国际贸易货物质量之法律问题 –何玉平律师 ------以英国法为视角，看法律规定和合同约定

货物质量纠纷是国际贸易中常见、高频纠纷。而英美普通法又是普适的国际商事游戏规则。因此，在英美普通法语境下探讨国际贸易质量问题具有重大的实战意义。本文拟从英国法的视角，解构和评析国际货物买卖中三大质量法律问题: 1、质量问题的英国法默示责任和如何约定质量条款；2、因质量问题拒绝接受货物；3、质量索赔

                            PART I 英国法默示责任 PK 合同约定

• 一、英国合同法条文

英国法下，依据重要性不同，将合同条款分为条件条文（condition），保证条文(warranty)，中间条文(intermediate term 或 innominate term)。合同条款作此分类的重大意义在于违反不同类型的条款的法律后果截然不同. 如违反条件条款，非违约方有权主张解除合同并主张违约损害赔偿，当然非违约方也可不解除合同仅主张损害赔偿。如一方违反保证条款，非违约方不可解除合同而只能主张违约损害赔偿。基于合同条文复杂性，在Hong Kong Fir v. Kawasaki [1961] 2 Lloyd's Rep.先例中创设了中间条文，合同另一方是否有权解除合同取决于违约方违约的程度、是否剥夺了合同另一方履行合同的根本利益，当一方违反中间条文、情形严重时，非违约方可主张解除合同，并主张损害赔偿；当违反的情形不严重时，非违约方只能主张损害赔偿。

在国际货物买卖质量争议中，上述合同条文分类的实践意义在于，法律救济不同。如果卖方违反了质量条件条文，买方不但可以拒绝接受货物，如其支付了全部或部分的货款，其还可以在拒货后向卖方根据复原(restitution)的大原则追回。追回这笔钱是属于债务的追偿(recovery of debt)，通常可以十分迅速，在英国法院会是以简易判决(summary judgment)的形式追偿。如果只是涉及保证条文的违反，那买方只能索赔损失，不能终断合同，不可以转移市场风险给卖方。而索赔损失的诉讼会比债务的追偿昂贵与困难得多，需要证明损失的遥远性(remoteness of damage) ，因果关系(causation)、合理减少损失(mitigation)等。

二、英国法律默示条件和普通法先例

英国法强加于卖方的法律默示条件有3个来自1979年货物销售法，另一个来自普通法先例。

关于货物质量，英国法的大原则是1979年货物销售法中的14 （1）买者自负原则Except as provided by this section and section 15 below and subject to any other enactment, there is no implied condition or warranty about the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale（除本条及以下第15条规定，以及依据其他规定外，再无其它关于品质或适用性默示条款，以满足本买卖合同下货物之特殊目的），即“caveat emptor”或”let the buyers be aware”买者自负。

概言之，货物销售法有三个默示条件：1）以货物描述进行买卖，则货物必须符合合约的描述(correspond with description).以样品进行买卖，则货物也必须符合样品（correspond with sample）.2)货物质量必须有“可商售质量 ”(merchantable quality),1994年的立法已改为“满意质量 ”(satisfactory quality)3)符合买方特别用途(fitness for particular purpose)

1、法律默示条件：符合描述或/与样品

这一默示条件规定在Section 13 (1) Where there is a contract for the sale of goods by description, there is an implied condition that the goods will correspond with the description.(

在凭货物描述进行的货物买卖中，包含有这样一项默示条件——即货物应与描述相符) 和Section 13 (2) If the sale is by sample as well as by description it is not sufficient that the bulk of the goods corresponds with the sample if the goods do not also correspond with the description.（在既凭样品又凭描述进行的货物买卖中，如果货物和描述不相符，则整批货物与样品也不构成充分相符）。

 适用该条件条文需要确定的两个前提问题是1）何为货物描述？2）货物描述与货物质量的区别及联系？货物描述是针对不确定货物，在买卖合约中为了明确将来要供应的货物品种，只为了明确（identify）货物的描述才会当做货物描述。Diplock 勋爵在判决先例写到The description by which unascertained goods are sold is ,in my view, confined to those words in the contract which were intended by the parties to identify the kind of goods which are to be supplied. It is open to the parties to use description as broad or narrow as they choose. But ultimately the test is whether the buyer could fairly and reasonably refuse to accept the physical goods proffered  to him on the ground that their failure to correspond with that part of what was said about them in the contract makes them goods of a different kind from those he had agreed to buy. The key to section 13 is identification .

