壹、【前言】：
西元2011年1月11日加拿大Ontario Superior Court的Spence法官，針對Sabre Inc. –v.- International Air Transport Association案作出了IATA勝訴的判決結果(註一)(註二) ，使得IATA得以繼續合法使用自「全球配銷系統」（Global Distribution System, 簡稱GDS）中所擷取的數據資料（data）。
事實上目前全球航空公司在處理訂位事宜，大多透過私營的「全球配銷系統」為之，其中幾家比較具規模的組織則有ABACUS，主要市場為亞洲地區，總公司在新加坡，乃係由國泰航空（CX）與新加坡航空共同發起（而本案的SABRE亦為合夥人之一）；AMADEUS則是目前全球最大的航空訂位系統，其主力市場為歐洲地區，總公司則設在西班牙的馬德里；至於本案中的原告SABRE則則係屬於一半自動的商業環境系統，當初於西元1978年成立時，則是業界第一套即時訂位系統，其主力市場係在北美、澳洲與亞洲地區，總公司設在美國達拉斯，當初的發起人係美國航空（AA）。前開系統均開放予所有包括實體經營（bricks-and-mortar）與網站虛擬經營的旅行社（travel agents），在面對客戶要求購買機票時所使用。
通常一家旅行社均會選擇使用一種GDS來應付業務所需。而本案原告，即SABRE Inc.係屬於加拿大地區四大提供GDS服務的系統廠商之一。
貳、【案情概要】：
SABRE在投入諸多人力、物力與動用眾多資源之後，提供航空公司多種電腦系統的服務，包括軟體、設備與資料庫使用等，使得旅行社得以直接瀏覽、訂位與購買各家航空公司的產品與服務。然在執行這些資料庫系統時，SABRE更發展出一精密的電腦系統，其得以蒐集、組合、篩選、整合、核對、重建、組織，與安排所有來自旅行社、航空公司與IATA這些地方所取得攸關費率、時刻表，與航班派遣妥適率等的資訊。
而要使用SABRE所提供的GDS系統服務，則旅行社必須與SABRE簽署書面協議，祇是旅行社在使用前開服務時，其通常是不需要付費的，甚至SABRE還提供所謂的「獎勵方案」（incentive program）以鼓勵旅行社多多使用該系統。至於SABRE的收入則主要係來自於航空公司的機票銷售抽成（凡透過SABRE系統訂位的機票，航空公司即需支付若干成數的佣金予SABRE）。
依照通常的運作模式，SABRE係透過其GDS系統蒐集客戶訂位的票務資料後，才透過一特殊的型態匯總後轉予各家航空公司、旅行社，暨屬於IATA清算計劃（Billing and Settlement Plan）中的資料處理中心（Data Processing Centers）。而就是因為透過SABRE GDS訂位系統所處理的票務案件為數頗眾，SABRE深知從這裡所獲得的資料若經過分析整理之後，將會是一頗具有商業價值的資訊，因此對於此一系統所產生的資訊均頗為重視且善加保護。此即資訊管理界裡常常提及的「資料探勘」功能（Data Mining），其是用來將資料中所隱藏的資訊挖掘出來，所以Data Mining常被認為是Knowledge Discovery（知識發掘）的一部分(註三) 。
正因為如此，SABRE除了基本的票務功能之外，遂積極利用GDS所擷取的資料，而發展出一種稱之為「市場信息數據帶」的產品（Marketing Information Data Tape, 簡稱為MIDT），該產品將所有旅行社透過SABRE GDS系統訂位的資料全部囊括在裡面，並提供航空公司對於運量、航線規劃、市場銷售與販售等目的一非常具有價值的資訊。另，SABRE利用同樣的資源，推出了一攸關「機票計數」的產品（Ticket Control Number, 簡稱TCN），該產品會列舉出特殊航空公司透過SABRE GDS系統所開出的機票記錄，以供航空公司分析之用。而每年單單透過MIDT與TCN這兩項產品，SABRE即賺進了將近上百萬美元的收入。
詎料，在西元2005年的夏季裡，IATA竟然在市場上推出一套名為「PaxIS」的產品（其全名為Passenger Intelligence Services）進行銷售，而該產品的資料來源即來自於IATA清算機制下所蒐集到的原始開票記錄。該PaxIS系統聲稱可以提供使用者包括資料分析、市場情報，暨透過網路取得IATA客戶報告與攸關資料的服務。據瞭解，PaxIS的資料來源並不是從Sabre的MIDT資料庫取得，而IATA對於MIDT資料庫亦沒有擷取的權利。
至於IATA與Sabre間，對於「原始資料」（the raw data）的傳輸協議，則可以溯及到西元1995年間，兩者間的Automated Ticketing System Provider Agreement（自動化票務系統合約）簽定。該合約隨後即為Electronic Ticketing System Provider Agreement（電子化票務系統合約）所取代。
然不管是之前雙方所簽署的「自動化票務系統合約」，亦或是其後的「電子化票務系統合約」，其對於「保密規定」（Confidentiality Provisions）的要求，卻均祇是「單向式」的，即合約中祇對於SABRE要求必須確保航空公司所提供資料的「機密性」而不得對外揭露，但對於IATA卻沒有提出相對等的要求。
就在IATA推出PaxIS系統服務之後，SABRE發現到若干MIDT的客戶竟然停止繼續購買SABRE的產品，而其以為之所以會有此一結果，勢必是因為PaxIS推出的關係所導致，爰正式於IATA的總部所在地：加拿大，針對其因此所受的損失，請求法院判賠IATA應該對此負責。
參、【判決結果與理由】：
簡而言之，SABRE堅稱其對於IATA的控訴是其來有自的，是有其法律上「訴因」的（cause of action），蓋IATA的所作所為係違反其本身「保密義務」的。之所以會這麼說，乃其相信自SABRE處傳到IATA資料處理中心的原始資料，當然係屬於「機密資料」，而IATA將此一「機密資料」用於其自行開發的PaxIS系統顯係一未經授權的舉動。
然誠如前所述及，在SABRE與IATA間有關票務系統的合約中，並未對IATA課予保密的責任，此迫使SABRE不得不必須退而在一般的法令中尋求補償的依據。
攸關「洩密」在加拿大地區是否得成為訴因，從西元1989年加拿大最高法院（Supreme Court）在Lac Minerals –v.- International Corona Resources Ltd.案中(註四) ，即可嗅出一些端倪。在前開案件中，法庭以「三問法」來審核案件是否得以成立，而所謂的「三問法」，即是評估案件事實是否符合以下三項構成要件：
一、 案件中所涉及的資料是否確實符合需保密的等級？
二、 案件中所涉及的資料在相互傳遞時是否係以機密的方式為之？
三、 案件中所涉及的資料是否曾被不正當的傳遞使用（misused）？
