论对司法审判权行使的法律监督
刘四根
对司法审判权行使的法律监督,是指具有法定监督职责的部门或个人,在法治的框架内、依照法定程序和方法对法院和法官独立行使审判权所进行监察和督促。监督的实质包括谁监督、监督谁和监督什么三个方面,这三个方面构成统一完整的法律监督概念。① 一 、对审判权监督的现状
当前对司法审判权监督体系主要包括外部对法院的监督和法院内部的监督。外部监督主要包括权力机关的监督、党的监督、行政机关的监督、检察机关的监督和社会舆论的监督。内部监督包括上级法院对下级法院的监督,也包括本级法院院长、审判委员会对法官办理案件的监督。 1、审判权监督的缺陷
长期以来,在我国,法院被视作行政机关,法官等同于一公务员,相应地,对法院和法官的监督除了法律明文规定的监督制度以外,在很大程度上沿袭了对行政机关和一般公务员监督的机制和手段,行政化色彩浓厚,缺乏法官职业的针对性和有效性 。 在人大监督方面: 当前,一些地方人大虽相继制定了关于个案监督的工作条例,但由于认识不够统一,操作不够规范,随意性较大,问题较多。如有的地方人大个案监督过多,动辄调卷审查,或者直接通知案件承办人去汇报案情,或者邀请法律专家和老司法工作者对提出个案监督的案件进行咨询、研讨;或者对正在审理的案件召开有律师参加的座谈会,对案件实体问题进行讨论;有的人大在评议法院工作时,要求法院将近几年来办的所有案件送去检查,或者提出个案监督,由法院答复;有的地方人大机关和人大代表不遵守全国人大关于先使监督的规定,变组织监督为个人监督,或者以代表身份为本人亲属涉讼案件以监督者形式干预人民法院的审判活动等等。
在党政领导监督方面:有的地方和部门的领导片面地把执行法院生效判决与发展经济、维护稳定对立起来,为了保护本地区、本部门的局部利益,对涉及当地利益的案件,打招呼、定调子、批条子,要求法院对这些案件进行审查;有的地方和部门领导规定法院查询、冻结、划拨存款需要经其批准,规定不许法院受理或执行本地欠外地债款的案件,对法院贪污冻结企业存款时,强令法院结冻。
在媒体监督方面:有的媒体对一些尚未起诉到法院的刑事案件过度渲染、罗列种种所谓“犯罪”事实和情节,在有关领导和社会公众中造成很深的印象;有的媒体对法院正在审理或作出裁判的案件,或进行夹叙夹议论式报道,或仅凭主观臆断便横加指责,给法院公正审判带来压力和影响;有的新闻记者往往有意无意地站到一方当事人的立场去,发表片面观点;还有个别新闻记者受一方当事人之邀,图一时之利,按照当事人的意图撰写不实之词,误导社会舆论;有的新闻单位在自己败诉后,利用掌握和控制的舆论工具发表言论,指责法院判决不公。
在检查机关监督方面:滥用抗诉权,使民行抗诉案件大量上升,抗诉程序失范。
上下级法院之间的监督:因不当行使监督指导权的现象比较普遍;甚至有个别人以上级法院的名义干预下级法院审判权的正当行使。
在法院内部之间的监督:审判监督庭的人员配备不到位,在纠正本院裁判时,容易产生“自己跟自己过不去”、有损法院形象、不利于单位内部团结 ,怕得罪人等思想;合议庭流于形式,其成员不全部到庭认真参审或不参加案件合议,使合议庭成员之间失去了制约;庭长、院长、审判委员会成员的回避制度不能发挥应有作用 。
2、审判权监督缺陷产生的原因
人大监督的目的不明,方式欠妥。地方人大监督的实践大多是纠正个案为目的。但人大没有力量也不具备足够的专业知识,更不应当将主要精力耗费在解决一些具体的案件上,而放弃讨论、决定重大事项职责。
各级党政领导“衙门”观念根深蒂固,且法院在人、财、物等方面还依靠这些部门或个人。
新闻媒体监督司法活动,尚无法律依据和统一规范,有的新闻单位片面理解新闻自由,没有摆正舆论监督者的位置。另外司法活动的过度封闭也是造成新闻媒体对司法活动报道不实的原因之一。②
