CONTROL OF EXEMPTION CLAUSES ORDINANCE ——附加英文版
Hong Kong
CONTROL OF EXEMPTION CLAUSES ORDINANCE
(CHAPTER 71)
CONTENTS
ion
I PRELIMINARY
hort title
nterpretation and application
he "reasonableness" test
Dealing as consumer"
arieties of exemption clause
ower to amend Schedules 1 and 2
II CONTROL OF EXEMPTION CLAUSES
dance of liability for negligence, breach of contract, etc.
egligence liability
iability arising in contract
nreasonable indemnity clauses Liability arising from sale or
supply of
s
"Guarantee" of consumer goods
Seller's liability
Miscellaneous contracts under which goods pass Other provisions
about
racts
Effect of breach on "reasonableness" test
Evasion by means of secondary contract
Arbitration agreements
III CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE CONTROL DOES NOT APPLY
International supply contracts
Choice of law clauses
Saving for other relevant legislation
Application
IV CONSEQUENTIAL AND OTHER AMENDMENTS
(Omitted)
dule 1. Scope of sections 7, 8, 9 and 12
dule 2. "Guidelines" for application of reasonableness test
dule 3. (Omitted)
Whole document
imit the extent to which civil liability for breach of contract,
or
negligence or other breach of duty, can be avoided by
means of
ract terms and otherwise; and to restrict the
enforceability of
tration agreements. [1 December 1990] L. N. 38 of 1990
PART I PRELIMINARY
hort title
Ordinance may be cited as the Control of Exemption Clauses
Ordinance.
nterpretation and application
In this Ordinance--
iness" includes a profession and the activities of a public
body, a
ic authority, or a board, commission, committee or
other body
inted by the Governor or Government;
ds" has the same meaning as in the Sale of Goods Ordinance (Cap.
26);
ligence" means the breach--
of any obligation, arising from the express or implied terms
of a
ract, to take reasonable care or exercise reasonable skill
in the
ormance of the contract;
of any common law duty to take reasonable care or exercise
reasonable
l (but not any stricter duty);
of the common duty of care imposed by the Occupiers
Liability
nance (Cap. 314); "notice" includes an announcement, whether or
not in
hing, and any other communication or pretended communication;
sonal injury" includes any disease and any impairment of
physical or
al condition.
In the case of both contract and tort, sections 7 to 12 apply
(except
e the contrary is stated in section 11 (4)) only to
business
ility, that is liability for breach of obligations or duties
arising--
from things done or omitted to be done by a person in the course
of a
ness (whether his own business or another's); or
from the occupation of premises used for business purposes
of the
pier, and references to liability are to be read
accordingly; but
ility of an occupier of premises for breach of an obligation or
duty
rds a person obtaining access to the premises for
recreational or
ational purposes, being liability for loss or damage
suffered by
on of the dangerous state of the premises, is not a business
liability
he occupier unless granting that person such access for the
purposes
erned falls within the business purposes of the occupier.
In relation to any breach of duty or obligation, it is
immaterial
her the breach was inadvertent or intentional, or whether
liability
it arises directly or vicariously.
1977 c. 50 ss. 1&14 U. K.]
he "reasonableness" test
In relation to a contract term, the requirement of reasonableness
for
purposes of this Ordinance and section 4 of the
Misrepresentation
nance (Cap. 284) is satisfied only if the court or
arbitrator
rmines that the term was a fair and reasonable one to be
included
ng regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably
to have
, known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the
contract
made.
In determining for the purposes of section 11 or 12 whether a
contract
satisfies the requirement of reasonableness, the court or
arbitrator
l have regard in particular to the matters specified in
Schedule 2;
this subsection does not prevent the court or arbitrator from
holding,
ccordance with any rule of law, that a term which purports to
exclude
estrict any relevant liability is not a term of the contract.
In relation to a notice (not being a notice having
contractual
ct), the requirement of reasonableness under this
Ordinance is
sfied only if the court or arbitrator determines that it would
be fair
reasonable to allow reliance on it, having regard to
all the
umstances obtaining when the liability arose or (but for the
notice)
d have arisen.