以上三項標準隨即為日後的加拿大最高法院所遵循，並為Ontario上訴法院所採用。而負責承審本案的Spence法官，亦透過其對於Lac Minerals案的分析，來評估本案。
在前開第一項標準中，承審的Spence法官並未立即有所定見，然其仍提出2項值得思考的路徑：
一、 首先，Spence法官認為凡資料被認定係屬於「機密」屬性的時候，其即不可能在公共場合中取得該項資料。然私人資料僅僅祇是無法在公共場合中取得者，亦不能因此即被視為即是屬於所謂的「機密資料」。準此，Spence法官認為如果真有所謂「保密義務」存在的話，則當事人中必有一方需向另外一方負擔「保密」的義務；及
二、 至於本案中所涉及的「資料」是否已處於「公開」的狀態，Spence法官發現幾乎每一位購買機票的乘客（指「散客」而言）均知道SABRE會透過GDS系統傳遞其訂位及票務資料。準此，Spence法官以為如是一來，此一「資料」即非屬所謂的「機密資料」，蓋一般的「散客」均可以公開地取得該項資料。祇是Spence法官同時亦發現到從SABRE轉送到IATA資料處理中心的資料，係經過「重整編輯」過後的資料，而不是每針對一個散客的紀錄即個別發送。祇是這樣一來，這些未公開的「重整資料」似乎又不太符合「公開自由取得」的「非機密資料」特質。就因為前開看似兩相衝突的發現，所以Spence法官對此一構成要件是否符合，遂持保留的態度。
至於第二項構成要件，即SABRE傳遞資訊的方式是否係以「機密」方式為之，則Spence法官採用Lac Minerals案中，所設置「謹慎合理之人」的審核標準（the reasonable man test），針對本案爭點提出以下質疑：當IATA在簽署「電子化票務系統合約」時，是否即已經謹慎合理地瞭解當資料被SABRE傳遞到IATA的資料處理中心時，係依SABRE所堅稱的「機密」方式為之？換句話說，前開資料是否僅為IATA的資料處理中心所使用？僅為清算目的為之？對此，Spence法官以為IATA與SABRE之間所簽署的「電子化票務系統合約」中，僅單方面地要求SABRE應該嚴守保密的義務，卻沒有相對地要求IATA亦應為之。而SABRE與IATA當時均係已具規模的商業組織，其對於資料的公布，自得合理地預期應該如何在合約中運用「保密條款」來形成約束的力量，而毋庸他人的提醒。
負責承審的Spence法官對於SABRE諉稱IATA所傳遞的資料對於航空公司而言係屬於非常敏感的資料，因此即應該可以合理地期待IATA對於資料的傳遞即應該要以「機密方式」為之的說辭，並不打算接受。蓋Spence法官以為縱使該項資料確實敏感，但不即表示IATA即有義務應該以機密的方式傳遞該項資料。另，Spence法官在評估資料傳遞時，SABRE是否即得享有保密利益的這個部分，SABRE主張「當GDS在開發提供旅行社諮詢的這項服務時，則SABRE所提供的資料即可反映出SABRE之前所做的努力」。祇是前開主張卻被認為資料處理中心所收到的資料僅僅祇是一機票販售的資料而已 … … …其並不包含在GDS給予旅行社的建議之中，爰無法成立。然在審理的過程中，Spence法官亦發現從過去的經驗之中，IATA與SABRE均可以發覺到，透過清算機制GDS的作業系統，即可以提供航空公司若干市場資訊。準此，Spence法官認為SABRE即可以合理地預期此一模式，將會繼續維持下去。而事實上此亦為目前PaxIS系統的運作模式，祇不過是其運作的範圍更為擴大些而已。最後，Spence法官套用前開「謹慎合理之人」的評估模式，認為系爭資訊在某種程度上係具有所謂的商業價值，爰IATA在做為一個謹慎合理之人時，即應該盡到某種程度的保密義務。
雖然如此，Spence法官發現在SABRE與IATA協商簽署「電子化票務系統合約」的過程中，SABRE的出席代表對於自家本身的MIDT產品瞭解非常少，所以對其所可能產生的商業價值亦一無所知。從這裡Spence法官發現SABRE代表的說辭似乎有其矛盾的地方，蓋SABRE代表一方面表示：「認為系爭的傳遞資料非屬機密資料是不合理的」；然另一方面卻又在其內部的電子郵件中建議航空公司應該將其機票的銷售資料提供出來，供大家交流使用，以建立一市場資訊分享的機制。因此Spence法官認為此一構成要件（即傳遞資料係屬「機密」），並不成立。
就因為有前開因素存在，Spence法官不認為系爭傳遞資料的商業價值並不顯著，所以不應該加諸在IATA的身上必須以「機密」方式處理前開資料的責任。
最後，針對第二項構成要件的評估部分，SABRE主張IATA並未獲有任何授權去開發PaxIS系統，因為IATA僅係各會員航空公司的「代理」（an Agent）而已，而這些會員航空公司並未授權IATA得以「如是方式」來使用這些傳遞資料，是IATA的行徑並不適當（an inappropriate action）。然Spence法官在瀏覽IATA Passenger Agency Conference（旅客代理會議）的第850e號決議時（Resolution 850e），發現在此為確保IATA清算系統運作順遂的決議中，IATA已經被其會員航空公司授權使用其自資料處理中心所取得為清算目的的相關資料，以支援其PaxIS系統的運作。故Spence法官在判決書中寫到：「從一家航空公司的觀點切入，我們實在很難認為PaxIS服務的推出會有任何負面的影響。蓋其對競爭市場確有其價值存在。該系統的收入係由航空公司界所聯合組成的組織所取得（指IATA），然該組織亦將此一收入用於抵銷清算計劃所產生的費用，而航空公司對於清算計劃亦必須負擔若干費用」。
至於第三項構成要件，Spence法官依照前開發現事實，認為IATA並無「不正當」的使用傳遞資料，縱使PaxIS系統的運作會造成SABRE財務上的損失者，亦然。另，Spence法官於「電子化票務系統合約」中，發現SABRE事實上也可以用60天的通知來終止合約的繼續進行。換句話說，SABRE係可以自由決定其所堅稱的「不正當使用」狀態是否繼續，或到此為止。
肆、【結論】：
本案加拿大Ontario Superior Court駁回SABRE有關PaxIS違反「保密義務」的訴訟後，IATA為其PaxIS產品，得以繼續使用GDS資料庫中的資料，且SABRE不得對此請求賠償。對此一結果，IATA在其網站上聲稱其取得了「法庭上的重大勝利」，並認為此一結果係維護了航空公司的權利，蓋其即保證航空公司可以商業化地使用數據並獲得利潤。然事實上，此並非IATA針對PaxIS系統，首次遭到GDS的挑戰，蓋在西元2009年Travelport的相似案例中，荷蘭的阿姆斯特丹地區法院業已經駁回了GDS試圖阻止IATA為PaxIS使用Travelport資料庫中儲存的禁制令（Injunction）。
