TABLE OF CONTENTS

　　SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 導論

　　SECTION 2 OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE要約和承諾

　　SECTION 3 CONSIDERATION 對價

　　SECTION 4 INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATIONS設立法律關系的意旨

　　SECTION 5 TERMS OF THE CONTRACT合同條款

　　SECTION 6 CAPACITY TO CONTRACT締約能力

　　SECTION 7 PRIVITY OF CONTRACT合同的相對性

　　SECTION 8 DISCHARGE OF CONTRACT合同之解除

　　SECTION 9 MISTAKE誤解

　　SECTION 10 MISREPRESENTATION虛假陳述

　　SECTION 11 DURESS, UNDUE INFLUENCE & UNCONSCIONABILITY

　　脅迫，不當影響及顯失公平

　　SECTION 12 ILLEGALITY AND PUBLIC POLICY非法性與公共政策

　　SECTION 13 JUDICIAL REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT違約的司法救濟

　　SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 導論

　　1.1 Contract law in Singapore is largely based on the common law of contract in England. Unlike its neighbours Malaysia and Brunei, following Independence in 1965, Singapore´s Parliament made no attempt to codify Singapore´s law of contract. Accordingly, much of the law of contract in Singapore remains in the form of judge-made rules. In some circumstances, these judge-made rules have been modified by specific statutes.

　　新加坡的合同法基本上是以英國關于合同的普通法為范式而構(gòu)建的。與它的鄰居馬來西亞和文萊不同的是，新加坡在1965年獨立之后并沒有試圖編纂新加坡的合同法，因此新加坡的合同法仍保持判例法規(guī)則的模式。在某些情況下，判例法的規(guī)則已經(jīng)被特定的成文法所修改。

　　1.2 Many of these statutes are English in origin. To begin with, 13 English commercial statutes have been incorporated as part of the Statutes of the Republic of Singapore by virtue of s 4 of the Application of English Law Act (Cap 7A, 1993 Rev Ed). These are listed in Part II of the First Schedule of this Act. Other statutes, eg the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act (Cap 53B, 2002 Rev Ed), are modelled upon(仿效) English statutes. There are also other areas where statutory development based on non-English models has taken place, eg the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (Cap 52A, 2004 Rev Ed) (which was largely drawn from fair trading legislation enacted in Alberta and Sasketchewan).

　　許多此類立法起源于英國。首先來說，有13個英國商事法律根據(jù)《英國法律適用法》(Application of English Law Act) 第四節(jié)(Cap 7A, 1993年修訂)的規(guī)定直接成為新加坡共和國的立法。這些立法羅列在該法的第二部分的第一附表里。其他立法，如《合同第三方權(quán)利法》(Contracts( Rights of Third Parties) Act)(Cap 53B, 2002 修訂)，系模仿英國立法制定的。在某些領域也有立法采用非英國模式的情形，比如《消費者保護(公平交易)法》(Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act)(Cap 52A, 2004年修訂)。該法大致上參照[加拿大]阿爾伯塔與薩卡其萬兩省的公平交易法制定。

　　1.3 The rules developed in the Singapore courts do, nevertheless, bear a very close resemblance to those developed under English common law. Indeed, where there is no Singapore authority specifically on point, it will usually be assumed that the position will, in the first instance, be no different from that in England.

　　即使是新加坡的法庭本身所發(fā)展出的規(guī)則也同英國普通法的同類規(guī)則有非常大的相似性。如果關于某個問題新加坡本身沒有權(quán)威規(guī)則時，人們就會理所當然地首先假定新加坡的立場同英國法的立場沒有什么區(qū)別.

　　SECTION 2 OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE要約和承諾

　　Agreement協(xié)議

　　2.1 A contract is essentially an agreement between two or more parties, the terms of which affect their respective rights and obligations which are enforceable at law. Whether the parties have reached agreement, or a meeting of the minds, is objectively ascertained from the facts. The concepts of offer and acceptance provide in many, albeit not all, cases the starting point for analysing whether agreement has been reached.

　　合同在本質(zhì)上是雙方或者多方之間的協(xié)議，該協(xié)議條款涉及到當事人各自的權(quán)利義務并且具有法律約束力。至于當事人之間是否達成協(xié)議，或合意(consensus ad idem), 應通過對事實的客觀分析而確定。在大多數(shù)–但并非所有的情況下，要約與承諾的概念是分析當事人是否達成協(xié)議的起點。

　　SECTION 3 CONSIDERATION 對價

　　Definition定義

　　3.1 A promise contained in an agreement is not enforceable unless it is supported by consideration or it is made in a written document made under seal. Consideration is something of value (as defined by the law), requested for by the party making the promise (the `promisor´) and provided by the party who receives it (the `promisee´), in exchange for the promise that the promisee is seeking to enforce. Thus, it could consist of either some benefit received by the promisor, or some detriment to the promisee. This benefit/detriment may consist of a counter promise or a completed act.

　　一項允諾，如果不為對價支持或者不由書面蓋印作出，則不具法律執(zhí)行力。對價是(法律界定的)某種價值，為提出允諾的一方(允諾人)所要求，并由接受允諾的一方(受允諾人)所提供以用來交換對前項允諾的執(zhí)行。故此，它可以是允諾人收到的某種利益，或者受允諾人承受的某種損害。這種利益/損害可以表現(xiàn)為對待允諾或者已完成的行為。

　　Reciprocity互惠

　　3.2 The idea of reciprocity that underlies the requirement for consideration means that there has to be some causal relation between the consideration and the promise itself. Thus, consideration cannot consist of something that was already done before the promise was made. However, the courts do not always adopt a strict chronological approach to the analysis.

　　體現(xiàn)于對價要求之中的是互惠關系這一原則，它要求對價和允諾之間有某種原因關系。因此，對價不能是允諾作出之前已經(jīng)完成的事情。但是，法院并不總是嚴格地忠實于這種以時間先后為準的推論方式–參見Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] AC 614, 該判例所確立的原則已經(jīng)被新加坡上訴法院在Sim Tony v Lim Ah Ghee t/a Phil Real Estate & Building Services ([1995] 2 SLR 466) 一案中明確采用.

　　Sufficiency充足

　　3.3 Whether the consideration provided is sufficient is a question of law, and the court is not, as a general rule, concerned with whether the value of the consideration is commensurate with the value of the promise. The performance of, or the promise to perform, an existing public duty imposed on the promisee does not, without more, constitute sufficient consideration in law to support the promisor´s promise. The performance of an existing obligation that is owed contractually to the promisor is capable of being sufficient consideration, if such performance confers a real and practical benefit on the promisor. If the promisee performs or promises to perform an existing contractual obligation that is owed to a third party, the promisee will have furnished sufficient consideration at law to support a promise given in exchange.