检察机关对审判监督在制度设计上不合理:检察机关对法院的生效判决抗诉,其指导思想是“实事求是,有错必纠”,这与司法裁判的专有属性相冲突;其次检察机关对再审启动的公权化与当事人处分相冲突,违背了民事诉讼不告不理的原则,侵犯了当事人的处分权。③法定的四种提起诉讼的情形过于笼统,不易操作,抗诉弹性极大容易导致检察机关抗诉权的滥用。
上下级法院之间在审判业务上还不是完全独立,仍存在领导与被领导关系。另外个别基层法院对审判监督工作重视不够,法院审判监督注重实体方面,轻视程序不公。
二、完善对审判权监督的必要性
1、对审判权监督是树立法制权威的关键。
《宪法》第一百二十六条规定:人民法院依照法律规定独立行使审判权,不受行政机关、社会团体和个人的干涉。实现独立审判,促进司法公正是我国司法制度改革追求的根本目标,独立审判是司法公正的保障,是司法公信力的需要,人民通常把法院当作社会正义的最后一道防线。然而,当前司法不公,司法腐败现象比较突出,群众意见比较大,法官在民众心中的形象不挂。④不加强监督,难以扼制司法不公和司法腐败的漫延,司法权威乃至法治的权威就无法建立,依法治国,建设社会主义法治国家就会落空。
2、在法律范围内进行监督
对司法审判权法律监督的根本任务是预防和纠正法官违法审判和职业化的犯罪,确保公正与效率目标的实现。这就是说,审判权法律权特点而设置的,是在法律和法规范围内对审判权行使监督制约,而不是人为的和随意的监督。
三、对司法审判权法律监督构建的建议
监督与被监督,本来就是一对矛盾,被监督者对待监督者的监督,又往往是监督能否有效发挥的重要因素。法院接受监督的最大思想障碍就是少数干警常常把监督与独立行使审判权对立起来。一听到不同意见,就觉得对法院工作不够支持,一提个案监督就担心会干扰法律依法独立办案。为此,肖扬院长在去年两会期间提出了一个富有哲理的监督“方程式”即“监督加强理解,监督就是支持,监督就是鼓励,监督就是鞭策”。这是对监督的高度概括。因此,我们要正确处理以下几个方面的关系:
1、要正确处理好人大监督与独立审判的关系:人大监督法院的目的,应当是促进审判机制的完善和法官素质的提高,即通过监督发现问题,提出改进办法。人大对法院的监督,应当尊重法院独立行使审判权的前提下,必须遵循集体性(即监督权只能由人大会议和常委会议集体行使)、事后性(即权力机关在法院审理具体案件过程中不能发表有倾向性的意见影响法院的裁判)、间接生(即权力机关不能直接宣告法院的判决和裁定无效)。⑤在监督方式上,可以采取听取和审议法院工作报告、对法院提出询问和质询、组织特定问题调查委员会、罢免法官等形式。在对法院提出询问和质询事项时一般应限于法院的违法乱纪行为、司法制度建设、司法政策方面的事项,不能干预法院对具体案件独立行使审判权。也就是说,代表不应当就具体个案如何审理提出询问和质询,特别不能对正在审理过程中的个案提出询问和质询,对于已经审结的案件,一般也不应当提出询问和质询。如果发现某个案件确属错案,人大也不能采取决定方式要求法院纠正,更不能代替法院直接予以纠正。人大只能通过提出案件审理过程存在的程序等形式合法性方面的缺陷,启动法院的自我纠错机制,让法院自己认识到错案,自行纠正。如果法院不纠正,只要能够作出合理的解释,也没有发现违法违纪行为,应当尊重法院的决定。如果发现有违法违纪行为,则可以依法予以罢免。
2、正确处理好坚持党的领导与独立审判的关系:依法独立审判与坚持党的领导是统一的,一致的,而不是对立的,矛盾的,独立行使审判权不是脱离党的领导,而是必须坚持党的领导⑥。只有坚持党的领导,法院工作才能坚持正确的政治方向。党委对法院的监督应通过政策对国家法律的运用进行指导。各级法院要坚定不移地把依法独立行使审判权同坚持党的领导统一起来,要自觉、主动接受党委的领导,认真落实党对政法工作的部署和要求,主动向党委报告工作,争取党委对法院依法独立行使审判权的领导和支持。法院要正确处理领导过问的案件或审判工作问题;对当地党委或党政领导同志从对整个工作负责的情况出发而过问工作出批示的案件,我们应坚持以事实为依据,以法律为准绳的原则依法作出公正裁判。