「個人資料」的保護，關係個人「人格權」保護的問題，為確保權利不被侵害，並促進個人資料的合理利用，包括台灣在內的各個國家，無不制定攸關法令以維護之(註五) 。本案除了前開數據資料得否合理使用的問題外，實際上還涉及「個人資料檔案」的蒐集、處理，與利用問題，IATA此一「非公務機關」（指依法行使公權力的中央或地方機關或行政法人以外的自然人、法人或其他團體）是否得以合理利用前開資料檔案，承審法官雖未正面觸及，但應是未來一值得研究的議題。換句話說，為符合法令的要求，無論係航空公司、旅行社，亦或是GDS、IATA等組織，在與乘（旅）客達成契約或類似契約關係的同時，即應該設法取得當事人（即個人資料的本人）的書面同意以杜爭議，始為上策（全文完）。
(註釋):
(註一): 2011 ONSC 206 (CanLII)。
(註二): International Air Transport Association（國際航空運輸協會）簡稱IATA，是一個國際性的民航組織，總部設在加拿大的蒙特利爾（Montreal），其與監管航空安全與航行規則的「國際民航組織」（ICAO）相比，則IATA更像是一個由航空公司所組成的國際協調組織，管理在民航運輸中諸如票價、危險品運輸等問題。其在全球各地總共有230多家航空公司參加而成為會員，而前開航空公司的定期國際航班客運量則佔全球的93％。
(註三): Data Mining使用了許多統計分析與Modeling的方法，到資料中尋找有用的特徵（Patterns）以及關連性（Relationship）。
(註四): [1989] 2 SCR 574。
(註五): 以台灣地區為例，西元2010年的5月26日更將原名為「電腦處理個人資料保護法」，增修變更為「個人資料保護法」，以期進一步與世界接軌，來保護個人資料及其檔案，得在合理使用的範圍內，不被非法的蒐集、處理，及利用。
2011年2月16日 星期三
2011年2月9日 星期三
再談新加坡船舶買賣格式契約（壹）
壹、【前言】：
在國際航運業界特別是最近這幾年來經濟持續快速增長的亞洲市場上，二手船舶買賣的交易似乎異常活絡。然由於二手船舶買賣所涉及的專業複雜性，通常交易均會有專業的「船舶買賣經紀人」（the Ship Broker）參與其中。放眼目前二手船舶市場上最常使用的買賣標準格式，主要是「挪威買賣格式」（Norwegian Saleform 87/93, 簡稱NSF），而由於船舶買賣具有標的金額大、交易程序複雜，與潛藏的風險多變等有別於其他貨物買賣的特徵，因此交易雙方必須相當謹慎。西元2011年的1月6日，新加坡的「海事基金會」（Maritime Foundation）正式推出特別為「亞洲市場」量身製作的二手船舶買賣格式契約：「新加坡買賣格式契約」（the Singapore Ship Sale Form 2011, 簡稱SSF），本文擬就SSF做更進一步的探討，以為業者未來在實務操作上的參考，首先就從SSF的簽約主體談起。
貳、【保證人】：
在二手船舶買賣契約中，除了10％的定金之外，常常可見要求對方提供額外的履約保證。SSF針對此點亦提醒買賣雙方他們可以有此一選擇（在欄位1（賣方欄）與欄位2（買方或指定方欄）中有一「保證人」項（Guarantor）的選擇欄位，而此一特點亦凸顯出SSF與NSF與Nipponsale（日本船舶買賣格式契約）等其他買賣格式不同之處。而選擇此一「保證人」項目，亦意味「保證人」必須遵循英國法中「防止詐欺法」（the Statute of Frauds）的相關規定，並必須簽署書面的保證契約。
而依SSF第一頁下方的註釋規定，當「保證人」簽署此一買賣格式契約時，即需負擔一「不可撤銷與無條件」（irrevocable and unconditional）的保證責任，爰發生保證人需履行保證責任的情況時，則無過失的一方即可依SSF第15條的規定(註一) ，向對方暨其保證人（負連帶賠償責任，joint and several liability）提出仲裁聲請，請求損害賠償。如是一來即可以解決之前Stellar Shipping Co. LLC. –v.- Hudson Shipping Lines案中所出現的爭議問題(註二) ，即保證人雖然為船舶買賣契約當事人的一方背書擔保，但是否即意味保證人亦必須遵守買賣契約中所約定的仲裁爭議解決條款？SSF的第15條在條文中，即明定攸關本買賣契約所為的「保證」，亦受此一「仲裁與準據法」條款（Arbitration and Governing Law）的約束，爰避免了類似Stellar案可能會發生的爭議。
另，針對保證人選擇不在船舶買賣契約中背書，而改以另行簽發所謂「保證書」的方式來履行其保證責任者，如保證人仍舊想主張SSF第15條所賦予的權利時，則應於其中敘明，以杜爭議，蓋在Transocean Offshore International Ventures Ltd. –v.- Burgundy Global Exploration Corp.案中，亦曾發生有爭議解決方式的規範，在「買賣契約」與「保證契約」之間有兩相衝突的現象(註三) 。
參、【買主的變更】：
在SSF第1頁的第2個註釋中，則提供買方在收到賣方在船舶預計抵達指定交船地點前15天所發的通知時，有變更買主的最後機會。依SSF第8條（d）項的規定，買賣雙方最遲應於預期交船妥適日14天前（the Vessel’s expected readiness of delivery），彼此交換審閱「交船文件」稿本（the draft of Delivery Documents）。如是一來對照前開規定，即可大幅降低昔日賣方在最後一刻因臨時變更買主，而疲於奔命在修定交船文件的「窘境」，同時亦可節省若干因修改買主所枉費的認證或律師費用。
同時SSF亦要求以「附件」（the Addendum）的方式記錄下來，攸關買方變更買主的所有歷程，而其亦澄清攸關「買主變更」的本質，係屬於賣方、原買主，與新買主間的「novation」（轉讓）（即「轉讓」（或稱「變更」）之後，原買主即自始自終地從原船舶買賣交易中全面退出，視同未曾參加過買賣交易般，取而代之地即由新買主直接介入。而賣方自此亦祇得向新買主主張買賣契約上的權義，而不得再「追索」（recourse）到原買主處，此舉對於並不是那麼瞭解前開「變更」所產生法律效果的一般當事人而言，可謂是一大幫助。
肆、【定金與付款】：
SSF的第1條與第2條，則分別是所謂「定金」與「付款」條款的約定：
1. Deposit:
The Buyer shall pay a deposit of 10 per cent of the Purchase Price specified in Box 8 (i) as security for the fulfillment of this Agreement to the bank nominated by the Sellers in Box 8 (i)(a), with a value date no later than that specified upon in Box 8 (i)(b) of this Agreement. Notwithstanding that the amount received may be lesser due to bank remittance charges imposed during the normal course of transfer, such amount shall stand as due fulfillment of the Buyers obligation to pay the deposit and be held in a joint escrow account of both the Sellers and the Buyers, which shall be released to the Sellers as part of the Purchase Price in accordance with joint written instructions of the Sellers and the Buyers. The Sellers are to arrange the opening of the joint escrow account latest by 2 banking days prior to the Value Date. The Buyers, latest together with their remittance of the Deposit, are to arrange bank-to-bank confirmation from the remitting bank to the bank specified in Box 8 (i)(a) that the Buyers, and the remitting party if different, are a known customer of the bank and should it be required by the bank in Box 8 (i)(a), the Buyer will also arrange for the bank-to-bank confirmation to include the confirmation by the remitting bank that they know the source of funds. Both Sellers and Buyers shall comply with the anti-money laundering laws and regulations of the country in which the bank(s) specified in Box 8 are located.
Any interest earned on the deposit shall accrue to the Buyers whereas any closing fee/fees charged for holding the deposit shall be borne equally by the Sellers and the Buyers.
前開條款中，將「定金」（the Deposit）必須支付的期日清楚明白地約定在SSF的第8條（i）項中，且註明係所謂的「Value Date」，此意味在此一指定期日時，這筆「定金」必須在買賣雙方所聯合共開的戶頭中出現（the joint escrow account），且無任何轉讓的限制（freely transferable）。如果條款不是像上面這樣的約束，而是註明「定金應該於合約簽署的7日內支付」的話（Deposit is to be paid within 7 days from the date of execution of the Agreement），則買方可能以為其可以在簽約後的第7天才安排匯付「定金」款項，而賣方卻可能期待在前開第7天前即可以收到賣方匯付款項，即買賣雙方在認知上即可能出現若干「差距」。
另，SSF條款中亦要求賣方應於Value Date之前的2個銀行營業日（Banking Days）將「聯合escrow戶頭」開妥，由於賣方期待早日收到買方匯付的「定金」，所以早日將聯合帳戶備妥，對於賣方而言，亦可謂是一項利多。
另，SSF對於英國法攸關買賣契約的法律見解亦表示關切，其於條文中明白約定定金屆時會轉為買賣價金的一部分（「as part of the Purchase Price」），蓋在PT Berlian Laju Tanker TBK –v.- Nuse Shipping Ltd. (2008)的Aktor案中(註四) ，雙方針對買賣價金的全部（或至少是部分款項），應該在哪個地點支付有所爭執。案件中賣方以為買賣契約所採用的NSF 93第2條中，規定了定金不等同於買賣價金的一部分，也不必成為買賣價金的一部分，爰沒有限制賣方根據第3條指定金額付款地點的權利。為杜類似爭議再度發生，SSF於是乎在第1條中，明示定金屆時會成為買賣價金的一部分。
對於國際銀行間，為打擊不法洗錢的行為（money laundering），莫不卯足全勁，而設下層層的嚴格防制與關卡，SSF即於條款中要求買方提供匯款銀行確認函，以確認其債信良好、資金來源正當並無不法等事項。當然要求買賣雙方務必配合遵守收款銀行攸關防制洗錢等措施，自不在話下。當然匯付銀行是否能夠配合前開條款，而迅速提供確認函，則端視當地的銀行系統運作狀況而定，是買方應該在正式簽署SSF之前，被告知其有此一義務，以得預先自忖在履行上是否有任何困難。
2. Payment:
(a) The Buyer shall pay the Balance Purchase Price specified in Box 8 (ii) in full including any extras under Clause 7 free of bank/transfer charges to Sellers’ nominated bank account at Sellers’ bank stated in Box 8 (ii)(a) upon delivery of the Vessel. The agreed Purchase Price shall be paid for same day value within 3 full banking days, (being banking days in the place of closing and in the country of the Purchase Price currency) after the Sellers tender the written notice* of actual readiness of the Vessel for delivery in accordance with Clause 5 (b).