　　對價是否充足是個法律上的問題。作為一般原則，法庭并不關心對價的價值是否與允諾的價值相稱。如無更多東西，受允諾人履行或者承諾履行因公職而負擔的即存責任在法律上不能成為允諾人作出的允諾的充足對價。向允諾人履行既存的合同責任可以成為充足對價，但條件是該履約行為可以為允諾人帶來真正實際的利益。如果受允諾人履行或允諾履行既存合同項下對第三人的義務，則認為受允諾人依法提供了支持允諾的充足對價。

　　Promissory Estoppel禁止反言

　　3.4 Where the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies, a promise may be binding notwithstanding that it is not supported by consideration. This doctrine applies where a party to a contract makes an unequivocal promise, whether by words or conduct, that he or she will not insist on his or her strict legal rights under the contract, and the other party acts, and thereby alters his or her position, in reliance on the promise. The party making the promise cannot seek to enforce those rights if it would be inequitable to do so, although such rights may be reasserted upon the promisor giving reasonable notice. The doctrine prevents the enforcement of existing rights, but does not create new causes of action.

　　即使沒有對價支持，一項允諾也可能因為禁止反言原則的適用而具有拘束力。禁止反言原則適用于下列情況，即如果合同的一方當事人通過語言或行為做出了清楚明白的允諾來表明他或她不會嚴格堅持自己在合同項下的法律權(quán)利，而另一方本著對這個許諾的信賴而采取行動改變了自己的狀況。如果因此可能導致不公平結(jié)果，作出許諾的一方不得再尋求執(zhí)行合同權(quán)利，盡管經(jīng)由許諾人做出合理通知后這些權(quán)利可以被重新主張。

　　SECTION 4 INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATIONS設立法律關系的意旨

　　Contractual Intention合同意旨

　　4.1 In the absence of contractual intention, an agreement, even if supported by consideration, cannot be enforced. Whether the parties to an agreement intended to create legally binding relations between them is a question determined by an objective assessment of the relevant facts.

　　如缺乏合同意旨，一個協(xié)議即使有對價支持，也不能被執(zhí)行。協(xié)議的各當事方是否意圖在彼此之間建立有法律約束力的關系應該通過對相關事實的客觀評估而確定。

　　Commercial Arrangements商業(yè)安排

　　4.2 In the case of agreements in a commercial context, the courts will generally presume that the parties intended to be legally bound. However, the presumption can be displaced where the parties expressly declare the contrary intention. This is often done through the use of honour clauses, letters of intent, memoranda of understanding and other similar devices, although the ultimate conclusion would depend, not on the label attached to the document, but on an objective assessment of the language used and on all the attendant facts.

　　對商業(yè)情境中達成的協(xié)議，法庭一般都會推定當事人具有受法律約束力的意旨。然而這個推定可以被當事人明確宣示的相反意圖所推翻。君子協(xié)定、意向書、備忘錄和其他類似手段都可以表現(xiàn)這種意圖。盡管如此，關于[當事人意圖的] 最終結(jié)論仍有賴于對他們所用的語言和所有相關事實的客觀評估，而不是文件的標簽。

　　Social Arrangements社會安排

　　4.3 The parties in domestic or social arrangements are generally presumed not to intend legal consequences.

　　當事人在家庭或社會交往中所作出的安排一般被推定為不具有產(chǎn)生法律后果的意圖。

　　SECTION 5 TERMS OF THE CONTRACT合同條款

　　Express Terms明示條款

　　5.1 The rights and obligations of contracting parties are determined by first, ascertaining the terms of the contract, and secondly, interpreting those terms. In ascertaining the terms of a contract, it is sometimes necessary, especially where the contract has not been reduced to writing, to decide whether a particular statement is a contractual term or a mere representation. Whether a statement is contractual or not depends on the intention of the parties, objectively ascertained, and is a question of fact. In ascertaining the parties´ intention, the courts take into account a number of factors including the stage of the transaction at which the statement was made, the importance which the representee attached to the statement and the relative knowledge or skill of the parties vis-à-vis the subject matter of the statement.

　　合同締約方的權(quán)利義務首先應通過認定合同的條款來確定，其次通過對條款的解釋來確定。在確定合同條款是有時有必要認定某一個表述到底是合同條款還是僅僅是一般陳述，尤其是當合同尚未見諸書面時。某項表述是否具有合同性質(zhì)有賴于客觀認定的當事方的意圖，而這是一個事實問題。在確定當事人的意圖時，法庭要考慮諸多因素，包括表述作出時交易所進行到的階段，受表述人對該表述所賦予的重要性，以及當事人各自具有的相對于表述標的有關知識和技能。

　　5.2 Once the terms of a contract have been determined, the court applies an objective test in construing or interpreting the meaning of these terms. What is significant in this determination therefore is not the sense attributed by either party to the words used, but how a reasonable person would understand those terms. In this regard, Singapore courts have consistently emphasised the importance of the factual matrix within which the contract was made, as this would assist in determining how a reasonable man would have understood the language of the document.

　　合同條款一經(jīng)確定，法庭會適用一個客觀標準解釋條款的含義。在這種情況下，重要的不是某個當事方對合同用語所賦予的含義，而是一個通情達理的人如何理解這些條款。在這方面，新加坡的法庭一貫地注重當事人訂立合同時所處的事實網(wǎng)絡，因為這能幫助確定一個通情達理的人會如何理解合同語言。

　　5.3 Where the parties have reduced their agreement into writing, whether a particular statement (oral or written) forms part of the actual contract depends on the application of the parol evidence rule. In Singapore, this common law rule and its main exceptions are codified in s 93 and s 94 of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed). Section 93 provides that where `the terms of a contract...have been reduced ...to the form of a document..., no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract ...except the document itself´. Thus, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement may be admitted in evidence to contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from the terms of the written contract. However, secondary evidence is admissible if it falls within one of the exceptions to this general rule found in the proviso to s 94. Some controversy remains as to whether s 94 is an exhaustive statement of all exceptions to the rule, or whether other common law exceptions not explicitly covered in s 94 continue to be applicable.

