not caught by this prohibition); (d) contracts to commit a crime, tort or fraud; (e) contracts prejudicial to public safety; and (f) contracts promoting sexual immorality.

　　這類合同完全無效。如下合同為例：(a)合同妨害司法行政–這包括阻礙司法檢控的合同，或者具有挑唆詞訟(maintenance)或者助頌圖利(champerty)的合同。前者是指某人支持他人提起或?qū)乖V訟–例如承擔訴訟費用，但如果支持者對訴訟的結(jié)果有真實的合法的利益而且在當時情形下這種支持是合理的，支持就是被許可的。后者是挑唆詞訟的一種，指支持訴訟者試圖從他人的訴訟中謀利, 如為自己拿走訴訟的全部或部分賠款等;(b)欺騙政府機構(gòu)的合同;(c) 逃避法院管轄權(quán)的合同(但是仲裁合同或協(xié)議以及授予非新加坡法院排他性管轄權(quán)的協(xié)議并不在禁止之列);(d)約定犯罪、侵權(quán)或欺詐的合同;(e)妨害公共安全的合同;以及(f)關(guān)于不道德性關(guān)系的合同。

　　Effect of Statutory Illegality or Illegality at Common Law

　　成文法上的非法性與普通法上的非法性的后果

　　12.6 Where a contract is rendered void by statute or common law, the general starting point is to treat the contract as if it had never existed. Any outstanding or unperformed obligations under that contract are extinguished. In other words, in so far as enforcement of such outstanding obligations would have required reliance on the illegal contract, no judicial enforcement is possible. Judicial enforcement may still be available, notwithstanding the illegality, if it is possible to do so without referring to the illegal contract, ie by relying on an independent and separate cause of action.

　　如果合同依成文法或普通法無效，則一般是將它視作自始不存在。合同項下任何現(xiàn)存的或未履行的義務均告消滅。換言之，如執(zhí)行現(xiàn)存合同義務要基于該非法合同，則司法強制執(zhí)行不為可能。但是，如果司法強制執(zhí)行可以無須依據(jù)非法合同而進行(例如可以依據(jù)一個獨立的和分立的案由，則盡管存在合同的非法性，仍然可以進行司法強制執(zhí)行。

　　12.7 Conversely, the question arises whether any recovery may be had for benefits which have been conferred under an illegal contract. On one view, such benefits will have been conferred without any basis. It may well be that, in some cases, some form of recovery pursuant to the law of unjust enrichment is possible. This is very likely to be allowed in instances where one party repents of the illegal contract and withdraws from it before the illegal purpose of the contract is fulfilled. If such repentance is genuine, voluntary and timely, before any part of the illegal purpose has been carried out, restitutionary recovery pursuant to the principles of unjust enrichment is likely to be allowed [see Chapter 19 on Unjust Enrichment].

　　有個問題是非法合同項下獲得的利益能否予以追回。關(guān)于這個問題一方面的意見是，此類利益之授予沒有任何基礎(chǔ)。在某些情況下，按照不當?shù)美蛇M行某種形式的追償是可能的。如一方在合同的非法目的實現(xiàn)前對非法合同行為悔悟，這種情形下不當?shù)美涂赡艿卯斶m用。如悔悟在合同的任何非法目的被實現(xiàn)前真誠、自覺、及時地發(fā)生，按照不當?shù)美瓌t進行恢復原狀返還財產(chǎn)即可能被允許。見第十九章關(guān)于不當?shù)美?/span>

　　Contracts in Restraint of Trade限制商業(yè)的合同

　　12.8 A contract which is wholly in restraint of trade is contrary to public policy and is illegal at common law. Such a contract is void. Leeway, however, is given in light of the fact that, in some contexts, some restraint of trade may well protect legitimate interests.

　　整體上限制商業(yè)的合同有悖公共政策，在普通法上是非法的。此類合同整體無效。但某些情形下亦允許有例外，如果此類限制有助于保護合法利益。

　　12.9 For example, a `reasonable´ restraint of trade clause which seeks to protect: (a) the interests of the parties concerned; (b) and the interests of the public will not be void. Both these aspects of reasonableness must be established.

　　例如，一項合理的限制商業(yè)的條款可以是為了尋求保護：(a)有關(guān)當事方的利益;(b)以及公共利益，這類合同不被認定無效。上述兩方面的合理性都要予以證明。見Thomas Cowan & Co Ltd v Orme [1961] MLJ 41。

　　12.10 This determination will vary from case to case, but significant factors will include the geographic scope as well as the length of time for which the restraint of trade is to apply. The wider and longer the restraint, the more difficult it will be to prove that the restraint is reasonable.