(b) The Buyers may delay to take delivery of the Vessel for up to a maximum of further seven (7) consecutive days paying to the Sellers the sum specified in Box 8 (iv) per day, or part thereof, as compensation for such delay provided that the Buyers have declared their intention to take late delivery prior to the expiry of the specified 3 full banking days. Any such amount due shall be paid at the time and place and in the same currency as the Purchase Price and any additional amounts due under Clause 7. If such delay exceeds seven (7) consecutive days then the Sellers shall have the right to cancel this Agreement and claim damages for their losses incurred.
（* Throughout this Agreement, a written notice is to mean a registered letter, telex, tele-fax, e-mail or other modern form of written communication between Sellers and the Buyers）.
在SSF第2條的b項中，其准許買方得在買方發出「準備妥適通知」（NOR）後的3個銀行日內，表明遲延交船的意願（最長期間可達7天連續）。而對於前開延遲交船所造成賣方的損失，則雙方預先於SSF第8(iv)欄中，相互約定「每日的賠償金額」，是可謂係「損害賠償預定性違約金」（the Liquidated Damages）的最佳範例。祇是在決定此項賠償金額之時，雙方務必精打細算，以實際反應出賣方屆時可能會產生的損失，恐怕才是最重要的爭點。
伍、【檢查與交船前的潛水檢查】：
SSF的第3條與第6條，則分別是所謂「檢查」與「交船前的潛水檢查」條款的約定：
3. Inspections*:
(a) The Buyers have physically inspected the Vessel at the place and on the date specified in Box 9 (i) as well as the Classification records and have accepted the Vessel making the sale outright, subject only to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
(b) The Sellers shall make the Vessel available for Physical Inspection as per Box 9 (i) hereof.
The Buyers shall undertake the Physical Inspection** without undue delay to the Vessel. Should the Buyers cause undue delay, the Sellers shall be compensated for the losses incurred by them. The sale shall become definite and outright, subject only to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, if the Vessel is accepted by the Buyers after the inspection and a written notice of acceptance from the Buyers is received by the Sellers within 72 hours after completion of Physical Inspection of the Vessel. If the Buyers decline the Vessel or if such notice of acceptance is not received by the Sellers within the afore-mentioned time, the deposit together with any interest earned shall be immediately released to the Buyers, whereafter this Agreement shall be null and void.
* 3(a) and 3 (b) are alternatives; delete whichever is not applicable. In the absence of deletion, alternative 3 (a) shall apply.
** In the context of this Agreement, Physical Inspection of the Vessel is to mean only inspection of the Vessel physically including taking photographs without opening up of the Vessel and without cost to the Sellers. The Physical Inspection to include inspection of Vessel’s Classification records, continuous synopsis record, maintenance records, deck and engine log books and available ballast spaces.
SSF的第3條係所謂的「檢查」條款，其與其他買賣格式契約的檢查條款相類似，並無太多爭議之處。SSF將交船時船舶狀態的舉證責任置於買方身上（the burden of proof），是買方暨其委任的Surveyor（公證人）於執行調查任務時，若發現任何缺失，即應記載於調查報告中，並輔以照片佐證（SSF於第3條b項的第2點備註中的「實體檢查」定義中（Physical Inspection），即明示買方於進行檢查程序中得予拍照記錄）。
6. Pre-Delivery Divers Inspection:
Prior to delivery, the Sellers shall make the Vessel available to the Buyers for underwater inspection. The Sellers shall be responsible for ensuring that the port, anchorage or berth chosen for underwater inspection of the Vessel is suitable and permitting such inspection.
(a) The Buyers shall have the right to appoint, at their own expense, a Class approved diver to inspect the Vessel’s underwater parts below the deepest load line including rudder and propeller upon the Vessel’s arrival at the port specified in Box 9 (ii). The Sellers shall grant Buyers sufficient daylight hours within which to conduct the said inspection and Sellers shall be obliged to ensure attendance of the Class surveyor to monitor the said inspection which may be attended by Buyers’ and Sellers’ representatives without interference to Class and/or the divers. However, should the Buyers fail to arrange for such inspection then they shall lose the right of such divers inspection.
(i) If any defects are found during underwater inspection including rudder and propeller that shall affect the Vessel’s present Class and the repair of which Class agrees can be deferred to the Vessel’s next scheduled dry-docking, the Buyers’ sole remedy shall be the payment by the Sellers of the estimated cost of repair of such defects only excluding any dry-dock costs, as per the average of the quotations of two reputable repair yards independent of the Sellers and the Buyers in the delivery area, one to be selected by each party. The said average amount in respect of the cost of repair shall be deducted from the Purchase Price to be paid to the Sellers at the time of delivery of the Vessel. The costs of Class attendance and divers fees incurred for the underwater inspection shall be borne by the Buyers unless damage is found and the Class imposes a recommendation in which case both costs shall be borne by the Sellers.
(ii) If damage is found for which Class requires immediate repair, then Sellers shall repair such damage without delay prior to delivery. Should the Sellers be required to dry-dock the Vessel to repair such damage, then Class 6 (b) shall apply.
(b) Where the Sellers are required to dry-dock the Vessel under Clause 6 (a)(ii), the Sellers shall also enable the inspection of the Vessel’s bottom, rudder, propeller, tail shaft and other underwater parts by a surveyor of the Classification Society to the satisfaction of the Classification Society standards. The Sellers shall be obliged to rectify any defects found that affect the present Class of the Vessel within the agreed time or if no agreement is reached then latest within 14 days of such damage being found (and, insofar as necessary, the Cancelling Date shall be extended to allow the full agreed or 14 days’ repair period), failure of which shall enable the Buyers to cancel the Agreement and recover the deposit together with interest.
(i) The Buyers shall bear the cost of the survey of the tail shaft system unless the Classification Society requires such survey to be carried out, in which case the Sellers shall bear the cost. The expenses in connection with putting the Vessel in and taking her out of dry-dock including dry-dock dues and Classification Society’s fees shall be paid by the Sellers if any condition or recommendation, excluding surveyor notes is issued as a result of the survey. In all other cases Buyers shall pay the aforesaid expenses, dues and fees.
(ii) The Buyer shall have the right to place a representative for observation whilst the Vessel is in dry-dock without interfering with the Classification surveyor’s work or decision, during the Classification Society inspections.