In determining (under this Ordinance or the
Misrepresentation
nance (Cap. 284)) whether a contract term or notice
satisfies the
irement of reasonableness, the court or arbitrator shall have
regard
articular (but without prejudice to subsection (2) to whether
(and, if
to what extent) the language in which the term or notice is
expressed
language understood by the person as against whom another
person
s to rely upon the term or notice.
Where by reference to a contract term or notice a person
seeks to
rict liability to a specified sum of money, and the question
arises
er this Ordinance or the Misrepresentation Ordinance (Cap.
284))
her the term or notice satisfies the requirement of
reasonableness,
court or arbitrator shall have regard in particular (but
without
udice to subsection (2) or (4)) to--
the resources which he could expect to be available to him for
the
ose of meeting the liability should it arise; and
how far it was open to him to cover himself by insurance.
It is for the person claiming that a contract term or notice
satisfies
requirement of reasonableness to prove that it does.
1977 c. 50 s. 11 U. K.]
Dealing as consumer"
A party to a contract "deals as consumer" in relation to another
party
he neither makes the contract in the course of a business nor
holds
elf out as doing so;
the other party does make the contract in the course of a
business;
in the case of a contract governed by the law of sale of goods
or by
ion 12, the goods passing under or in pursuance of the contract
are of
pe ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption.
Notwithstanding subsection (1), on a sale by auction or by
competitive
er the buyer is not in any circumstances to be regarded as dealing
as
umer.
It is for the person claiming that a party does not deal as
consumer
rove that he does not.
1977 c. 50 s. 12 U. K.]
arieties of exemption clause
To the extent that this Ordinance prevents the
exclusion or
riction of any liability it also prevents--
making the liability or its enforcement subject to
restrictive or
ous conditions;
excluding or restricting any right or remedy in respect
of the
ility, or subjecting a person to any prejudice in consequence of
his
uing any such right or remedy;
excluding or restricting rules of evidence or procedure, and (to
that
nt) sections 7, 10, 11 and 12 also prevent excluding or
restricting
ility by reference to terms and notices which exclude or
restrict
relevant obligation or duty.
An agreement in writing to submit present or future
differences to
tration is not to be treated under this Ordinance as
excluding or
ricting any liability. [cf. 1977 c. 50 s. 13 U. K.]
ower to amend Schedules 1 and 2
Legislative Council may by resolution amend Schedules 1 and 2.
PART II CONTROL OF EXEMPTION CLAUSES
dance of liability for negligence, breach of contract, etc.
egligence liability
A person cannot by reference to any contract term or to a notice
given
ersons generally or to particular persons exclude or
restrict his
ility for death or personal injury resulting from negligence.
In the case of other loss or damage, a person cannot so
exclude or
rict his liability for negligence except in so far as the
term or
ce satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.
Where a contract term or notice purports to exclude or
restrict
ility for negligence a person's agreement to or awareness of it
is not
tself to be taken as indicating his voluntary acceptance of any
risk.
1977 c. 50 s. 2 U. K.]
iability arising in contract
This section applies as between contracting parties where one of
them
s as consumer or on the other's written standard terms of
business.
As against that party, the other cannot by reference to any
contract
--
When himself in breach of contract, exclude or restrict any
liability
is in respect of the breach; or
claim to be entitled--
to render a contractual performance substantially different from
that
h was reasonably expected of him; or
in respect of the whole or any part of his contractual obligation,
to
er no performance at all,
pt in so far as (in any of the cases mentioned above
in this
ection) the contract term satisfies the requirement of
reasonableness.
1977 c. 50 s. 3 U. K.]
nreasonable indemnity clauses
A person dealing as consumer cannot by reference to any contract
term
ade to indemnify another person (whether a party to the
contract or
in respect of liability that may be incurred by the
other for
igence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract
term
sfies the requirement of reasonableness.
This section applies whether the liability in question--
is directly that of the person to be indemnified or is incurred
by him
riously;
is to the person dealing as consumer or to someone else. [cf. 1977
c.
. 4 U. K.]
ility arising from sale or supply of goods
"Guarantee" of consumer goods
In the case of goods of a type ordinarily supplied for private
use or
umption, where loss or damage--
arises from the goods proving defective while in consumer use;
and
results from the negligence of a person concerned in the
manufacture
istribution of the goods, liability for the loss or damage
cannot be
uded or restricted by reference to any contract term or
notice
ained in or operating by reference to a guarantee of the goods.