　　確定合理性要依個案判斷，重要的因素包括商業(yè)限制適用的地理范圍和時間跨度等。限制的寬度與廣度越大，越難證明限制的合理與正當性.

　　Severance分離

　　12.11 Sometimes, illegality might taint only part of a contract, eg, attempts to restrain competition from ex-employees. Such restraints of trade are often incorporated as a covenant or term in an otherwise unobjectionable employment or service contract.

　　有時候只是合同的一部分具有非法性，比如包括試圖限制前雇員競爭的條款。此種商業(yè)限制常常作為一項保證或者條款包括在雇用合同中，如無此項條款此類合同不會被反對。

　　12.12 If the restraint of trade covenant is found to be unreasonable, and hence void, the `illegal´ covenant will be severed from the rest of the contract, maintaining the contract´s validity if the severed covenant does not form the whole or the main consideration for the contract. If the severed covenant does form the whole or the main consideration for the contract, no severance will take place and the entire contract is void.

　　如限制商業(yè)條款被認定為不合理而因此與法無據(jù)和無效，非法的保證將從合同的其他部分分離開來。如被分離的條款不構(gòu)成全部或主要的合同對價，合同的效力仍維持。如果待被分離的保證確實構(gòu)成合同的全部的或主要的對價，分離即不應該進行，而合同也整體無效。

　　12.13 Severance may also take effect in a more limited form within the confines of a particular covenant or term. This more limited form of severance is akin to taking a `blue-pencil´ to strike out those words which would render the covenant `unreasonable.´ In doing so, however, the court will not go so far as to re-write the contractual bargain which had been reached by the contracting parties.

　　分離也可以在一個特定的保證或條款之內(nèi)以更有限的形式進行，這如同用一只藍鉛筆劃掉那些導致整個保證條款不合理的詞句。在如此理案的時候，法庭也不會走得太遠以至于重寫當事人之間議定的合同。

　　SECTION 13 JUDICIAL REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT違約的司法救濟

　　Judicial Remedies Contrasted with Self-help Remedies司法救濟與自力救濟

　　13.1 Following a breach of a condition of a contract, or where the breach causes one party to be deprived of substantially the whole of the benefit of the contract, the aggrieved party may elect to bring the contract to an end. When this happens, both the aggrieved party and the party-in-breach will be released from any outstanding obligations under the contract. This is said to be a `self-help´ remedy because the release is effected without the need for any court approval or intervention.

　　違反合同的條件(conditions)條款之后，或違約實質(zhì)上整體剝奪了另一方在合同項下的利益，受損方可以選擇終止合同。如此，則受損方和違約方都不再受現(xiàn)有合同義務約束。這被稱之為自力救濟，因為合同義務的解除是當事人自己達成，未經(jīng)過任何法庭批準或介入。

　　13.2 Where the aggrieved party has suffered financial losses as a result of the breach, or where release of the party-in-breach from outstanding obligations will cause financial loss, discharge of contract alone may not be an adequate remedy. Recourse to other judicial remedies may be needed.

　　如受損方因?qū)Ψ竭`約而遭受財務損失，或者解除違約方的現(xiàn)存義務會引起財務損失，那么合同解除本身尚不足以成為救濟，而需要求助于司法救濟。

　　Types of Judicial Remedies 司法救濟的種類

　　13.3 In relation to contract law, the following types of judicial remedy are commonly sought: (a) the common law remedy of damages; (b) the common law remedy of an action for a fixed sum; (c) the equitable remedy of specific performance; and (d) the equitable remedy of injunction. It is important to draw the distinction between the common law and the equitable remedies because, while the former are available as of right, the latter are discretionary.

　　合同法相關(guān)的司法救濟手段通常包括以下幾種：(a)普通法上的損害賠償救濟;(b)普通法上請求支付固定數(shù)目違約金之訴;(c)衡平法上的實際履行救濟;以及(d)衡平法上的禁令救濟。在普通法和衡平法上的救濟之間劃清界限很重要，因為前者屬于當事人有權(quán)獲得，后者則依賴法庭的自由裁量。

　　Availability of Judicial Remedies - Time bars, Limitation Periods and Laches

　　司法救濟之可獲得性–時間與時效限制

　　13.4 Urgency should be the order of the day when seeking judicial remedies as access to judicial remedies may be barred by lapse of time.

　　尋求司法救濟要盡快緊急進行，因為司法救濟可能因為時間的流逝而不再可得。

　　13.5 Generally speaking, no action may be brought for a breach of contract after 6 years have lapsed from the time when the contract was breached - s 6 of the Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed). This bars access to the court insofar as the remedies of damages or an action for a fixed sum are concerned. [See Chapter 2 on Court Procedure for a fuller discussion].