(iii) The Buyers shall have the right to have the underwater parts of the Vessel cleaned and painted at their risk and expense without interfering with the Classification Society’s or the Sellers’ work, and without affecting timely delivery of the Vessel. Upon the completion of the Sellers’ work, the Sellers may tender Notice of Actual Readiness of the Vessel for delivery notwithstanding the non-completion of Buyers’ work and notwithstanding that the Vessel is not at the Delivery Place, upon which the Buyers shall be obliged to take delivery of the Vessel in accordance with the aforesaid notice. All dry-docking expenses incurred after such delivery except undocking expenses under Clause 6 (a)(ii) shall be borne by the Buyers.
The Classification Society shall be the only entity to determine whether any underwater damage constitutes a condition of Class, and such determination shall be final and binding on both parties.
買賣雙方若能於買賣契約正式簽署前，決定潛水檢查的港口或停泊地點，即可以免除未來買賣雙方對於港口選擇可能產生的意見歧異（待續）。
(註釋):
(註一): SSF第15條規定：「i. * This Agreement and any guarantee contained herein shall be governed by and construed in accordance with Singapore/English* Law and any and all disputes arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, including any question regarding its existence, validity or termination, shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration in Singapore in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration for the time being in force at the commencement of the arbitration. ii. * This Agreement and guarantee contained herein shall governed by and construed in accordance with __________ Law and any all disputes arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, including any question regarding its existence, validity or termination, shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration in __________ in accordance with ______________ Rules for the time being in force at the commencement of the arbitration」（細節容後述）。
(註二): [2010] EWHC 2985 (Comm)。
(註三): [2010] 2 SLR 821。
(註四): 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 24。
在國際航運業界特別是最近這幾年來經濟持續快速增長的亞洲市場上，二手船舶買賣的交易似乎異常活絡。然由於二手船舶買賣所涉及的專業複雜性，通常交易均會有專業的「船舶買賣經紀人」（the Ship Broker）參與其中。放眼目前二手船舶市場上最常使用的買賣標準格式，主要是「挪威買賣格式」（Norwegian Saleform 87/93, 簡稱NSF），而由於船舶買賣具有標的金額大、交易程序複雜，與潛藏的風險多變等有別於其他貨物買賣的特徵，因此交易雙方必須相當謹慎。西元2011年的1月6日，新加坡的「海事基金會」（Maritime Foundation）正式推出特別為「亞洲市場」量身製作的二手船舶買賣格式契約：「新加坡買賣格式契約」（the Singapore Ship Sale Form 2011, 簡稱SSF），本文擬就SSF做更進一步的探討，以為業者未來在實務操作上的參考，首先就從SSF的簽約主體談起。
貳、【保證人】：
在二手船舶買賣契約中，除了10％的定金之外，常常可見要求對方提供額外的履約保證。SSF針對此點亦提醒買賣雙方他們可以有此一選擇（在欄位1（賣方欄）與欄位2（買方或指定方欄）中有一「保證人」項（Guarantor）的選擇欄位，而此一特點亦凸顯出SSF與NSF與Nipponsale（日本船舶買賣格式契約）等其他買賣格式不同之處。而選擇此一「保證人」項目，亦意味「保證人」必須遵循英國法中「防止詐欺法」（the Statute of Frauds）的相關規定，並必須簽署書面的保證契約。
而依SSF第一頁下方的註釋規定，當「保證人」簽署此一買賣格式契約時，即需負擔一「不可撤銷與無條件」（irrevocable and unconditional）的保證責任，爰發生保證人需履行保證責任的情況時，則無過失的一方即可依SSF第15條的規定(註一) ，向對方暨其保證人（負連帶賠償責任，joint and several liability）提出仲裁聲請，請求損害賠償。如是一來即可以解決之前Stellar Shipping Co. LLC. –v.- Hudson Shipping Lines案中所出現的爭議問題(註二) ，即保證人雖然為船舶買賣契約當事人的一方背書擔保，但是否即意味保證人亦必須遵守買賣契約中所約定的仲裁爭議解決條款？SSF的第15條在條文中，即明定攸關本買賣契約所為的「保證」，亦受此一「仲裁與準據法」條款（Arbitration and Governing Law）的約束，爰避免了類似Stellar案可能會發生的爭議。
另，針對保證人選擇不在船舶買賣契約中背書，而改以另行簽發所謂「保證書」的方式來履行其保證責任者，如保證人仍舊想主張SSF第15條所賦予的權利時，則應於其中敘明，以杜爭議，蓋在Transocean Offshore International Ventures Ltd. –v.- Burgundy Global Exploration Corp.案中，亦曾發生有爭議解決方式的規範，在「買賣契約」與「保證契約」之間有兩相衝突的現象(註三) 。
參、【買主的變更】：
在SSF第1頁的第2個註釋中，則提供買方在收到賣方在船舶預計抵達指定交船地點前15天所發的通知時，有變更買主的最後機會。依SSF第8條（d）項的規定，買賣雙方最遲應於預期交船妥適日14天前（the Vessel’s expected readiness of delivery），彼此交換審閱「交船文件」稿本（the draft of Delivery Documents）。如是一來對照前開規定，即可大幅降低昔日賣方在最後一刻因臨時變更買主，而疲於奔命在修定交船文件的「窘境」，同時亦可節省若干因修改買主所枉費的認證或律師費用。
同時SSF亦要求以「附件」（the Addendum）的方式記錄下來，攸關買方變更買主的所有歷程，而其亦澄清攸關「買主變更」的本質，係屬於賣方、原買主，與新買主間的「novation」（轉讓）（即「轉讓」（或稱「變更」）之後，原買主即自始自終地從原船舶買賣交易中全面退出，視同未曾參加過買賣交易般，取而代之地即由新買主直接介入。而賣方自此亦祇得向新買主主張買賣契約上的權義，而不得再「追索」（recourse）到原買主處，此舉對於並不是那麼瞭解前開「變更」所產生法律效果的一般當事人而言，可謂是一大幫助。
肆、【定金與付款】：
SSF的第1條與第2條，則分別是所謂「定金」與「付款」條款的約定：
1. Deposit:
The Buyer shall pay a deposit of 10 per cent of the Purchase Price specified in Box 8 (i) as security for the fulfillment of this Agreement to the bank nominated by the Sellers in Box 8 (i)(a), with a value date no later than that specified upon in Box 8 (i)(b) of this Agreement. Notwithstanding that the amount received may be lesser due to bank remittance charges imposed during the normal course of transfer, such amount shall stand as due fulfillment of the Buyers obligation to pay the deposit and be held in a joint escrow account of both the Sellers and the Buyers, which shall be released to the Sellers as part of the Purchase Price in accordance with joint written instructions of the Sellers and the Buyers. The Sellers are to arrange the opening of the joint escrow account latest by 2 banking days prior to the Value Date. The Buyers, latest together with their remittance of the Deposit, are to arrange bank-to-bank confirmation from the remitting bank to the bank specified in Box 8 (i)(a) that the Buyers, and the remitting party if different, are a known customer of the bank and should it be required by the bank in Box 8 (i)(a), the Buyer will also arrange for the bank-to-bank confirmation to include the confirmation by the remitting bank that they know the source of funds. Both Sellers and Buyers shall comply with the anti-money laundering laws and regulations of the country in which the bank(s) specified in Box 8 are located.