For these purposes--
goods are to be regarded as "in consumer use" when a person is
using
, or has them in his possession for use, otherwise than
exclusively
the purposes of a business; and
anything in writing is a guarantee if it contains or
purports to
ain some promise or assurance (however worded or
presented) that
cts will be made good by complete or partial replacement,
or by
ir, monetary compensation or otherwise.
This section does not apply as between the parties to a contract
under
n pursuance of which possession or ownership of the goods passed.
1977 c. 50 s. 5 U. K.]
Seller's liability
Liability for breach of the obligations arising from section 14
of the
of Goods Ordinance (Cap. 26) (seller's implied undertakings
as to
e, etc.) cannot be excluded or restricted by reference to any
contract
.
As against a person dealing as consumer, liability for breach of
the
gations arising from section 15, 16 or 17 of the Sale of
Goods
nance (Cap. 26) (seller's implied undertakings as to
conformity of
s with description or sample, or as to their quality or fitness
for a
icular purpose) cannot be excluded or restricted by reference to
any
ract term.
As against a person dealing otherwise than as consumer, the
liability
ified in subsection (2) can be excluded or restricted by reference
to
ntract term, but only in so far as the term satisfies the
requirement
easonableness.
The liabilities referred to in this section are not only the
business
ilities defined by section 2 (2), but include those arising under
any
ract of sale of goods. [cf. 1977 c. 50 s. 6 U. K.]
Miscellaneous contracts under which goods pass
Where the possession or ownership of goods passes
under or in
uance of a contract not governed by the law of sale of
goods,
ection (2) to (4) apply in relation to the effect (if any) that
the
t or arbitrator is to give to contract terms excluding or
restricting
ility for breach of obligation arising by implication of law from
the
re of the contract.
As against a person dealing as consumer, liability in respect of
the
's correspondence with description or sample, or their
quality or
ess for any particular purpose, cannot be excluded or
restricted by
rence to any such term.
As against a person dealing otherwise than as consumer, that
liability
be excluded or restricted by reference to such a term, but only
in so
as the term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.
Liability in respect of--
the right to transfer ownership of the goods, or give possession;
or
the assurance of quiet possession to a person taking
goods in
uance of the contract, cannot be excluded or restricted by
reference
ny such term except in so far as the term satisfies the requirement
of
onableness. [cf. 1977 c. 50 s. 7 U. K.]
r provisions about contracts
Effect of breach on "reasonableness" test
Where for reliance upon it a contract term has to
satisfy the
irement of reasonableness, it may be found to do so and be
given
ct accordingly notwithstanding that the contract has been
terminated
er by breach or by a party electing to treat it as repudiated.
Where on a breach the contract is nevertheless affirmed by a
party
tled to treat as repudiated, this does not of itself
exclude the
irement of reasonableness in relation to any contract term.
1977 c. 50 s. 9 U. K.]
Evasion by means of secondary contract
rson is not bound by any contract term prejudicing or taking
away
ts of his which arise under, or in connection with the performance
of,
her contract, so far as those rights extend to the
enforcement of
her's liability which this Ordinance prevents that
other from
uding or restricting.
1977 c. 50 s. 10 U. K.]
Arbitration agreements
As against a person dealing as consumer, an agreement to submit
future
erences to arbitration cannot be enforced except--
with his written consent signified after the differences in
question
arisen; or
where he has himself had recourse to arbitration in pursuance of
the
ement in respect of any differences.
Subsection (1) does not affect--
the enforcement of an international arbitration agreement
within the
ing of section 2 (1) of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 341);
laced 76 of 1990 s. 2)
the resolution of differences arising under any contract so far
as it
by virtue of Schedule 1, excluded from the operation of section
7, 8,
12.
PART III CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE CONTROL DOES NOT APPLY
International supply contracts
The limits imposed by this Ordinance on the extent to which a
person
exclude or restrict liability by reference to a contract term do
not
y to liability arising under an international supply contract.
The terms of an international supply contract are not subject to
any
irement of reasonableness under section 8 or 9.