　　如當事人已將合同表諸書面，無論是口頭還是書面作出的某個特定表述是否是合同的組成部分有賴于依口頭證據(jù)規(guī)則做出的判斷。這一普通法規(guī)則及其例外由《證據(jù)法》(Cap 97, 1997 年修正)第93節(jié)和94節(jié)來規(guī)范。第93節(jié)規(guī)定，如合同條款已經(jīng)被書寫為文件形式, 則除文件本身外，其他證據(jù)不能用來證明合同條款。因此，任何口頭協(xié)議或表述都不能被作為證據(jù)去推翻、改變、增加或者減少書面合同的條款。然而，次要證據(jù)如果根據(jù)《證據(jù)法》第94節(jié)屬于口頭證據(jù)規(guī)則的例外，就可以被接受。但是現(xiàn)在對于第94節(jié)是否囊括了所有的例外以及在此之外普通法上的未被第94節(jié)明確提到的例外是否可繼續(xù)適用還是很有爭議的。

　　5.4 It should, however, be noted that the scope of s 93 and s 94 has been circumscribed by Parliament in certain circumstances.

　　應該提到的事，第93條和94條的適用范圍在某些情況下被國會有所限制。見第 章與《消費者保護(公平交易)法》(Cap 52A, 2004 修正)第17條有關的消費者保護規(guī)則。

　　Implied Terms默示條款

　　5.5 In addition to those expressly agreed terms, the court may sometimes imply terms into the contract.

　　在上述明確表示的條款之外，法庭有時還可以為合同添加默示條款。

　　5.6 Generally, any term to be implied must not contradict any express term of the contract.

　　總的來說，任何默示條款均不得與合同的明示條款相抵觸。

　　5.7 Where a term is implied to fill a gap in the contract so as to give effect to the presumed intention of the parties, the term is implied in fact and depends on a consideration of the language of the contract as well as the surrounding circumstances. A term will be implied only if it is so necessary that both parties must have intended its inclusion in the contract. The fact that it would be reasonable to include the term is not sufficient for the implication, as the courts will not re-write the contract for the parties.

　　如果某個條款被默示出來的目的是為了填補合同的空白以體現(xiàn)推定出來的當事人的意圖，這個條款即屬于事實上的默示條款，其內(nèi)容之確定要考慮合同的用語以及周遭情況。只有當情況如此必須而當事人必然曾經(jīng)考慮將某個條款納進合同時，該條款才會被默示進來。僅僅因為如果將某個條款包括進合同是合乎情理的這個事實還不足以使它成為默示條款，因為法庭不會為當事人重寫合同。

　　5.8 Terms may also be implied because this is required statutorily, or on public policy considerations. The terms implied by the Sale of Goods Act (Cap 393, 1994 Rev Ed) (eg s 12(1) - that the seller of goods has a right to sell the goods) provide examples of the former type of implied terms. As for the latter, whilst there has been no specific authority on the point, it is not inconceivable that Singapore courts, like their English counterparts, may imply `default´ terms into specific classes of contracts to give effect to policies that define the contractual relationships that arise out of those contracts.

　　默示條款的成立也可以是因為成文法的要求，或者是出于公共政策的考慮?！敦浳镔I賣法》(Cap 393, 1994修正版)提供了前一類范例(例如第12節(jié)(1)規(guī)定的買方有權(quán)出售貨物)。至于后一類，雖然現(xiàn)在尚無具體的權(quán)威依據(jù)，但如果新加坡法院像他們的英國同業(yè)那樣將一些缺省條款默示進合同以保持公共政策對合同關系的限制，這也并非不可想象的。

　　Classification of Terms合同條款的分類

　　5.9 The terms of a contract may be classified into conditions, warranties or intermediate (or innominate) terms. Proper classification is important as it determines whether the contract may be discharged or terminated for breach [as to which see Paragraphs 11 to 12 below].

　　合同條款可以分為條件 (conditions)，擔保 (warranties)，和中間(或無名)條款(intermediate/innominate terms)。條款的恰當分類很重要，因為這將決定合同是否已被履行或者因為違約而解除(見下文11 和 12)。

　　5.10 The parties may expressly stipulate in the contract how a particular term is to be classed. This is not, however, conclusive unless the parties are found to have intended the technical meaning of the classifying words used. In the absence of express stipulation, the courts will look objectively at the language of the contract to determine how, in light of the surrounding circumstances, the parties intended a particular term to be classed. There are also instances where statutes may stipulate whether certain kinds of terms are to be treated as conditions or warranties, in the absence of any specific designation by the contracting parties.

　　當事人可以在合同中明確約定某個條款的性質(zhì)分類，但除非他們所用的分類語言能清楚明確地表明其意圖，否則分類不屬最后決定性的。如無明確的合同規(guī)定，法庭會客觀地審視合同的語言，以期確定當事人在當時情況下可能如何決定某個條款的分類。另有些情況下，如果當事人沒有明確條款的性質(zhì)，成文法也會直接規(guī)定某些條款應被當作條件或擔保。

　　Exception Clauses免責條款

　　5.11 Exception clauses that seek to exclude or limit a contracting party´s liability are commonly, but not exclusively, found in standard form agreements. The law in Singapore relating to such clauses is essentially based on English law. The English Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which either invalidates an exception clause or limits the efficacy of such terms by imposing a requirement of reasonableness, has been re-enacted in Singapore as the Unfair Contract Terms Act (as Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed).

　　試圖排除或限制當時一方責任的免責條款在格式合同中使用很普遍，但其使用范圍不限于此。新加坡有關免責條款的法律本質(zhì)上是基于英國法的。1977年的英國《不公平合同條款法》通過一個合理性要求來使免責條款無效或者限制其功效。這個法律被全盤照搬為新加坡的《不公平條款法》(Cap 396, 1994年修正)。

　　Incorporation納入

　　5.12 Whether an exception clause will have its intended effect depends on a number of factors. The threshold requirement is that the clause must have been incorporated into the contract. There are generally three ways in which such incorporation may occur. Where a party has signed a contract which contains an exception clause, the signatory is bound by the clause, even if he or she had not read or was unaware of the clause. An exception clause may also be incorporated, in the absence of a signed contract, if the party seeking to rely on the clause took reasonably sufficient steps to draw the other party´s attention to the existence of the clause. The determination of this issue is heavily dependent on the facts of the particular case. Finally, exception clauses may be incorporated because there has been a consistent and regular course of dealing between the parties on terms that incorporate the exception clause. Even if no steps were taken to incorporate the clause in a particular contract between such parties, it may have been validly incorporated by the parties´ prior course of dealing.