　　總的來說，違約六年以后不得再提起訴訟。見《訴訟時效法》(Cap 163, 1996年修訂)第6條。這限制了向法庭提起支付固定數(shù)目之訴。見第二章關(guān)于法庭程序的詳細討論。

　　13.6 In relation to the equitable remedies of specific performance and injunction, the equitable doctrine of laches applies. Shortly put, applicants who delay applying for equitable relief from the courts may be turned away if the delay is inordinate and inexcusable, such that it would be inequitable to grant such relief. Indeed, an application for an order for specific performance might be denied if the application is not made as soon as the nature of the case might permit.

　　至于實際履行和禁令的衡平法救濟手段，要使用衡平法上的行權(quán)懈怠理論。簡言之，申請人申請衡平法救濟如果遲延，就會被拒絕，如果遲延如此過分和不可原諒以至于授予此種救濟將不再公平的話。的確，對實際履行救濟的申請，如果在情形顯現(xiàn)的時候沒有盡快進行，將會被法庭拒絕。見Tay Joo Sing v Ku Yu Sang [1994] 3 SLR 719 at 730。

　　Damages - Compensation for Pecuniary Loss損害賠償- 金錢損失的賠補

　　13.7 Contractual damages are awarded to an aggrieved party in the form of a sum of money, in compensation for any pecuniary losses which have been incurred as a result of the breach of contract.

　　合同損害賠償以一定數(shù)量金錢的方式判給受損方，以賠補其因為對方違約而遭受的任何金錢損失。

　　Compensation Only僅供賠償

　　13.8 In general, damages are compensatory in nature. It remains an open question whether, in the appropriate case, damages might be awarded for breach of contract on any other basis.

　　一般來講，損害賠償只是賠償性質(zhì)的。在恰當?shù)陌盖橹?，損害賠償能否以其他理由授予，這還是個待定的問題。

　　Liquidated Compared with Unliquidated Damages約定與未約定的損害賠償

　　13.9 In some cases, compensation for losses resulting from breach may have been pre-agreed by the contracting parties as a term of the contract. If the agreed sum is a genuine pre-estimate of the loss which could be suffered as a result of a breach of the contract, the court will order that sum to be paid in compensation as liquidated damages. However, if the sum is intended to be a penalty aimed at `punishing´ the party-in-breach, the court will strike down the `penalty´ clause and award unliquidated damages instead to compensate the aggrieved party.

　　在某型情形中，當事人可能已經(jīng)事先通過合同條款約定損失的賠償。如果約定的數(shù)額是對違約后損失的真實的事先估算，法庭會將之作為約定的違約金予以支持。但如果這個數(shù)額是意圖作為對違約方的懲罰，法庭會撤消懲罰條款，代之以賠補受損人損失的未約定損害賠償。

　　Quantification and Measure of Unliquidated Damages未約定損害賠償?shù)臄?shù)量化與方式

　　13.10 The court will usually quantify unliquidated damages so as to place the aggrieved party, as far as money can do so, in the position he or she would have been had the contract been performed fully instead of being breached. Therefore, if the aggrieved party would have expected to make a profit by resale of goods which had been purchased from the party-in-breach, but where such profit falls away because of non-delivery and breach, the aggrieved party´s expectation loss in the form of the loss of profit may be recovered. Alternatively, where the aggrieved party has to incur additional costs, over and above what was expected under the contract by reason of having to pay for a replacement supply of goods or services following the failure by the party-in-breach to perform his or her contractual obligations, those additional expenses may be recovered by the aggrieved party in compensation as a form of expectation loss. As a further alternative, an aggrieved party may choose to quantify his or her damages on the basis of expenses which were incurred in reliance on the other party performing his or her contractual obligations, instead of on an expectation basis (unless it is demonstrated that the aggrieved party had made a bad bargain and the reliance expenditure would have exceeded any expected gain).