Any interest earned on the deposit shall accrue to the Buyers whereas any closing fee/fees charged for holding the deposit shall be borne equally by the Sellers and the Buyers.
前開條款中，將「定金」（the Deposit）必須支付的期日清楚明白地約定在SSF的第8條（i）項中，且註明係所謂的「Value Date」，此意味在此一指定期日時，這筆「定金」必須在買賣雙方所聯合共開的戶頭中出現（the joint escrow account），且無任何轉讓的限制（freely transferable）。如果條款不是像上面這樣的約束，而是註明「定金應該於合約簽署的7日內支付」的話（Deposit is to be paid within 7 days from the date of execution of the Agreement），則買方可能以為其可以在簽約後的第7天才安排匯付「定金」款項，而賣方卻可能期待在前開第7天前即可以收到賣方匯付款項，即買賣雙方在認知上即可能出現若干「差距」。
另，SSF條款中亦要求賣方應於Value Date之前的2個銀行營業日（Banking Days）將「聯合escrow戶頭」開妥，由於賣方期待早日收到買方匯付的「定金」，所以早日將聯合帳戶備妥，對於賣方而言，亦可謂是一項利多。
另，SSF對於英國法攸關買賣契約的法律見解亦表示關切，其於條文中明白約定定金屆時會轉為買賣價金的一部分（「as part of the Purchase Price」），蓋在PT Berlian Laju Tanker TBK –v.- Nuse Shipping Ltd. (2008)的Aktor案中(註四) ，雙方針對買賣價金的全部（或至少是部分款項），應該在哪個地點支付有所爭執。案件中賣方以為買賣契約所採用的NSF 93第2條中，規定了定金不等同於買賣價金的一部分，也不必成為買賣價金的一部分，爰沒有限制賣方根據第3條指定金額付款地點的權利。為杜類似爭議再度發生，SSF於是乎在第1條中，明示定金屆時會成為買賣價金的一部分。
對於國際銀行間，為打擊不法洗錢的行為（money laundering），莫不卯足全勁，而設下層層的嚴格防制與關卡，SSF即於條款中要求買方提供匯款銀行確認函，以確認其債信良好、資金來源正當並無不法等事項。當然要求買賣雙方務必配合遵守收款銀行攸關防制洗錢等措施，自不在話下。當然匯付銀行是否能夠配合前開條款，而迅速提供確認函，則端視當地的銀行系統運作狀況而定，是買方應該在正式簽署SSF之前，被告知其有此一義務，以得預先自忖在履行上是否有任何困難。
2. Payment:
(a) The Buyer shall pay the Balance Purchase Price specified in Box 8 (ii) in full including any extras under Clause 7 free of bank/transfer charges to Sellers’ nominated bank account at Sellers’ bank stated in Box 8 (ii)(a) upon delivery of the Vessel. The agreed Purchase Price shall be paid for same day value within 3 full banking days, (being banking days in the place of closing and in the country of the Purchase Price currency) after the Sellers tender the written notice* of actual readiness of the Vessel for delivery in accordance with Clause 5 (b).
(b) The Buyers may delay to take delivery of the Vessel for up to a maximum of further seven (7) consecutive days paying to the Sellers the sum specified in Box 8 (iv) per day, or part thereof, as compensation for such delay provided that the Buyers have declared their intention to take late delivery prior to the expiry of the specified 3 full banking days. Any such amount due shall be paid at the time and place and in the same currency as the Purchase Price and any additional amounts due under Clause 7. If such delay exceeds seven (7) consecutive days then the Sellers shall have the right to cancel this Agreement and claim damages for their losses incurred.
（* Throughout this Agreement, a written notice is to mean a registered letter, telex, tele-fax, e-mail or other modern form of written communication between Sellers and the Buyers）.
在SSF第2條的b項中，其准許買方得在買方發出「準備妥適通知」（NOR）後的3個銀行日內，表明遲延交船的意願（最長期間可達7天連續）。而對於前開延遲交船所造成賣方的損失，則雙方預先於SSF第8(iv)欄中，相互約定「每日的賠償金額」，是可謂係「損害賠償預定性違約金」（the Liquidated Damages）的最佳範例。祇是在決定此項賠償金額之時，雙方務必精打細算，以實際反應出賣方屆時可能會產生的損失，恐怕才是最重要的爭點。
伍、【檢查與交船前的潛水檢查】：
SSF的第3條與第6條，則分別是所謂「檢查」與「交船前的潛水檢查」條款的約定：
3. Inspections*:
(a) The Buyers have physically inspected the Vessel at the place and on the date specified in Box 9 (i) as well as the Classification records and have accepted the Vessel making the sale outright, subject only to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
(b) The Sellers shall make the Vessel available for Physical Inspection as per Box 9 (i) hereof.