　　一個免責條款是否能產(chǎn)生其意圖的效果有賴于眾多因素?；镜臉藴适窃摋l款必然已經(jīng)被納入合同。這種納入一般采取如下三種方式。如一方已經(jīng)在包含免責條款的合同上簽字，則即使簽字人沒有讀過或者不知曉該條款，他也受條款約束。設使不存在簽字的合同，如果試圖利用免責條款的一方采取足夠合理的措施提請另一方注意條款的存在，該條款就可被認為是并入了合同。這種情形之確定非常依賴個案的具體事實。最后，免責條款之被納入合同也可能是因為當事人之間的經(jīng)常一貫的交易方式是將免責條款包括在內(nèi)的。就算當事人沒有采取任何措施將免責條款納入合同，他們先前的交易習慣也可將此類條款有效納入。

　　Construction合同解釋

　　5.13 The next consideration is one of construction (or interpretation). This is necessary to determine if the liability, which the relevant party is seeking to exclude or restrict, falls within the proper scope of the clause. Here, the courts adopt the contra proferentum rule of construction, and will construe exception clauses strictly against parties seeking to rely on them. Nevertheless, the Singapore courts appear to construe clauses which seek to limit liability more liberally than those which seek to completely exclude liability.

　　下一個問題是合同的解釋，這對確定合同責任是否被某個條款涵蓋是很有必要的，而有關當事方總是試圖排除或限制這種責任。在此，法庭總是采取不利于起草條款的一方(contra proferentum)的解釋原則，且對試圖依賴免責條款一方作嚴格解釋。盡管如此，新加坡法庭表現(xiàn)出的傾向是對那些限制責任的條款的解釋總是比那些完全免責的條款的解釋來的寬松一些。

　　Unfair Contract Terms Act不公平合同條款

　　5.14 Finally, the limits placed by the Unfair Contracts Terms Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed) (the `UCTA´) on the operation and efficacy of exceptions clauses must be considered. It should be noted that the UCTA generally applies only to terms that affect liability for breach of obligations that arise in the course of a business or from the occupation of business premises. It also gives protection to persons who are dealing as consumers. Under the UCTA, exception clauses are either rendered wholly ineffective, or are ineffective unless shown to satisfy the requirement of reasonableness. Terms that attempt to exclude or restrict a party´s liability for death or personal injury resulting from that party´s negligence are rendered wholly ineffective by the UCTA, while terms that seek to exclude or restrict liability for negligence resulting in loss or damage other than death or personal injury, and those that attempt to exclude or restrict contractual liability, are subject to the requirement of reasonableness. The reasonableness of the exception clause is evaluated as at the time at which the contract was made. The actual consequences of the breach are therefore, in theory at least, immaterial.

　　最后，《不公平合同條款法》(UCTA)對免責條款的功效的限制也應予以考慮。應注意到UCTA總的來說只是適用于那些涉及到因商業(yè)活動或在商業(yè)場所所產(chǎn)生的合同責任違約的條款。它也對消費者提供保護。根據(jù)UCTA，免責條款或者完全無效，或者因不滿足合理性標準(requirement of reasonableness)而失效。試圖排除或限制因為疏忽而導致的死亡或人身傷害的責任的條款完全無效，而那些排除或限制因為疏誤所導致的非人身性的財產(chǎn)滅失或損壞的責任的條款，以及那些試圖排除或限制合同義務的條款，應受合理性標準約束。免責條款是否合理要依合同訂立時的時間來判斷。因此，至少在理論上，違約的實際后果可能并非很重要。

　　SECTION 6 CAPACITY TO CONTRACT締約能力

　　Minors未成年人

　　6.1 Under Singapore common law, a minor is a person under the age of 21. The validity of contracts entered into by minors is governed by the common law, as modified by the Minors´ Contracts Act (Cap 389, 1994 Rev Ed).

　　依新加坡的普通法，21歲以下為未成年人。根據(jù)修訂后的《未成年人合同法》(Cap 389, 1994年修訂)未成年人訂立的合同由普通法管轄。

　　Contracts with Minors與未成年人訂約

　　6.2 As a general rule, contracts are not enforceable against minors. However, where a minor has been supplied with necessaries (ie goods or services suitable for the maintenance of the station in life of the minor concerned: see also s 3(3), Sale of Goods Act (Cap 393, 1999 Rev Ed)), the minor must pay for them. Contracts of service which are, on the whole, for the minor´s benefit are also valid. The minor is also bound by certain types of contracts (ie contracts concerning land or shares in companies, partnership contracts and marriage settlements), unless the minor repudiates the contract before attaining majority at age 21 or within a reasonable time thereafter.

　　總的原則是未成年人訂立的合同對他沒有執(zhí)行力。然而，如果未成年人購買的是生活必需品(例如適于維持他的生活條件的貨物或服務;另參見《貨物買賣法》第三條(3))，他就必須付款。服務合同(contract of services)如整體上是為了未成年人的利益，亦屬有效。未成年人也受到某些其它類型合同的約束，例如涉及到土地或者公司股份、合伙或者離婚調(diào)解的合同，除非未成年人在21歲以前或再次之后一段合理期間內(nèi)否認合同。

　　Minors´ Contracts Act 《未成年人合同法》

　　6.3 Under s 2 of the Minors´ Contracts Act, a guarantee given in respect of a minor´s contract, which may not be enforceable against the minor, is nevertheless enforceable against the guarantor. Section 3(1) of the Minors´ Contracts Act empowers the court to order restitution against the minor if it is just and equitable to do so.

　　根據(jù)《未成年人合同法》第2條，未成年人訂立的合同雖不能針對他而執(zhí)行，但他人對該合同作出的擔保卻對該擔保人有執(zhí)行力。該法第3(1)條授權(quán)法庭判令未成年人返還財產(chǎn)，如果法庭認為這樣作是符合公平公正原則。

　　Mental Incapacity and Drunkards心智不健全者和醉酒者

　　6.4 A contract entered into by a person of unsound mind is valid, unless it can be shown that that person was incapable of understanding what he or she was doing and the other party knew or ought reasonably to have known of the disability. In this case, the contract may be avoided at the option of the mentally unsound person (assisted by a court-sanctioned representative where necessary). The same principle applies in the case of inebriated persons. Under s 3(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, persons incapacitated mentally or by drunkenness are required to pay a reasonable price for necessaries supplied.