英国法下，最晚装船期、装货港、浮动货物，仓底货物属于货物描述。正如上文所言，货物描述是明确（identify）货物，其与货物质量是2个不同概念，正如Buckmaster 勋爵判决所言“the fact that the goods were merchantable under the contract is no test proper to be applied in determining whether the goods satisfied the contract description , and I think the phrase “commercially” itself shows while the goods  did not in fact answer the description , the could ,as a matter of commerce , be so dealt with”.通常情况下,对货物的杂质、水分、某方面的含量/特征等，是针对货物质量，而不是作为明确货物的货物描述。但这些质量规定如果严重程度足以改变此货物至彼货物，方能视为是违反了货物描述的默示条件。

2、法律默示条件：可商售质量/与满意质量

可商售质量，这一默示条件规定在Section 14(2)中，卖方在商业经营过程中出售货物的，包含有这样一项默示要件——即在合同下提供的货物须具有可商售质量，除非（a）合同订立前,卖方已经告诉了卖方有关货物的缺陷；（B）合同订立前，卖方已经对有关的特定货物作出检验，并在一个合理检验应该可以看到的缺陷。Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract are of merchantable quality, except that there is no such condition- (a) as regards defects specifically drawn to the buyer’s attention before the contract is made- or (b) if the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, as regards defects which that examination ought to reveal. 1994年立法已对上述可商售质量已经修改如下：“(2)Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality. (2A)For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.(2B)For the purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods—(a)fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied,(b)appearance and finish,(c)freedom from minor defects,(d)safety, and (e)durability. 是否满意质量，需要考虑的因素如外观、没有次要的瑕疵、安全使用与耐久、一般性用途等，并考虑货物描述、价格和其他相关因素，理性人认为的一个满意标准。

3、法律默示条件：货物适合买方特别用途

货物适合买方特别用途，这一默示条件规定在Section 14(3)中，卖方在商业经营过程中出售货物，买方通过明示或默示方式告知了卖方有关买货的用途，卖方就有默示要求，提供的货物是要合理适用该用途。除非是情况显示的，买方并不依赖卖方的判断有关货物是否适合用途，或是情况并不合理去让买方依赖卖方的判断。Section 14(3) Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business and the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known- (a) to the seller, or any particular purpose for which the goods are being bought, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract are reasonably fit for that purpose, whether or not that is a purpose for which such goods are commonly supplied, except where the circumstances show that the buyer does not rely, or that it is unreasonable for him to rely, on the skill or judgment of the seller

以上三个条件条文，本来是一有违反，事无大小，就算是稍有违反，买方就有权终断买卖合约，即拒绝接收货物。但1994年立法引进了极轻微原则（de minimis）,增加了Section 15A，禁止买方以Section13-15的违反而拒绝接受货物，只要是违约很轻微，不合理让买方去拒绝接受货物（the breach is so slight that it would be unreasonable for the buyer to reject the goods）的情况下，就不能拒货而只能索赔损失.

4、普通法先例

英国普通法先例确定的一个默示条件是卖方有责任保证有关的货物质量是能够承受与适合运输而不会变坏。When goods are sold under a contract which involves transit before use, there is an implied term in the contract of sale that the goods should be dispatched in such  a condition that they can endure the normal journey and upon arrival at their destination be suitable for the ordinary purpose for which such goods are intended to be sued and be of satisfactory quality. This does not mean that the seller guarantees the state of the goods on arrival at their destination; his undertaking relates to their state at the place of delivery to the carrier and to their capacity to survive normal transit.这就是出售的货物如果涉及运输才能让买方使用，就有一个法律默示条件要求货物必须是能够承受正常的运输，抵达目的地的时候有关货物还是能够适合它本来的意图的用途和满意的质量。这不代表卖方保证货物能够安全与完整抵达目的地，他只是承诺把货物在交货地点交出给承运人时，货物的状况是可以承受正常的运输。The effect therefore is that…an extraordinary deterioration of the goods due to abnormal conditions experienced during the transit  is one for which the buyer takes the risk. A necessary and inevitable deterioration during transit which will render them unmerchantable on arrival is  normally one for which th seller is liable 以上说法的后果是如果在运输过程中遇到不正常的情况，导致非正常的货物损坏，这是买方的风险。 只是一个无可避免的货物损坏,在运输过程中并导致货物到了目的地再也不能做用作商业用途才是卖方要负责。