　　法庭通常會將未約定的損害賠償數(shù)量化，以在金錢賠償能做到的范圍內(nèi)，使受損方達到如果合同能夠被完全履行(而不是被違反)后他應處的位置。因此，如果受損方本應該從轉(zhuǎn)售從違約方處買來的貨物中獲得利潤，但由于未交付貨物或其他違約行為，該項利潤不可獲得或減少，受損方可以獲賠期待損失(表現(xiàn)為利潤損失)。作為選擇，如果由于違約方的疏于履行合同義務，受損方不得不付出高于合同項下的期待成本的多余成本以購買替代貨物或服務，這些多余成本可以以期待損失的方式獲得補償。作為更多的選擇，受損方可以選擇以對另一方履行合同義務的信賴作為根據(jù)將其損失數(shù)量化，而不是以期待為根據(jù)(除非能證明受損方只是做了一個很蠢的協(xié)商，從而信賴損失要遠遠高于期待利益)。

　　Time of Quantification數(shù)量化的時間

　　13.11 In most instances, unliquidated damages will be assessed as at the time of the breach although, in appropriate cases, the court may take into account events occurring after the breach.

　　在大多數(shù)情況下，未約定損害賠償應于違約之時為準來估算，但是在適當情形下，法庭也會考慮違約后發(fā)生的事件。

　　Restrictions on Recovery of Unliquidated Damages對追索未約定賠償?shù)南拗?/span>

　　13.12 It is not the case, however, that unliquidated damages are available for all losses. Recovery is subject to certain restrictions.

　　但未約定損害賠償并非對所有損失都適用。追索受到多種限制

　　Non-pecuniary Loss非金錢損失

　　13.13 First, non-pecuniary losses (ie for hurt feelings, disappointment, mental distress, and so forth), are generally not compensable except in certain limited circumstances - for example, where the contractual obligation itself related to non-pecuniary matters, as in the case of a contract for a package holiday.

　　首先，非金錢損失(如感情傷害、失望、精神痛苦等)一般不能獲得賠償，除非在某些限定的情況下，如合同義務本身事關(guān)非金錢事項，如一切由旅游社代辦的固定費用假日旅游等。

　　Remoteness of Loss損失的遙遠性

　　13.14 Second, losses which are too remote are not compensable. Losses which arise in the usual course of things as a result of the breach are not too remote, and are compensable. Losses which are out of the ordinary and which would not ordinarily have been in the contemplation of either party to the contract are not - unless the party-in-breach knew or ought to have known about the possibility of such unusual losses.

　　第二，過于遙遠的損失不能獲賠償。在這方面新加坡法律采取了判例Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex 341中的立場。因此，因損失所發(fā)生的正常過程中的損失都不算遙遠，因而可以得到補償。非正常的-從而也不在任何當事人訂立合同時的考量范圍之內(nèi)的–損失不被賠付，除非違約方知道或者應當知道這種不正常損失的可能性。

　　Mitigation of Loss減損

　　13.15 Third, losses which the aggrieved party could have taken reasonable steps to avoid, but did not, are not compensable. This is to encourage mitigation of losses, that is, steps by the aggrieved party to reduce his or her losses. The duty is to take all reasonable steps to minimise one´s loss. If, in taking objectively reasonable steps to mitigate, the aggrieved party incurs greater loss than if no steps been taken at all, such increased losses will still be recoverable from the party-in-breach.

　　第三，當事人本來可以采取合理措施避免卻沒有這樣做而導致的損失不被賠付。這是為了鼓勵受損方采取減損(mitigation)措施減少他的損失。減損責任并不是說要求受損方采取所有措施減少損失。如果受損方采取客觀上合理的措施減損但卻因此而招致了更大的損失，增加的損失仍可從違約方處追索。

　　Action for a Fixed Sum固定數(shù)目款項之訴

　　13.16 Damages, whether liquidated or unliquidated, are not the only remedy at common law. Where the contractual breach relates solely to an obligation to pay a fixed sum of money, damages are not available as a remedy. Instead of damages, the court will order that the fixed sum, due and owing, be paid.

　　無論是約定的還是未約定的損害賠償都不是普通法上的唯一可得的救濟。當規(guī)定的違約賠償只是一筆固定數(shù)目的款項，損害賠償則不得為救濟。取代損害賠償?shù)氖欠ㄍ辛盍x務方支付該筆固定的數(shù)目。

　　13.17 In such cases, generally, there will be no damages for the delay in payment, apart from any court ordered interest on the judgment sum, or any contractual interest (if the contract expressly provides for the payment of interest on any delayed payment of the sum owed).

　　這種情況下，延遲付款沒有損害賠償，只有法庭判決款項數(shù)目的利益，或者合同規(guī)定的利率(如合同明確規(guī)定對延遲付款應支付的利息)。

　　Specific Performance實際履行

　　13.18 Sometimes, damages will not be an adequate remedy for a breach of contract. This may be the case where the breach involves delivery of property which is unique (such as a piece of land). In such instances, the aggrieved party may make an application for the court to make an order of specific performance - ie an order to the party-in-breach (or threatening to be in breach) to perform in accordance with the terms of his or her contractual promise.