　　心智不正常的人訂立的合同也是有效的，除非能夠證明該人在訂立合同時并沒有能力理解自己的所做所為且另一方當事人知曉或應該合理地知曉這種情形。心智不健全的人在這種情況下有權(quán)撤銷合同(如有必要該人應得到法庭認可的代理人協(xié)助)。醉酒的人訂立的合同已適用同樣的原則。按照《貨物買賣法》第3(2) 條，心智不健全的人或醉酒的人必須為生活必需品支付合理價格。

　　Corporations公司

　　6.5 Subject to any written law and to any limits contained in its constitution, a company has full capacity to undertake any business, do any act or enter into any transaction (s 23 - Companies Act, Cap 50, 1994 Rev Ed). Where there are restrictions placed on the capacity of a company and the company acts beyond its capacity, s 25 of the Companies Act validates such ultra vires transactions if they would otherwise be valid and binding. Contracts purportedly entered into by a company prior to its incorporation may be ratified and adopted by the company after its formation (s 41 - Companies Act).

　　只要不逾越任何成文法或其本身章程的規(guī)定，一家公司具有從事任何業(yè)務的全部能力，可以為任何行為和進行任何交易(見《公司法》(Cap 50, 1994修訂)第23條)。即算對公司行為有限制而公司超出能力范圍行事，如果所施行為在此之外均有效和有拘束力，《公司法》第25條也任何這種行為。公司在成立之前訂立的合同可在成立之后被公司批準和采納。

　　6.6 A limited liability partnership is also a body corporate under Singapore law - see Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2005 (Act No 5 of 2005). It may, in its own name: sue and be sued in its own name; acquire, own, hold and develop property; hold a common seal; and may do and suffer such other acts and things as any body corporate may lawfully do and suffer - see s 5(1). Section 5(2) also extends s 41 of the Companies Act to apply to a limited liability partnership.

　　按照新加坡法律有限責任合伙(limited liability partnership)也是一種公司實體(參見《有限責任合伙法2005》)。它可以以自己的名義提起訴訟或成為被告;取得、擁有、占有和發(fā)展財產(chǎn);設公司印章;以及任何可以進行和負擔任何其他公司實體可以合法進行和負擔的行為(見第5(1)條)。第5(2) 條亦將《公司法》第41條適用于有限責任合伙。

　　SECTION 7 PRIVITY OF CONTRACT合同的相對性

　　Third party Enforcement of Contractual Rights Generally not Permitted

　　一般不允許第三方執(zhí)行合同權(quán)利

　　7.1 As a general proposition, only persons who are party (ie `privy´) to a contract may enforce rights or obligations arising from that contract. This is sometimes referred to as the `privity rule.´

　　總的立場是，只有合同的當事人(相對人)才能執(zhí)行合同項下的權(quán)利和義務。這在有時候被稱為合同的相對性規(guī)則。

　　7.2 A third party who is not privy to a contract is generally not allowed to bring any legal action in his or her own name for breach of contract against a contracting party who fails to perform his or her contractual obligations, even if such failure of performance has caused the third party to suffer a loss.

　　第三方不是合同的相對人，因而一般不能針對合同的當事方的未能履約的行為提起法律訴訟，即使第三方因為此種履行不能而招致?lián)p失。

　　When is Someone Party or Privy to a Contract? 何時成為合同當事人或相對方

　　7.3 There is no clear definition as to when a person is/is not privy to a contract. Generally, a party who is an offeror or offeree will be privy to the contract. However, it seems that merely being mentioned in the contract is not enough.

　　關于某個人何時是或者不是相對人沒有清晰的法律定義。一般而言，要約人或受要約人會成為合同的相對人。但是，僅僅是在合同中被提到名字尚不足以使該人成為相對人。

　　7.4 It is, nevertheless, possible to have a multilateral contract where there are multiple offerees (one or more of whom accept the offer on behalf of the others) or where there are multiple offerors (one or more of whom make the offer on behalf of the others). In either case, each offeree or offeror is a joint party to the contract and the privity rule will not apply to them.

　　但也可能有多邊合同的情形，這是因為有著多個受要約人(其中某個或多個代表其他人接受要約)或者多個要約人(其中某個或者多個代表其他人發(fā)出要約)的存在。上述任何情形下，每個受要約人人或者要約人都是合同的連帶當事方，而合同的相對性規(guī)則不適用于他們。

　　Non-statutory Exceptions to the Privity Rule相對性原則的非立法例外

　　7.5 The privity rule is not absolute. It is subject to many exceptions. Apart from the possibility of a multilateral or multi-party contract (mentioned above), some other exceptions can be found in the law relating to: (a) agency; (b) trusts; or (c) land (in relation to covenants which `run´ with the land or lease). For an in depth discussion of these other legal techniques to circumvent the privity rule, please see Chapters 15 and 1

　　合同的相對性原則并非絕對，而是有著很多例外。除上述提到的多邊或者多方合同之外，下列方面的法律也能找到各種例外：(a)代理;(b)信托;和(c)土地(關系到雖土地或租約轉(zhuǎn)移的合同債務)。關于其他法律對相對性規(guī)則的限制方面更深入的探討見第十五和十八章。

　　Statutory Exceptions to the Privity Rule相對性原則的立法例外

　　7.6 There are also statutory exceptions. Most of these are only applicable to specific and narrowly defined cases. Two examples of such statutes include: (a) the Bills of Exchange Act (Cap 23, 1985 Rev Ed) [see Chapter 22 on Banking Law]; and (b) the Bills of Lading Act (Cap 384, 1994 Rev Ed) [see Chapter 25 on Shipping Law]. Of more general application, the Singapore Parliament enacted the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act (Cap 53B, 2002 Rev Ed) in 2001.

　　還有一些立法規(guī)定的例外，但其大多數(shù)適用于非常具體的和狹窄界定的情況。舉兩個例子：(a)《匯票法》(Cap 23，1985修訂)[見第x章關于銀行法];和(b)《提單法》(Cap 384, 1994修訂) [見第x章關于海運法]。關于更一般性的適用，見新加坡議會在2001年制定的《合同項下第三方權(quán)利法》(Cap 53B, 2002 修訂)。

　　Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act合同項下第三方權(quán)利法

　　7.7 Section 1 provides that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act has no retrospective effect - it cannot apply to any contract formed before 1 January 2002. Section 1 also provides that the Act does not apply to any contracts which were formed on or after 1 January 2002, but before 1 July 2002, unless the contracting parties expressly provided in their contract for it to do so. Contracts formed on or after 1 July 2002 are always subject to the Act.

