新加坡規(guī)定合同法

1、The Law of Contract(新加坡合同法)SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION導(dǎo)論8.1.1 Con tract law in Sin gapore is largely based on the com mon law ofcon tractin En gla nd. Un like its n eighbours Malaysia and Brun ei,followi ngIn depe ndence in 1965, Sin gapore ' s Parliame nt made no attempt to codify Sin gapore 's

2、law of con tract.Accord in gly,muchof the law of con tract in Sin gapore rema insin the form of judge-made rules . In some circumstances, these judge-made rules have bee n modified by specific statutes.新加坡的合同法基本上是以英國(guó)關(guān)于合同的普通法為范式而構(gòu)建的。與它的鄰居馬來(lái)西亞和文萊不同的是，新加坡在1965年獨(dú)立之后并沒(méi)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

3、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。8.1.2 Many of these statutes are En glish in origi n. To beg in with, 13 En glishcommercial statutes have been incorporated as part of the Statutes of the Republic of Si ngapore by virtue of s 4 of theApplication of En glish Law Act (Cap 7A, 1993Rev Ed). These are listed in

4、 Part II of the First Schedule of this Act. Otherstatutes, eg the Con tracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act (C ap 53B, 2002 Rev Ed), are modelled upon(仿效)En glish statutes. There are also other areas wherestatutorydevelopment based on non-English models has taken place, eg the ConsumerProtection (Fai

5、r Trading) Act (Cap 52A, 2004 Rev Ed) (which was largely drawn from fair tradi ng legislatio n en acted in Alberta and Sasketchewa n).許多此類立法起源于英國(guó)。首先來(lái)說(shuō)，有13個(gè)英國(guó)商事法律根據(jù)英國(guó)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(guó)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 Th

6、ird Parties) Act)(Cap 53B, 2002 修訂)， 系模仿英國(guó)立法制定的。在某些領(lǐng)域也有立法采用非英國(guó)模式的情形，比如消費(fèi)者保護(hù)(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(wàn)兩省的公平交易法制定。8.1.3 The rules developed in the Singapore courts do, nevertheless, bear a very close resembla nee to those developed un der

7、En glish commorhaw. In deed, where there is no Singapore authority specifically on point, it will usually be assumed that the position will, in the first instanee, 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(guó)普通法的同類規(guī)則有非常大的相似 性。如果關(guān)于某個(gè)問(wèn)題新加坡本身沒(méi)有權(quán)威規(guī)則時(shí)，人們就會(huì)理所當(dāng)然地首先假定新加坡的立場(chǎng)同英國(guó)法的立場(chǎng)沒(méi)有什么區(qū)別.SECTI

8、ON 2 OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE約和承諾Agreement 協(xié)議8.2.1 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 asc

9、ertained 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(dāng)事人各自的權(quán)利義務(wù)并 且具有法律約束力。至于當(dāng)事人之間是否達(dá)成協(xié)議，或合意( consensus ad idem ) , 應(yīng) 通過(guò)對(duì)事實(shí)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

10、析當(dāng)事人是否達(dá)成協(xié)議的起點(diǎn)。Offer 要約8.2.2 An offer is a promise, or other expression of willingness, by the'offeror ' to be bound on certain specified terms upon the unqualified acceptanee of these terms by the person to whomthe offer is made(the 'offeree ' ). Provided the other formation elements

11、 (ie consideration and intention to create legal relations) are present, the acceptance of an offer results in a valid contract.一個(gè)要約即是“要約人”發(fā)出的一項(xiàng)允諾或其他形式的自愿意思表示，表明經(jīng)“受要約 人”無(wú)條件承諾某些確定的條款，“要約人”即受這些條款的約束。如合同成立的其他要 素亦得滿足(如對(duì)價(jià)和設(shè)立法律關(guān)系的意旨)，對(duì)要約的承諾會(huì)導(dǎo)致一個(gè)有效的合同。8.2.3 Whether any particular statement amounts to an of

12、fer depends on the intention with which it is made. An offer must be made with the intention to bebound. On the other hand, if a person is merely soliciting offers or requesting for information, without any intention to be bound, at best, he or she would be making an invitation to treat. Under the o

13、bjective test, a person may be said tohave madean offer if his or her statement (or conduct) induces a reasonable person to believe that the person making the offer intends to be bound by the acceptance of the alleged offer, even if that person in fact had no such intention.一個(gè)特定的表述是否構(gòu)成要約有賴于表述的意旨。 要約

14、必須具有受拘束的意旨。 如果某 人只是引誘他人作出要約，或者只是詢問(wèn)情況，而并沒(méi)有受拘束的意旨，那他或她最多只 是在作出要約邀請(qǐng)。按照客觀標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，如果某人的表述(或者行為)致使一個(gè)通情達(dá)理的人 相信發(fā)出要約者具有在該要約被承諾后接受拘束的意旨，則即使該人實(shí)際上沒(méi)有此種意 旨，他也被認(rèn)為是發(fā)出了一項(xiàng)要約。Termination of Offer 要約終止8.2.4 An offer may be terminated by withdrawal at any time prior to its acceptance, provided there is communication, of the

15、withdrawal to the offeree, whether by the offeror or through some reliable source. Rejection of an offer,which includes the making of a counter-offer or a variation of the original terms, terminates the offer. In the absence of an express stipulation as to time, an offer will lapse after a reasonabl

16、e time. What this amounts to depends on the particular facts of the case. Death of the offeror, if known to the offeree, would render the offer incapable of being accepted by the offeree. Even in the absence of such kno wledge, death of either party term in ates any offer which has a pers onal eleme