对于其中重大的或疑难的案件,在作出裁判前,应主动向党委请示汇报,以便作好法律宣传、解释工作。有的案件比较复杂,领导根据某一方面反映的情况所发表的意见,可能有与法律不相符合的地方,我们应把案件的事实、适用的法律,主动向领导汇报清楚,相信会得到领导的理解和支持。对于个别领导出于对本地利益的考虑,制定了不符合法律的文件规定,影响法院审判工作正常开展的,我们也应当认真负责地向领导明确提出,以使不符合法律的文件、规定得到废止。
3、正确处理好新闻舆论监督与公正审判的关系:新闻舆论监督对审判活动进行监督,是促进人民法院改进工作,防止司法腐败的重要措施。在我国,新闻舆论与司法机关在追求公平正义的目的上是一致的,但由于新闻调查和开庭审判是两种性质不同的活动,看问题的角度和遵循的原则都在重大差别。我们应将公开审判原则落到实处,增强司法审判活动的透明度,为新闻舆论监督创造先决条件。在此前提下,新闻媒体也应该向民众发布和传播准确、真实的信息,而不能随意发布虚构、捏造或与事实不符的信息。江泽民同志曾指出:“新闻宣传工作要弘扬朝代的主旋律,以正确的舆论引导人”。舆论对司法的监督也同样要遵循这一原则。舆论监督要坚持正确的导向,舆论监督需要“揭短”,对法院工作中存在的弊端和不足进行曝光和披露,但其监督和批评应当是善意的和建设性的。为防止舆论干预司法,侵害司法独立,危害司法公正,就必须为舆论监督建设定一定的规则,(一)对进入审判阶段的案件,法官有权禁止媒体就本案进行带有倾向性的评论,以防止确保法官的中立立场,确保司法公正。(二)在目前,有关新闻监督立法尚未出台的情况下,法院有权决定是否接受有关审判活动的采访及采访报道的方式等⑦。
4、正确处理检察机关抗诉与审判监督的关系:人民检察院组织法第五条规定,对人民法院的审判活动是否合法、实行监督。第十七条规定,地方各级人民检察院对本级人民法院第一审案件的判决的裁定,认为有错误时,应当按照上诉程序提出抗诉。第十八条规定,最高人民检察院对于各级人民法院已经发生法律效力的判决和裁定,上级人民检察院对于下级人民法院已经发生法律效力的判决和裁定,如果发现确有错误,应当按照审判监督程序提出抗诉。这是国家赋予人民检察院的审判监督权,具有着主导诉讼程序,救济私人利益,保障社会正义的权力。检察院可以主动依职权启动再审程序。但这种职权主义模式与现代法治精神相况突,动摇了以意思自治、私权处理分原则为基本内涵的民事诉讼的基础,而且在很大程度上构成了对当事人诉讼权利的妨害与侵犯。同时它违背了既判力理论,破坏了社会关系的平衡格局⑧。因此应对检察院在再审启动权予以限制。检察院只对刑事、行政案件以及涉及国家利益和社会公共利益的民事案件有权提起抗诉,启动再审程序,对一般的民事案件无权启动再审程序。
5、正确处理好审判权监督与完善法院内部制约机制的关系:为了确保司法公正,防止权力滥用,应加强法院内部制约机制,即以权力制约权力的监督机制,有效地防止和遏制审判权滥用现象发生。法官独立审判,不受行政机关、社会团体和个人干涉,还不受其他法官包括上级法官的干涉。要建立各负其责的审级独立制度,强化上下级法院各自依法独立审判,明确上级法院对下法院除了上诉审查、再审查以外没有其他的监督关系。要加强法官独立,在基层法院取消审判委员会制度,这种审判组织形式违背了国际公认的诉讼的直接原则、言词原则和不间接原则⑨。取消院长、庭长审批案件的制度。院长、庭长是行政职务而非审判职务,只有当院长、庭长参加合议庭担任审判长或独任审判员审理案件时,才拥有审判职权,院长、庭长审批制度导致审与判脱离,很难保证案件质量。只有经终审的裁判在发现有新的证据(符合民事、行政诉讼证据规则中的规定)足以证明原判可能有错时,方可立案再审。取消法院院长启动再审的权力,以防止领导的批示干预案件的审理。