　　《合同項下第三方權(quán)利法》第一條規(guī)定該法無溯及既往的效力，即它不能適用于2002年一月一日之前成立的合同。該法規(guī)定其自身也不適用于2002年一月一日或之后、2002年七月一日之前成立的合同，除非當事人在他們的合同中明確規(guī)定適用該法。2002年七月一日之后成立的合同總是受該法制約。

　　7.8 Where the Act applies, it gives a third party a statutory right to enforce a term of a contract against a party who is in breach of his or her obligations under the contract (the `promisor´), even though even though the third party is a volunteer who has not provided any contractual consideration - see s 2(5).

　　當本法適用時，它賦予一個第三方以法定權(quán)利，使得后者可以就某個合同條款對違反其合同義務的當事人(允諾人)予以執(zhí)行，即使第三方是個沒有提供任何合同對價的第三者。見第2(5)條。

　　7.9 This may occur if either: (a) the contract expressly provides that the third party may enforce a term of the contract in his or her own right - s 2(1)(a); or (b) the contract, `purports to confer a benefit on the third party´ - s 2(1)(b). However, s 2(1)(b) is qualified: a third party will not be granted the direct statutory right of suit in the absence of an express provision permitting him or her to do so, `if, on a proper construction of the contract, it appears that the parties did not intend the term to be enforceable by the third party.´ - s 2(2).

　　這種情況之發(fā)生是因為：(a)合同明確規(guī)定第三方自身有權(quán)執(zhí)行某個合同條款–見第2(1)(a)條;或者，(b)合同意圖對第三方授予利益- 見第2(1)(b)。但是第2(1)(b)是受到限制的：如無明確合同規(guī)定，且根據(jù)對合同的恰當解釋顯示出當事人無意給與第三方法定的執(zhí)行權(quán)利，第三方即沒有直接的法定權(quán)利提起訴訟。- 見第2(2)條。

　　7.10 This statutory right of enforcement is not just limited to cases where the promisor is under an obligation to act to confer a positive benefit on the third party. `Negative´ benefits, such as the benefit of a term excluding or limiting the third party´s legal liabilities to the promisor, may also be enforced -s 2(5).

　　但法定的執(zhí)行權(quán)利并不限于允諾人有義務采取行動授予第三方積極利益的情形。消極利益，例如免除或限制第三方對允諾人之法律責任的利益，也可以得到執(zhí)行。- 見第2(5)條。

　　7.11 The third party´s statutory right of enforcement against the promisor is qualified in a number of ways. First, the third party´s statutory right of recovery may be qualified by a defence or set-off which the promisor would have been able to assert vis-à-vis the other party to the contract (the `promisee´) - s 4. Second, any sum to be recovered by the third party pursuant to the Act may be reduced to take into account sums recovered by the promisee from the promisor in respect of the promisor´s breach - s 6.

　　第三方針對允諾人執(zhí)行合同的法定權(quán)利受到各種限制。首先，第三方取得利益的法定權(quán)利受到允諾人對合同別的當事方(受允諾人)所可以提起的抗辯權(quán)或者抵銷權(quán)的限制。- 見第4條。第二，考慮及受允諾人因為允諾人違約而追復到的賠償數(shù)額，第三方根據(jù)該法所可以獲得的金錢數(shù)額會相應會減少。- 見第6條。

　　7.12 Once third party rights are created under the Act, certain restrictions are imposed on the ability of the parties to the contract to vary or rescind their contract if this would extinguish or alter the third party´s rights under the Act - s 3.

　　根據(jù)本法第三方權(quán)利一旦設定，合同當事人改變或撤銷合同的能力如果會消除或改變第三方根據(jù)本法享受的權(quán)利，就受到某些限制。- 見第3條。

　　7.13 Though wider in its scope than many of the other legal techniques for circumventing privity, the Act is not of universal application. Section 7 of the Act sets out a number of situations where the Act does not apply. Excluded cases include: (a) contracts on a bill of exchange, promissory note or other negotiable instrument; (b) limited liability partnership agreements as defined under the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2005 (Act 5 of 2005); (c) the statutory contract binding a company and its members under s39 of the Companies Act (Cap 50, 1994 Rev Ed); (d) third party enforcement of any term of an employment contract against an employee; and (e) third party enforcement of any term (apart from any exclusion or limitation of liability for the benefit of the third party) in a contract for carriage of goods by sea, or a contract for the carriage of goods or cargo by rail, road or air, if such contract is subject to certain international transport conventions.

　　本法雖然比其他法律技術(shù)更能限制合同相對性規(guī)則，但也并沒有普遍適用力。法規(guī)的第7條列出了數(shù)種本法不能涵蓋的情形。排除的情形包括：(a)關于匯票、期票或其他流通票據(jù)的合同;(b)〉《有限責任合伙法》所規(guī)定的有限責任合伙合同;(c)根據(jù)《公司法》第39條約束公司及其股東的法定合同;(4)第三方根據(jù)雇傭合同針對雇員執(zhí)行合同條款;以及(e)第三方對海上貨物運輸合同或者適用某些國際公約的鐵路、陸路或空運合同中任何條款的執(zhí)行，但為第三方利益的排除或限制責任的條款除外。

　　SECTION 8 DISCHARGE OF CONTRACT合同之解除

　　Discharge by Performance因履約而解除

　　1 If all the contractual obligations as defined by the terms of the contract are fully performed, the contract is brought to an end or `discharged´ by performance. In theory, such performance must be precise. However, trivial defects in performance may be ignored as being negligible or `de minimis.´ In addition, where full performance is only possible with the cooperation of the other party (as is almost invariably the case with obligations of payment or delivery), tender of performance in circumstances where the other party refuses to accept it is generally deemed to be equivalent to full performance so as to discharge the contract.

　　如果合同條款規(guī)定的所有合同義務都得以全部履行，則合同歸于結(jié)束或稱因履行而解除。理論上講，履行必須是適當?shù)?。然而履行中的細小瑕疵可被視為可忽略的或瑣碎之事。此外，如果全面履行只有在另一方當事人的配合下才為可?如付款或交付義務之履行必然需要對方配合)，在對方拒絕受領的情況下，履行就緒可被視同為全面履行，合同因此而解除。

　　Non- or Defective Performance不履行或不適當履行

　　2 In the event that a contractual obligation is not performed or is performed defectively in a non-trivial fashion, Singapore law provides for a variety of legal responses and remedies, depending on the nature of the failure of performance.