For the purposes of this section, an international supply
contract
s a contract--
that is either a contract of sale of goods or a contract under
or in
uance of which the possession or ownership of goods passes;
that is made by parties whose places of business (or, if they
have
, habitual residences) are in the territories of different
States or
in and outside Hong Kong; and
in the case of which--
the goods in question are, at the time of the conclusion
of the
ract, in the course of carriage, or will be carried,
from the
itory of one State to the territory of another, or to or from
Hong
from or to a place outside Hong Kong; or
the acts constituting the offer and acceptance have been done in
the
itories of different States or in and outside Hong Kong; or
) the contract provides for the goods to be delivered to the
territory
State other than that within whose territory the acts
constituting
offer and acceptance were done; or
the acts constituting the offer and acceptance were done in Hong
Kong
the contract provides for the goods to be delivered outside Hong
Kong;
the acts constituting the offer and acceptance were done outside
Hong
and the contract provides for the goods to be delivered to Hong
Kong.
1977 c. 50 s. 26 U. K.]
Choice of law clauses
Where the proper law of a contract is the law of Hong Kong only
by
ce of the parties (and apart from that choice would be the law
of some
r country) sections 7 to 12 do not operate as part of the proper
law.
This Ordinance has effect notwithstanding any contract
term which
ies or purports to apply the law of some other country, where
(either
oth)--
the term appears to the court or arbitrator to have been
imposed
ly or mainly for the purpose of enabling the party imposing
it to
e the operation of this Ordinance; or
in the making of the contract one of the parties dealt as
consumer,
he was then habitually resident in Hong Kong, and the essential
不分页显示 总共2页 1 [2]
下一页
浅析最高人民法院法函[2004]30号文存在的有关问题
四川成都精济律师事务所 何宁湘律师
问题的原由
近日在山东人事信息网看到《最高人民法院关于事业单位人事争议案件适用法律等问题的答复(2004-5-27)》,方知最高人民法院有此“司法解释性文件”。但在6月10日出版的第6期总第92期《最高人民法院公报》上没有刊出这一文件,也许下一期会刊出。截止2004年6月23日12:00 中国法院网[法律文库]没有收录,最高人民法院网-[司法行政文件]没有收录,也没有作相关新闻报道。下面刊出该“复函”全文:
最高人民法院关于事业单位人事争议案件适用法律等问题的答复
法函[2004]30号
北京市高级人民法院:
你院《关于审理事业单位人事争议案件如何适用法律及管辖的请示》(京高法[2003]353号)收悉。经研究,答复如下:
一、《最高人民法院关于人民法院审理事业单位人事争议案件若干问题的规定》(法释[2003]13号)第一条规定,“事业单位与其工作人员之间因辞职、辞退及履行聘用合同所发生的争议,适用《中华人民共和国劳动法》的规定处理。”这里“适用《中华人民共和国劳动法》的规定处理”是指人民法院审理事业单位人事争议案件的程序运用《中华人民共和国劳动法》的相关规定。人民法院对事业单位人事争议案件的实体处理应当适用人事方面的法律规定,但涉及事业单位工作人员劳动权利的内容在人事法律中没有规定的,适用《中华人民共和国劳动法》的有关规定。
二、事业单位人事争议案件由用人单位或者聘用合同履行地的基层人民法院管辖。
三、人民法院审理事业单位人事争议案件的案由为“人事争议”。
中华人民共和国最高人民法院
二○○四年四月三十日
山东人事信息网http://www.sdrs.gov.cn/所作导言:
针对各地在人事争议处理过程中遇到的有关《劳动法》适用、法院管辖和法院立案案由等问题,5月9日,最高人民法院对北京市高级人民法院《关于审理事业单位人事争议案件如何适用法律及管辖的请示》(京高法[2003]353号)做出了答复。现全文刊登《最高人民法院关于事业单位人事争议案件适用法律等问题的答复》(法函[2004]30号)。
这个答复是在最高人民法院出台关于人事争议仲裁司法解释确定人事争议仲裁制度与司法制度关系的基础上,对人民法院在审理事业单位人事争议案件时的有关问题进一步做出的明确规定,是关于事业单位人事争议处理的又一个重要的法律性文件,对于进一步确认人事争议仲裁的法律性质和地位,指导我们正确运用相关法律法规都具有十分重要的作用。各级人事部门要积极配合各地人民法院做好文件的执行工作,以推动人事争议仲裁制度的建设和人事争议仲裁工作的开展。
从导言可知,该《答复》实际行文时间为2004年5月9日。而山东人事信息网是5月27日在网站上公布,至于该《答复》的来源不详。
该“答复”存在的问题
【问题1】该《答复》属于对法释[2003]13号这一司法司法解释的“解释”,原本觉得最高审判机关的作出“司法解释的解释”实在是有些可笑。但回头一想,我国现在没有人事法律,没有处理人事争议的法律,2003年9月5日施行的《最高人民法院关于人民法院审理事业单位人事争议案件若干问题的规定》大致上可以看作是关于审理人事争议纠纷案件的“初步法律”,或者说是“准法律”,那么现在作出“替代法律”的司法解释也是“顺理成章”之事,即使退后一步自然宽,仍有一些挥之不去的问题不停闪现,立法与司法解释的机关不同,角度不同,功能不同,司法解释更接近审判实践,比较立法更具体、具有较强的作操性,法释[2003]13号必竟是司法解释,那么怎么回出现“各地在人事争议处理过程中遇到的有关《劳动法》适用、法院管辖和法院立案案由等问题”,由此不难看到,当时出台法释[2003]13号极有可能是应一时急需,难免协调性、准确性与可操作性等方面的问题。
【问题2】《答复》中第一条答称“人民法院对事业单位人事争议案件的实体处理应当适用人事方面的法律规定”,实质上就是将刚与司法接轨的人事纠纷处理从法释[2003]13号司法解释的状态回到了不是依法办事,而是依据政策办事的老路。原因在于我国目前根本没有一部“人事方面的法律规定”,对此按上层的意思,包括最高人民法院,“人事方面的法律规定”自然就是人事部以及各级人事行政机关,说白了就是“人事厅、局”,他们做出的大量人事政策部门权利文件。这些政策部门权利文件基本上缺少法律依据,往往与法律冲突的、对立的、依据这些文件所作的行政决定,一般是不平等的,是对行政相对人或者事业单位员工一定的权利侵害,如今到了法院,人事争议纠纷诉讼当事人之间的地位仍不平等,人民法院认定事实的正确与否,作出实体裁决的依据仍是原行政机关的政策文件,这样的诉讼已根本没有任何实质意义。在肖扬院长倡导的司法为民的当今,突然冒出一个“复函”,它无疑与“司法为民”指示相悖。
【问题3】对于《答复》中的“人事方面的法律规定”无非有三类:1、人事方面的行政法规;2、人事方面的行政规章;3、人事方面的规范性文件。实际上,前两者几乎是空白,且我国大致不可能有人事方面的部门法,目前存在并具有“强制执行力”的只有称之“规范性文件”的人事政策文件。由此可见,《答复》实质是让各级法院在审理人事争议纠纷案件时适用人事政策文件,这与我们社会主义法制“以法律为准绳”的原则相悖,以及与人民法院审判中适用法律的基本原则相悖。
建议对这方面问题,采用最高人民法院《关于审理行政案件适用法律规范问题的座谈会纪要》的法律法规适用原则与规定的架构,并作出相应的规定。
【问题4】与实体处理相对应,必然有“程序处理”的规定才方为理顺。《答复》规定的“适用《中华人民共和国劳动法》的规定处理”是指人民法院审理事业单位人事争议案件的程序运用《中华人民共和国劳动法》的相关规定,应当就是这部分内容。问题是,人民法院审理人事争议纠纷案件应当在民庭,程序法应适用《民事诉讼法》。《劳动法》是实体法,并非程序法,作出这样的规定实在是出于“审判缺法”的无奈。可以大致作个判断性的理解:《答复》所表达的意思应当是:人民法院在审理人事争议纠纷案件,诉讼当事人提出程序方面问题主张的,应当按照《劳动法》及配套法规规定来进行认定与裁决。这样一来,再次出现让人啼笑皆非,头痛不已的情形,《答复》作“司法解释的解释”仍需要解释。这种情形只有在政策文件,行政文件中发生,最高人民法院所作的司法解释,出现这种情形实属说不过去的。