6、正确处理健全法官自律机制与审判权监督的关系:法院要实现其司法裁判职能,必须由作为个体的法官来动作,法官才是真正实现独立审判的主体,司法独立的抽象概念最终以法官独立的形态体现出来。法律监督体系实施的关键在于法定监督主体与法官群体相结合取得共识。只有法官群体提高职业素养,提高法律约束的觉悟,以及监督主体及时研究法院和法官面临的新形势、新特点,建立完善监督机制,将监督触角延伸到法官职务行为的全过程,法律监督体系的功能才能得到全面有效的实现。美国关于法官的六条标准,都是关于道德和品格的,可见个人素质和修养对法官来说是何等重要⑩。优秀法官应具备下素质:优秀的政治思想素质、突出的职业道德素质、高度的专业技能素质、相当的人文科技素 。法官能否公正办案,能否主持正义,主要取决于法官的政治素质。对法官来说,严格执法,公正裁判,通过审判工作自觉维护改革、发展、稳定大局,就是最大的政治,是政治素质的具体体现。突出的职业道德素质,包括要有良好的敬业精神,准确的角色定位,刚直谦洁的操行品格,优良的工作作风和职业良心。任何职业都需要敬业,对法官而言尤为重要。法官权威得以树立,司法公正得以实现,要求法官对自身地位、作用和责任的特殊性和重要性有足够的认识。高度的专业技能素质,不仅要求熟悉法律原则、法律条文和立法精神,更要求通晓法律规定背后的法源、法理,拓宽理论视野,了解法学理论的研究动态。另一方面要求法官具备积极的实践精神和丰富的审判经验。相当的人文科技素质,法官应具备一定的艺术修养、培养高雅的爱好,陶冶高尚的情操,应具有丰富的社会知识社会经验,应掌握相当的常规科技知识。
7、要正确处理程序监督与实体监督的关系:当前,司法不公正最突出的问题是程序不公正 。如法官单独接触一方当事人,没有管辖权的争管辖权,应当公开审判的没有真正公开,合议庭成员不参加庭审和评议等。而实践中审判监督的任务主要是纠正已经发生法律效力的错误裁判,而对上述这些问题的监督非常薄弱。实际上,案件的实体不公正大多是由于程序不公正引起的。程序不公正的问题不解决,实体上的错案就会层出不穷。反过来又用不公正的程序去纠正“错案”,这种监督可能会形成恶性循环。⑿从一定意义上讲,实体不公正是司法不公正的标,程序不公正是本,应当在治本上狠下功夫。一是提高办案的透明度,落实公开审判,将诉讼中的各种“关系”公开,相互告知对方当事人,将审判工作完全置于“阳光”之下,杜绝“暗箱操作”和“幕后交易”。二是严格合议制度,健全回避制度。凡是合议成员不会的不得开庭,开庭和合议中不得中途离开。单独与一方当事人接触的法官应自行回避,参与案件研究的院长应自行回避。
参考文献:
①参见曾宪主主编《法学学科综合水平全国统一考试指南(法理编)》高等教育出版社,2000版。
②、⑦参见李修源“关于舆论监督与司法独立的两个话题”载《人民司法》2003第八期。
③、⑧参见“审判监督制度改革与有条件三审终审制的构建”载《人民司法》2003第二期 。 ④北京零点调查公司在北京、上海、广州、武汉等11个城市对5673位18岁以上的城市居民进行多段随机入户访问得出的一个结论是:整体上赋予法官消极形象的人占了约四成,见《中国法官遭遇“公众信任危机”》资料来源:中国法官网。
⑤参见王利明“论权力机关对法院独立行使审判权的监督”载《公正与效率世纪主题论坛文汇篇》
⑥参见李修源“当前审判工作中应注意的几个问题”载《人民司法》1998年第七期。
⑨参见周道鸾“独立审判与司法公正”载《法律适应》2002年第十期。
⑩参见施海燕“法官职业化建设需要职业化法律监督”载《人民司法》2003年第四期。
参见曲颖“论法官素质”载《人民司法》1999年第十一期。
朝参见景汉朝“程序监督与实体监督”载《人民司法》2003第一期。
江西省吉水县法院 刘四根
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