日期：2018-01-11 / 人气： / 来源：http://www.rzfanyi.com/ 作者：译声翻译公司翻译公司分享新加坡合同法翻译模板（下部分 中英文）
SECTION 9 MISTAKE误解
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 In the latter case, the contract is valid until it is rescinded (or set aside) by the mistaken party.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.
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.
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.
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]).
Common Mistake at Common Law普通法上的共同误解
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.
普通法上的先例是对谈称的成交条件倾向予以肯定。故此，关于质量的共同误解一般不会使合同无效，除非误解使得合同的标的物本质上和重大地不同于当事人当初所认为的标的物。见Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd  AC 61。因此普通法理论在这方面非常狭隘，在超出标的物不存在或灭失的情形之外很少适用。
Common Mistake in Equity衡平法上的误解
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.
比较而言，衡平法的进路更为自由：即使一个误解尚不能充分具有根本的性质而使合同在普通法上无效，但只要误解足够严重，衡平法也允许使合同因此得以终止。见Solle v Butcher  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  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  QB 679).
对分别在普通法和衡平法上的“根本误解”的不同程度加以区分是一件很难的任务。虽然如此，新加坡的上诉法庭(Court of Appeals)最近的一些判例观点仍然坚持维持这个二元模式。见Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd  1 SLR 502。这与英国法现在的立场已有显著不同，因为在英国衡平法规则已被废除。见Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd  QB 679。
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.
Unilateral Mistake as to Identity关于身份的单方误解
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.
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.
Unilateral Mistake as to a Term关于条款的单边误解
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  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.
第二类是关于条款的单边误解。如果A基于对某个重要条款(并非另一方当事人B的身份)的误解，而B知晓此项误解，在普通法上该误解可以使合同归于无效。新加坡上诉法院最近澄清，上述普通法原则只适用于B(作为无误解认识的一方)实际上知晓A有了误解的情形。此外在某个案件不属于上述普通法涵盖的范围的情况下(比如因为不能证明B实际上知晓A有误解)，如果B卷入显失公平行为，法庭可以行使它在衡平法上的权力解除合同。见Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd  1 SLR 502。这种情形可产生于B相信A正在产生误解但却有意不去纠正A的误解。
Documents Mistakenly Signed因误解而签字的文件
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.
Documents Mistakenly Recorded因误解而记载的文件
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.
SECTION 10 MISREPRESENTATION虚假陈述
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]).
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.
陈述可以明示作出，或可从陈述人的行为中推定出来。陈述或者不批露本身通常不构成陈述，对对此也有例外。如一方作出了积极的但又不完全的披露，被遗漏的信息如果对已披露的信息能造成扭曲，就构成虚假陈述。相似地，在其先前作出时尚为准确的(持续)陈述如果后来变得不正确，对其不作出更正就可能引致控诉。如果是协商一些“最大诚信”(uberrimae fidei) 合同如保险合同，失于披露重大事实就会引致虚假陈述之诉。
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.
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.
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.
Damages for Fraudulent Misrepresentation欺诈性虚假陈述的损害赔偿
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.
是否能够给与损害赔偿要看虚假陈述的性质是欺诈性的(fraudulent)，过失性的(negligent) 还是无辜性的(innocent)。在普通法上，因欺诈性陈述可被判令损害赔偿。虚假陈述的“虚假”因素表现为：“(1)蓄意地，(2)不相信其是真实的，或者(3)罔顾后果地或粗心大意地不在意其是真是假。”见Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337, 374。这种情况下，陈述人即犯下欺骗性侵权行为，被陈述人被允许追回因为欺诈陈述所招致的各种损失，即使损失并非可以合理地预见到。
Common Law Damages for Negligent Misrepresentation过失虚假陈述的普通法损害赔偿
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.
Statutory Damages for Negligent Misrepresentation过失虚假陈述的成文法赔偿
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.
作为另一种选择，因信赖过失性虚假陈述而订立合同一方也可以根据《虚假陈述法》第2(1)条提起损害赔偿。实际上，当事人之间存在此种争议时，总的来说依据成文法起诉以获得损害赔偿是一条更愿意选择的路径，这是因为它的基本要求比普通法上的侵权之诉(见上文10.7)要容易达到。根据第2(1)条，索赔人只要证明他本着对另一方的虚假陈述的信赖而订立合同，而后者则有责任证明他没有过失责任是因为他也有合理理由相信声明是真实的。与之相对照，侵权之诉的索赔人有责任为诉讼的所有因素举证，包括当事人之间的特殊关系，以及另一方的过失。本条奇特的立法语言表明，第2(1)条下的赔偿措施应与欺诈性虚假陈述的措施相同，这比合同纠纷中的 [见下文13.11 ]和过失侵权的[见前文10.7]赔偿措施更为宽松。然而从原则上讲，合同措施更为适当。
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´.
Misrepresentations and Terms虚假陈述与合同条款
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.
Excluding Liability For Misrepresentation排出虚假陈述的责任
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.
SECTION 11 DURESS, UNDUE INFLUENCE & UNCONSCIONABILITY
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.
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.
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.
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.
Actual Undue Influence实际的不当影响
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.
Presumed Undue Influence假定的不当影响
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.
第二类涉及的是，如无证据证明实际的不当影响，假定一方受到另一方不当影响的情况。假定的目的是为了转移不当影响的举证责任。两种情况下假定成立：第一，如能证明当事人之间存在着很强的信任与影响关系，则假定在法律上自动成立。这些包括(非穷尽性地)，父母-子女，监护人-被监护人，受托人-受益人，医生-病人，律师-客户，董事-公司，以及宗教上的导师-信徒等关系。第二，即使当事人的关系不属于上述类型，如果请求人能够证明它实际上对另一方寄以信任和信赖，假定也可成立。但是请求人是否亦需要证明交易明显对他不利，这是个法律上尚未解决的问题(试比较Kushvinder Singh Chopra v Mooka Pillai Rajagopal  2 SLR 379 与Standard Chartered Bank v Uniden Systems (S) Pte Ltd  2 SLR 385两个判例)。
Rebutting the Presumption对假定之反驳
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.