　　如合同義務未被履行或者履行有并非瑣碎的瑕疵，新加坡法律規(guī)定了眾多法律上的反應和救濟方式，其適用視違約的性質(zhì)而定。

　　Lawful Excuses for Breach of Contract違法合同的法定免責事由

　　3 If the failure of performance is not subject to any lawful excuse, the contract is said to be `breached.´ In this context, `lawful excuses´ may take the following forms.

　　如果未能履行不可歸于任何法定的免責事由，合同可謂被違反。在這一背景下，法定免責事由可表現(xiàn)為如下形式：

　　Discharge by Agreement因合同落空而解除

　　4 First, just as parties are free to agree to bind themselves to a contract, they are free to negotiate with each other to release themselves from the obligations of that contract. Such agreement may well have been built into the original contract, for example, where parties agree that their original agreement be terminable by giving notice of termination, or upon lapse of a specified period of time. Alternatively, contracting parties may release themselves from the obligations of the original contract by entering into a subsequent contract of release. Where each contractual party is still subject to contractual obligations which have yet to be performed, the mutual release of their outstanding obligations is generally effective under Singapore law without the need for any further formalities or any other consideration. However, where the party who is owed the obligation in question does not have any outstanding obligations under the original contract, the party seeking to be released from that obligation will have to provide some form of valuable consideration in exchange for the release. In the alternative, the release must be executed under seal to be effective.

　　第一，正如當事方可自由協(xié)商為他們自己訂立具有約束力的合同，他們也可通過彼此協(xié)商解除自己的合同義務。此類協(xié)議可能已被結(jié)合進原來的合同，例如當事人在原合同中同意，合同可以經(jīng)事先給與通知而終止，或者經(jīng)過一段確定的時間而終止。此外，當事人也可以訂立補充協(xié)議解除他們的合同義務。在各當事方都有未履行的合同義務之時，按照新加坡法律，通過一紙協(xié)議解除他們的現(xiàn)有合同義務總的來說是有效的，當事人不需采取任何其他特別形式或提供任何對價。但是，如果一方已沒有合同項下的義務須履行而另一方則對他負有義務，希望被解除履行責任的一方必須提供某種有價值的對價以換取義務之解除。作為代替手段，解除協(xié)議可以采取蓋印的形式以取得效力。

　　5 Secondly, it may be that the obligation which has not been performed is conditional upon the prior occurrence of certain specified events: these may be external events, or some contractually specified counter-performance by the other party to the contract.

　　第二，情形也可能是未被履行的合同義務是以某些規(guī)定的事件之發(fā)生為條件的：這些可能是外在事件，或合同規(guī)定的另一方的對待履行等。

　　6 Thirdly, the parties may contractually provide for non-performance following from certain events to be excused so as not to amount to a breach, for example, in the form of a `force majeure´ clause. At the very least, such a clause will hold all parties innocent of liability for non-performance following the specified force majeure event. More detailed force majeure clauses may also make provision for issues such as the return and refund of advance payments, reimbursements for expenses incurred in preparation of the performance of the contract, and so forth. Such provisions will generally be given effect by Singapore law.

　　第三，當事人可以在合同中約定，因某些事件發(fā)生后的不履行不視為違約行為, 從而使其得到免責，比如合同中的不可抗力條款。在規(guī)定的不可抗力事件發(fā)生后，這個條款最少可以使對不履行沒有過錯的當事方免于責任。更為詳細的不可抗力條款還會規(guī)定預付款的退還、為準備履行合同所招致的費用之補償，等等。新加坡法律總體上認可這些條款的效力。

　　Discharge by Frustration因合同落空而解除

　　7 Fourthly, where the reason for the failure of performance lies in events beyond the control of the contracting parties and which neither party could have reasonably foreseen, the contract is said to be `frustrated´. In such cases, there are statutory rules which set out the extent to which advance payments made before the frustrating event intervened may be refunded and work done in preparation of the performance of the contract in advance of the frustrating event may be reimbursed - see Frustrated Contracts Act (Cap 115, 1985 Rev Ed) s 2(2) and s 2(4) respectively. Section 2(3) of the Frustrated Contracts Act also empowers the Singapore courts to make valuations of any non-money benefits which may have been conferred by one contracting party on another, prior to the frustrating event, and to order the recipient of those benefits to pay for such value received.

　　第四，如果未能履約是出于超出當事方控制的事由，且任何一方當事人對此都不可能合理預見，即可認為存在合同落空。見Glahe International Expo AG v ACS Computer Pte Ltd and another appeal [1999] 2 SLR 620 at 629。對這種情形，新加坡法律有強制性的成文規(guī)則，規(guī)定落空事件發(fā)生前提交的預付款應予返還，以及此前為準備履約所招致的費用應予補償。見《落空合同法》(Cap 115, 1985修訂)第2(2)和第2(4)條?！堵淇蘸贤ā返?(3)條也授權(quán)法院對在落空事件發(fā)生之前一方當事人給與另一方的非金錢利益的價值進行估量，并裁令利益收受者提供相應報酬。

　　Effects of a Breach of Contract違約后果

　　8 In the absence of a lawful excuse, a breach of contract has two significant effects.

　　如無法定免責事由，違約將會產(chǎn)生兩個顯著后果。

　　Contract Damages合同損害賠償

　　9 First, if the breach of contract by one contracting party (the `party-in-breach´) causes loss to the other (the `aggrieved party´), the party-in-breach may be ordered by the courts to compensate the aggrieved party in money damages for those losses, in lieu of the primary obligations left unperformed under the contract. However, contractual damages (which are compensatory and not punitive in nature), is not the only judicial remedy available. Other types of remedies may be available in lieu, or sometimes, in addition to damages, depending on the nature of the obligation which has been breached. [See Section 13 below].

　　第一，如果一個當事方(違約方)的違約行為給對方(受損方)造成損失，違約方應被法庭判令向受損方就其損失作出金錢賠償，而不是繼續(xù)履行原合同的基本義務。但是，合同損害賠償(屬于賠償性的而非懲罰性的)并非唯一的司法救濟方式。根據(jù)違約的性質(zhì)，其他類型的救濟可以替代或者補充損害賠償。見下文第13節(jié)。

　　Right to Elect to Discharge for Breach解除合同之選擇權(quán)

　　10 Second, the breach may give the aggrieved party the right to bring the contract to an end, ie to discharge the contract for breach. In this connection, it is useful to distinguish actual breaches of contract (wherein the breach occurs at the actual time of performance as specified by the contract) from anticipatory breaches of contract (wherein the breach is said to occur in advance of the contractually stipulated time of performance).