• 三、合同质量条款如何约定

 合同法的共同基本原则是意思自治、缔约自由，合同方可以自由决定合同的内容，通过斗智斗法订立于已有利的合同条款。而且，约定优先于法律默示规定。据此，一方面可以通过订约自由排除法律规定的适用，如卖方约定排除Section 14(2) 可商售质量/与满意质量之法律默示规定。另一方面，水份含量等一般是质量规定，但也可以通过订约自由约定水份含量当作Section 13 (1) 中的货物描述或是说明这属于买卖合约的重要组成部分( of essence),如此，就将本是质量规定的水份提升为如Section 13 (1) 中的货物描述，如货物与约定水份不符，买方就可以据此依据Section 13 (1) 货物描述拒货。

 国际货物买卖中，为了防止或减少货物被外国买方拒绝接收和限制责任，卖方一般会在合约中约定如下条款：1）禁止买方拒货条款no rejection clause 2) 装港检验证书为最终条款loading port inspection to be final and binding  3）排除、限制责任条款exclusion and limitation  clause 4) 价格调整条款price change clause；买方为其利益，一般约定如下条款：1）详细的货物描述，以期通过Section 13 (1) 中的货物描述法律默示拒货 2）卸港检验证书为最终条款discharging port inspection to be final and binding  或是订明详细的独立检验人或检验公司、检验测试的明确办法、检验地点与准确时间、检验报告应有具体内容等详细条款，以对卖方造成履行障碍，或订立索赔条件期限等条款，以对卖方索赔造成障碍3） 拒绝接受货物后有货物留置权条款 should the buyer reject the goods for whatever reason , the buyer shall have a  lien on seller’s goods over payment made under the letter of credit.

  合同条款如何约定和对法律的理解至关重要。因为合同条款拟定得比较差劲且对法律理解有偏差，造成巨大损失的不胜枚举。一个有趣的先例：巴基斯坦A公司进口15万吨澳大利亚小麦，CFR PORT QASIM， 信用证结算。货物抵目的港后，巴基斯坦卫生当局拒绝让该票货物卸下，理由是货物中有一种名为KARNAL BUNT 的真菌。结果买方据此拒绝接受货物，最后整船货以非常便宜的价格转卖去印尼。船舶延误了几个月。买方提起仲裁希望索回其已经在信用证项下支付给卖方的货款。但是合同有2个相互冲突的条款，第2条质量条款约定： quarantine should meet the quarantine requirements of Pakistan ,free from  KARNAL BUNT and substantially free from striga seed, 但第8条又约定：weight, quality and condition to be final at port or ports of shipment in Australia ,as per customary official or AWB( international)Limited Certificate or Certificates, the cost of Certificates shall be for account of sellers.买方根据第2条主张拒绝货物，理由是不符合第2条对检验检疫与没有KARNAL BUNT真菌的约定，并要求退款。卖方依赖第8条抗辩，在装货港所作出的检验证明是说明小麦并没有KARNAL BUNT真菌，显然上述两条约定发生冲突。最后，仲裁庭判买方败诉，赔偿巨款。其裁决理由是：装港检验为终条款已经由很多先例确定与行业认可，且双方又约定（to be final），为了肯定性，不能轻易漠视与偏离，除非双方约定“quality as ascertained at loading installation to be final and binding for both parties except for KARNAL BUNT to be retested at disport before discharge… whose result to be final and binding for both parties save fraud or manifest error”,在缔约自由下只有强调KARNAL BUNT的问题超越第8条方可。合同少写了except for KARNAL BUNT to be retested at disport before discharge…这句，损失几亿美金，惨败。