　　有些時候，損害賠償不足以成為違約的充足救濟。比如違約牽涉的是交付特定財產(chǎn)的義務(例如某處土地)，這種情形下，受損方可以申請法庭裁令實際履行–比如裁令違約方(或威脅違約方)按照其合同許諾履行實際義務。

　　13.19 Specific performance is, however, not available as against the Singapore Government in any civil proceedings to which the state is a party - see s 27(1)(a) of the Government Proceedings Act (Cap 121, 1985 Rev Ed).

　　在國家是一方當事人的任何訴訟中，實際履行不得被用于新加坡政府。見《政府程序法》(Cap 121，1985修訂)。

　　Limits on Availability of Specific Performance對實際履行的限制

　　13.20 Specific performance is a discretionary remedy. It may be withheld if, in all the circumstances of the case, it would be inequitable to make such an order. As has been mentioned above, substantial delay in applying for such relief may be enough to cause the court to withhold such relief. Relief may also be withheld if the applicant does not come to court with `clean hands´. The order for specific performance may also be made on terms, so as to balance the interests of the parties to the dispute.

　　實際履行是法院自由裁量的救濟。如果根據(jù)案件的全部實際情形，采取此種措施不公平，法庭就不會裁令實際履行。如上所述，如過于遲延申請此種救濟，且如果當事人自己也并非沒有責任，法庭就會拒絕判令此種措施。見判例Chuah Eng Khong v Malayan Banking Bhd [1997] 3 MLJ 173 at 186-7。法庭的實際履行裁令有時候也會有條件授予，以保持爭議各方權(quán)利義務的平衡。見Ng Lay Choo Marion v Lok Lai Oi [1995] 3 SLR 221。

　　13.21 Specific performance might also be refused in a number of other instances, most notably where: (a) the proposed order would require constant supervision by the court; (b) the court is not able to specify the terms of the order which is to be complied with; (c) the proposed order would require the performance of something which is impossible to achieve; and (d) the order relates to a contract of personal service because such an order could amount to judicial compulsion of involuntary servitude.

　　其他情形下實際履行也可能被拒絕，如：(a)如果履行令需要法庭持續(xù)的監(jiān)督;(b)法庭不能夠明確履行令的條款;(c)履行令要求履行一些不可能實現(xiàn)的事情：以及(d)合同涉及到人身服務性質(zhì)的義務，因為這樣做如同司法強制勞役。

　　Injunction禁止令

　　13.22 Not all contractual obligations are susceptible to orders of specific performance. Sometimes, the contractual obligation in question is a negative one, where the party-in-breach fails to honour his or her promise not to do something. In such circumstances, an application for a prohibitory injunction may be made by the aggrieved party.

　　并非所有的合同義務都適于實際履行。有時候，合同義務是個消極義務，而違約方違反了不作為的義務。此種情形下，受損方可以向法庭申請禁止令。

　　13.23 In the absence of factors such as those mentioned above in Paragraph 13.20, prohibitory injunctions are likely to be granted unless: (a) the remedy would be inequitable or oppressive; or (b) the balance of convenience does not favour making such an order.

　　如上文13.21提到的各項因素不存在，即可發(fā)布禁止令，除非：(a)此項救濟不公平或過于暴虐–見Jaggard v Sawyer [1995] 1 WLR 269;或者(b)發(fā)布此救濟確實不符合方便易行的要求 – 見Rajaram v Ganesh t/a Golden Harvest Trading Corp [1995] 1 SLR 159。

　　13.24 If the breach of the negative obligation lies wholly in the past, the aggrieved party may seek a mandatory injunction instead. Such an order requires the party-in-breach to reverse the effects of the breach so as to restore the aggrieved party to the position he or she would have been, had the negative obligation not been breached.

　　如果違反消極義務系完全在過去發(fā)生，受損方可以選擇申請強制禁止令(mandatory injunction)。此種命令要求違約方采取措施推翻違約行為的后果，使受損方還原到如消極義務未被違反他本應該處于的地位。

　　13.25 The discretion whether to issue a mandatory injunction is also generally subject to the `balance of convenience´ test.

　　是否授予強制禁止令也要遵行方便易行(balance of convenience) 的原則。

　　13.26 In general, injunctions will also be refused in relation to contracts of personal service - where the practical effect of the proposed injunction would be to compel the performance of a contract for personal service for which no order of specific performance would have been made in the first place.

　　總的來說，對涉及到人身服務性質(zhì)的合同，禁止令申請也會被拒絕，如果此類禁令會強迫履行人身服務合同，而即便任何實際履行命令也不會有此效果。