　　第二，違約可使受損方結(jié)束合同，如因違約而解除合同。在這方面應該區(qū)分實際違約(指違約發(fā)生在合同規(guī)定的實際履行期間)與預期違約(指違約發(fā)生在合同規(guī)定的履行期限之前)。

　　Actual Breach Giving Rise to Right of Discharge實際違約給與合同解除權(quán)

　　11 In the case of an actual breach of contract, the aggrieved party may elect to discharge the contract for breach if the contractual term which has been breached is: (a) a `condition´; or (b) an `innominate term,´ the breach of which deprives the aggrieved party of substantially the whole of the benefit of the contract. In such a case, the aggrieved party may choose to discharge the contract for breach.

　　發(fā)生實際違約，如下列合同條款已被違反，受損方可以選擇解除合同：(a)一個條件;或者(b)一個中間條款，對該條款的違反已經(jīng)實際整體上剝奪了受損方在合同項下的利益。在這種情況下，受損方可以選擇因違約而解除合同。

　　12 The aggrieved party has no such power of election if the contractual term which has actually been breached is: (a) a `warranty´; or (b) an `innominate term,´ the breach of which does not deprive the aggrieved party of substantially the whole of the benefit of the contract. In such a case, the contract will persist despite the breach (unless the contract is brought to an end by some other event).

　　如系下列條款實際上被違反，受損方無權(quán)選擇解除合同：(a)一項擔保;(b)一個中間條款，對該條款的違反并未實際整體上剝奪受損方在合同項下的利益。這種情況下，盡管存在違約，合同仍將繼續(xù)存在(除非其他事件導致合同終止)。

　　13 For details as to how a contract term may be categorised as a `condition,´ a `warranty´ or an `innominate term,´ see Paragraphs 5.9 to 5.10 above.

　　關于合同條款如何劃分為條件，擔?；蛑虚g條款的細節(jié)，見前文第5.9節(jié)和5.10節(jié)。

　　Discharge by Actual Breach因?qū)嶋H違約而解除

　　14 If the aggrieved party is entitled to discharge the contract and elects to do so, the contract is brought to an end prospectively. That is, the contract ceases to bind the parties to the contract from the time the election is effectively communicated to the other contracting parties. Such communication may take the form of words, acts, or even (in exceptional cases) silence. Prior to that time, such an election may be withdrawn. Following an effective discharge, the parties are released from all outstanding contractual obligations.

　　如果受損方有權(quán)解除合同且選擇這樣做，合同即告結(jié)束。換言之，當選擇已經(jīng)有效通知到另一方當事人時，合同即停止對各當事人有約束力。通知的形式可以是語言，行為，(特殊情形下甚至可以是)緘默。在此之前，選擇可以撤回。合同有效解除后，當事方不再受任何合同義務約束。

　　Affirmation of Contract Following an Actual Breach實際違約后對合同的確認

　　15 The aggrieved party may choose, however, not to discharge the contract. Instead, the aggrieved party may choose to affirm the contract, thereby giving the party-in-breach another opportunity to rectify the non-performance or defective performance. If so, the entire contract is kept alive and the aggrieved party loses the right to have the contract discharged (although the right to sue the party-in-breach and recover money damages for any losses incurred as a result of the delay in procuring full performance may well be retained, unless the aggrieved party also elects to waive his or her right to compensatory money damages).

　　但受損方也可以選擇不解除合同，反而是確認合同，就此給予違約方對不履約或不當履約作出補救的機會。若如此，則原合同繼續(xù)存在，而受損方失去了解除合同的權(quán)利(盡管受損方起訴違約方和取得因延誤全面履行招致的損害賠償?shù)臋?quán)利仍被保留，除非受損方也選擇了免追究金錢損害賠償?shù)臋?quán)利)。

　　Anticipatory Repudiatory Breach預期毀約

　　16 A breach of contract may also occur anticipatorily (in advance of the time of actual performance). If this breach is also repudiatory (where the evidence demonstrates that one party intends not to be bound by the terms of the contract, nor to honour his or her contractual obligations as and when they fall due), the aggrieved party has the right to choose whether to discharge or to affirm the contract. `Repudiatory´ intentions will be more readily proved where there are clear and express communications by the purported party-in-breach to such effect. However, they can also be inferred from actions or steps taken by the purported party-in-breach which render it impossible for his or her obligations to be performed when they become due.

　　違約也可以預期發(fā)生(即發(fā)生在實際履行之前)。如果此類違約亦屬毀約性質(zhì)(如證據(jù)表明一方?jīng)]有受合同條款約束的意旨，也不打算在合同義務到期時履行之)，受損方有權(quán)選擇解除或者確認合同。如果毀約意旨在意圖毀約的當事人的聲明中明確清楚地表示出來，就比較容易證明。但是毀約意圖也可以從意圖毀約方的行動或采取的措施中推定出來，如果該行為或措施已經(jīng)使得該方不可能履行合同義務。

　　Effect of Discharge by Anticipatory Repudiatory Breach因預期毀約而解除合同的后果

　　17 Significantly, a party aggrieved by an anticipatory repudiatory breach may exercise his or her right to discharge the contract immediately without waiting until the time of actual performance. If the aggrieved party elects to discharge the contract, the contract is immediately and prospectively brought to an end. The aggrieved party is then entitled to sue the party-in-breach for damages as compensation for any loss suffered by the aggrieved party as a result of the non-performance of the contract.

　　一個很重大的后果是，預期毀約的受損方可以立即行使解除合同的選擇權(quán)，而無須等到實際履行的時間。如果受損方選擇解除合同，合同立即終止。受損方然后有權(quán)起訴違約方，追討受損方因?qū)Ψ讲宦男泻贤兄碌牡膿p失的賠償。

　　Effect of Affirmation Following an Anticipatory Repudiatory Breach

　　預期毀約后確認合同的后果

　　18 On the other hand, the aggrieved party may elect to affirm the contract. If so, the contract continues to bind all parties to the contract and the anticipatory breach is ignored. Consequently, once the aggrieved party affirms the contract, there can be no liability for money damages for that anticipatory breach since it is treated as if the breach never occurred.

　　另一方面，受損方也可以確認合同。如果這樣，合同繼續(xù)約束各方，預期違約本身則被忽略。所以，一旦受損方確認合同，預期違約則不產(chǎn)生金錢賠償之責任，因為它被視作從未發(fā)生過。