The Buyers shall undertake the Physical Inspection** without undue delay to the Vessel. Should the Buyers cause undue delay, the Sellers shall be compensated for the losses incurred by them. The sale shall become definite and outright, subject only to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, if the Vessel is accepted by the Buyers after the inspection and a written notice of acceptance from the Buyers is received by the Sellers within 72 hours after completion of Physical Inspection of the Vessel. If the Buyers decline the Vessel or if such notice of acceptance is not received by the Sellers within the afore-mentioned time, the deposit together with any interest earned shall be immediately released to the Buyers, whereafter this Agreement shall be null and void.
* 3(a) and 3 (b) are alternatives; delete whichever is not applicable. In the absence of deletion, alternative 3 (a) shall apply.
** In the context of this Agreement, Physical Inspection of the Vessel is to mean only inspection of the Vessel physically including taking photographs without opening up of the Vessel and without cost to the Sellers. The Physical Inspection to include inspection of Vessel’s Classification records, continuous synopsis record, maintenance records, deck and engine log books and available ballast spaces.
SSF的第3條係所謂的「檢查」條款，其與其他買賣格式契約的檢查條款相類似，並無太多爭議之處。SSF將交船時船舶狀態的舉證責任置於買方身上（the burden of proof），是買方暨其委任的Surveyor（公證人）於執行調查任務時，若發現任何缺失，即應記載於調查報告中，並輔以照片佐證（SSF於第3條b項的第2點備註中的「實體檢查」定義中（Physical Inspection），即明示買方於進行檢查程序中得予拍照記錄）。
6. Pre-Delivery Divers Inspection:
Prior to delivery, the Sellers shall make the Vessel available to the Buyers for underwater inspection. The Sellers shall be responsible for ensuring that the port, anchorage or berth chosen for underwater inspection of the Vessel is suitable and permitting such inspection.
(a) The Buyers shall have the right to appoint, at their own expense, a Class approved diver to inspect the Vessel’s underwater parts below the deepest load line including rudder and propeller upon the Vessel’s arrival at the port specified in Box 9 (ii). The Sellers shall grant Buyers sufficient daylight hours within which to conduct the said inspection and Sellers shall be obliged to ensure attendance of the Class surveyor to monitor the said inspection which may be attended by Buyers’ and Sellers’ representatives without interference to Class and/or the divers. However, should the Buyers fail to arrange for such inspection then they shall lose the right of such divers inspection.
(i) If any defects are found during underwater inspection including rudder and propeller that shall affect the Vessel’s present Class and the repair of which Class agrees can be deferred to the Vessel’s next scheduled dry-docking, the Buyers’ sole remedy shall be the payment by the Sellers of the estimated cost of repair of such defects only excluding any dry-dock costs, as per the average of the quotations of two reputable repair yards independent of the Sellers and the Buyers in the delivery area, one to be selected by each party. The said average amount in respect of the cost of repair shall be deducted from the Purchase Price to be paid to the Sellers at the time of delivery of the Vessel. The costs of Class attendance and divers fees incurred for the underwater inspection shall be borne by the Buyers unless damage is found and the Class imposes a recommendation in which case both costs shall be borne by the Sellers.
(ii) If damage is found for which Class requires immediate repair, then Sellers shall repair such damage without delay prior to delivery. Should the Sellers be required to dry-dock the Vessel to repair such damage, then Class 6 (b) shall apply.
(b) Where the Sellers are required to dry-dock the Vessel under Clause 6 (a)(ii), the Sellers shall also enable the inspection of the Vessel’s bottom, rudder, propeller, tail shaft and other underwater parts by a surveyor of the Classification Society to the satisfaction of the Classification Society standards. The Sellers shall be obliged to rectify any defects found that affect the present Class of the Vessel within the agreed time or if no agreement is reached then latest within 14 days of such damage being found (and, insofar as necessary, the Cancelling Date shall be extended to allow the full agreed or 14 days’ repair period), failure of which shall enable the Buyers to cancel the Agreement and recover the deposit together with interest.
(i) The Buyers shall bear the cost of the survey of the tail shaft system unless the Classification Society requires such survey to be carried out, in which case the Sellers shall bear the cost. The expenses in connection with putting the Vessel in and taking her out of dry-dock including dry-dock dues and Classification Society’s fees shall be paid by the Sellers if any condition or recommendation, excluding surveyor notes is issued as a result of the survey. In all other cases Buyers shall pay the aforesaid expenses, dues and fees.
(ii) The Buyer shall have the right to place a representative for observation whilst the Vessel is in dry-dock without interfering with the Classification surveyor’s work or decision, during the Classification Society inspections.
(iii) The Buyers shall have the right to have the underwater parts of the Vessel cleaned and painted at their risk and expense without interfering with the Classification Society’s or the Sellers’ work, and without affecting timely delivery of the Vessel. Upon the completion of the Sellers’ work, the Sellers may tender Notice of Actual Readiness of the Vessel for delivery notwithstanding the non-completion of Buyers’ work and notwithstanding that the Vessel is not at the Delivery Place, upon which the Buyers shall be obliged to take delivery of the Vessel in accordance with the aforesaid notice. All dry-docking expenses incurred after such delivery except undocking expenses under Clause 6 (a)(ii) shall be borne by the Buyers.
The Classification Society shall be the only entity to determine whether any underwater damage constitutes a condition of Class, and such determination shall be final and binding on both parties.
買賣雙方若能於買賣契約正式簽署前，決定潛水檢查的港口或停泊地點，即可以免除未來買賣雙方對於港口選擇可能產生的意見歧異（待續）。
(註釋):
(註一): SSF第15條規定：「i. * This Agreement and any guarantee contained herein shall be governed by and construed in accordance with Singapore/English* Law and any and all disputes arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, including any question regarding its existence, validity or termination, shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration in Singapore in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration for the time being in force at the commencement of the arbitration. ii. * This Agreement and guarantee contained herein shall governed by and construed in accordance with __________ Law and any all disputes arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, including any question regarding its existence, validity or termination, shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration in __________ in accordance with ______________ Rules for the time being in force at the commencement of the arbitration」（細節容後述）。
(註二): [2010] EWHC 2985 (Comm)。
(註三): [2010] 2 SLR 821。
(註四): 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 24。
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)