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.
Effects of Duress and Undue Influence胁迫和不当影响的效果
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).
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.
胁迫或不当影响之外，衡平法也为当事方提供“违背良心的合同”的救济。一种典型例子是一方利用另一方的弱点，但是双方的谈判地位不平等尚不足以成为根据。这一理论的范围尚不是很清楚，但传统上它只是被狭窄地适用于期待继承人(expectant heirs)和大肆浪费的交易(improvident transactions)这些情形。
SECTION 12 ILLEGALITY AND PUBLIC POLICY非法性与公共政策
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.
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.
这种情形之下，成文法可能清楚规定“非法”合同是无效合同。这即是说，它被法律认为自始不成立。如果成文法的语言清楚，则没有必要进一步确定立法者关于合同地位的意图。见Turquand, Young & Co v Yat Yuen Hong Co Ltd 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.
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.
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.
这类合同完全无效。如下合同为例：(a)合同妨害司法行政–这包括阻碍司法检控的合同，或者具有挑唆词讼(maintenance)或者助颂图利(champerty)的合同。前者是指某人支持他人提起或对抗诉讼–例如承担诉讼费用，但如果支持者对诉讼的结果有真实的合法的利益而且在当时情形下这种支持是合理的，支持就是被许可的。后者是挑唆词讼的一种，指支持诉讼者试图从他人的诉讼中谋利, 如为自己拿走诉讼的全部或部分赔款等;(b)欺骗政府机构的合同;(c) 逃避法院管辖权的合同(但是仲裁合同或协议以及授予非新加坡法院排他性管辖权的协议并不在禁止之列);(d)约定犯罪、侵权或欺诈的合同;(e)妨害公共安全的合同;以及(f)关于不道德性关系的合同。
Effect of Statutory Illegality or Illegality at Common Law
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.
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].
Contracts in Restraint of Trade限制商业的合同
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.
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，一项“合理的”限制商业的条款可以是为了寻求保护：(a)有关当事方的利益;(b)以及公共利益，这类合同不被认定无效。上述两方面的合理性都要予以证明。见Thomas Cowan & Co Ltd v Orme  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.
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.
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.
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.
SECTION 13 JUDICIAL REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT违约的司法救济
Judicial Remedies Contrasted with Self-help Remedies司法救济与自力救济
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.
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.
Types of Judicial Remedies 司法救济的种类
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.
Availability of Judicial Remedies - Time bars, Limitation Periods and Laches
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.
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].
总的来说，违约六年以后不得再提起诉讼。见《诉讼时效法》(Cap 163, 1996年修订)第6条。这限制了向法庭提起支付固定数目之诉。见第二章关于法庭程序的详细讨论。
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.
至于实际履行和禁令的衡平法救济手段，要使用衡平法上的行权懈怠理论。简言之，申请人申请衡平法救济如果迟延，就会被拒绝，如果迟延如此过分和不可原谅以至于授予此种救济将不再公平的话。的确，对实际履行救济的申请，如果在情形显现的时候没有尽快进行，将会被法庭拒绝。见Tay Joo Sing v Ku Yu Sang  3 SLR 719 at 730。
Damages - Compensation for Pecuniary Loss损害赔偿- 金钱损失的赔补
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.
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.
Liquidated Compared with Unliquidated Damages约定与未约定的损害赔偿
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.
Quantification and Measure of Unliquidated Damages未约定损害赔偿的数量化与方式
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).
Time of Quantification数量化的时间
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.
Restrictions on Recovery of Unliquidated Damages对追索未约定赔偿的限制
13.12 It is not the case, however, that unliquidated damages are available for all losses. Recovery is subject to certain restrictions.
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.
Remoteness of Loss损失的遥远性
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，过于遥远的损失不能获赔偿。在这方面新加坡法律采取了判例Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex 341中的立场。因此，因损失所发生的正常过程中的损失都不算遥远，因而可以得到补偿。非正常的-从而也不在任何当事人订立合同时的考量范围之内的–损失不被赔付，除非违约方知道或者应当知道这种不正常损失的可能性。
Mitigation of Loss减损
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.
Action for a Fixed Sum固定数目款项之诉
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.
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).
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.
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).
Limits on Availability of Specific Performance对实际履行的限制
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.
实际履行是法院自由裁量的救济。如果根据案件的全部实际情形，采取此种措施不公平，法庭就不会裁令实际履行。如上所述，如过于迟延申请此种救济，且如果当事人自己也并非没有责任，法庭就会拒绝判令此种措施。见判例Chuah Eng Khong v Malayan Banking Bhd  3 MLJ 173 at 186-7。法庭的实际履行裁令有时候也会有条件授予，以保持争议各方权利义务的平衡。见Ng Lay Choo Marion v Lok Lai Oi  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.
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.
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提到的各项因素不存在，即可发布禁止令，除非：(a)此项救济不公平或过于暴虐–见Jaggard v Sawyer  1 WLR 269;或者(b)发布此救济确实不符合方便易行的要求 – 见Rajaram v Ganesh t/a Golden Harvest Trading Corp  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.
13.25 The discretion whether to issue a mandatory injunction is also generally subject to the `balance of convenience´ test.
是否授予强制禁止令也要遵行“方便易行”(balance of convenience) 的原则。
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.
- COVER 一词在商务合同中的使用01-11