17、 nt.要約在承諾之前的任何時(shí)候都可以撤回，只要由要約人親自或者通過(guò)其他可信的渠道向受要約人發(fā)出撤回通知。對(duì)要約的拒絕導(dǎo)致要約失效，這包括發(fā)出反要約或者改變?cè)s 的條款。如要約對(duì)時(shí)效沒(méi)有明確規(guī)定，則該要約在合理時(shí)間之后失效。這種情況到底何所 指，這要根據(jù)案件的具體事實(shí)來(lái)分析。如果要約人死亡且此事實(shí)已為受要約人知曉，則要 約就不能夠被后者接受。任何一方死亡的事實(shí)，即使不為他方知曉，也會(huì)導(dǎo)致任何具有人 身因素的要約消滅。Acceptanee 承諾8.2.5 An offer is accepted by the uncon diti onal and unq ualified asse ntto

18、 its terms by the offeree. This asse nt maybe expressed through words or con duct, but cannot be in ferred from mere sile nee save in very excepti onal circumsta nces.受要約人對(duì)要約條款無(wú)條件和無(wú)保留的同意構(gòu)成對(duì)要約的承諾。同意可由言語(yǔ)或行為來(lái)表示，但除非在極其例外的情況下，緘默不能被認(rèn)為是同意。8.2.6 As a gen eral rule, accepta nee must be com muni cated to the

19、offeror,although a limited exception exists where the acceptanee is sent by post and this method of com muni cati on is either expressly or impliedly authorised. This exception, known as the 'postal acceptanee rule' , stipulates that acceptaneetakes place at the point whe n the letter of acc

20、epta nee is posted, whether or notit was in fact received by the offeror.一個(gè)總的原則是承諾應(yīng)該被通知到要約人，但如果承諾是通過(guò)郵寄方式且此種方式被認(rèn)為是或者明確或者默示地許可的，則構(gòu)成一項(xiàng)例外。這個(gè)例外被稱為“投郵承諾規(guī)則”， 它規(guī)定承諾信一經(jīng)付郵，無(wú)論要約人是否實(shí)際上收到，承諾均告生效。Certai nty 確定性8.2.7 Before the agreeme nt may be en forced as a eon tract, its terms mustbe sufficientlycertain. At th

21、e least, the essential terms of the agreement should在協(xié)議被作為合同執(zhí)行以前，它的條款必須足夠確定。至少，協(xié)議的關(guān)鍵條款應(yīng)予明確 規(guī)定。在此之外，法庭可以通過(guò)訴諸當(dāng)事方的行為、當(dāng)事方之間已有的習(xí)慣作法、貿(mào)易慣 例或者合理標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來(lái)解決協(xié)議條款含糊不清或不確定的問(wèn)題。某些情況下，關(guān)于合同細(xì)節(jié)的成文法規(guī)定也可以用來(lái)填補(bǔ)協(xié)議條款的空白。關(guān)于條款的問(wèn)題，可進(jìn)一步參見(jiàn)第節(jié)和節(jié)。Completeness 完整性8.2.8 An in complete agreeme nt also cannot amount to an en forceableeon tr

22、act. Agreeme nts made'subject to contract ' may be eon sidered in complete if the intention of the parties, as determined from the facts, was not to be legally bound until the execution of a formal document or until further agreement isreached. 不完整的協(xié)議不能構(gòu)成具有執(zhí)行力的合同。如果協(xié)議規(guī)定“以合同為準(zhǔn)”，且由事實(shí)可 推斷出的當(dāng)事方的

23、意旨表明在正式合同或者進(jìn)一步的協(xié)議達(dá)成之前， 當(dāng)事方無(wú)意受到法律 拘束，則該協(xié)議為不完整的協(xié)議。Electronic Transactions Act 電子交易829The Electronic Transactions Act (Cap 88, 1999 Rev Ed) ('ETA')clarifies that, except with respect to the requirement of writing or signatures in wills, negotiable instruments, indentures, declarations of trust

24、or powers of attorney, contracts involving immovable property and documents of title (s 4(1), electronic records may be used in expressing an offer or acceptance of an offer in contract formation (s 11). A declaration of intent between contracting parties mayalso be madein the form of an electronic

25、record (s 12). The ETAalso clarifies when an electronic record may be attributed to a particular person (s 13) and how the time and place of despatch and receipt of an electronic record are to be determined (s 15).電子交易法( Cap 88, 1999 年修正)闡明，電子記錄可用來(lái)在合同訂立過(guò)程中表 述要約或者對(duì)要約的承諾(見(jiàn)第 11 條)，但是這不適用于對(duì)遺囑、流通票據(jù)、債券、委

26、托聲明或授權(quán)書、不動(dòng)產(chǎn)合同以及所有權(quán)憑證(見(jiàn)第4( 1 1)條)等文件的書面或簽字要求。SECTION 3 CONSIDERATION 對(duì)價(jià)Definition 定義8.3.1 A promise contained in an agreement is not enforceable unless itis supported by consideration or it is madein a written document madeunder seal. Consideration is something of value (as defined by the law), reque

27、sted 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 somebenefit received by the promisor, or somedetriment to th

28、e promisee. This benefit/detrimentmayconsist of a counterpromise or a completed act.一項(xiàng)允諾，如果不為對(duì)價(jià)支持或者不由書面蓋印作出，則不具法律執(zhí)行力。對(duì)價(jià)是(法 律界定的)某種價(jià)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(lái)交換對(duì)前項(xiàng)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(duì)待允諾或者已完成的行為。Reciprocity 互惠8.3.2 The idea of reciprocity that u

29、nderlies 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 courtsdo not always adopt a strict chronologica

30、l approach to the analysis.體現(xiàn)于對(duì)價(jià)要求之中的是互惠關(guān)系這一原則，它要求對(duì)價(jià)和允諾之間有某種原因關(guān)系。 因此，對(duì)價(jià)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(yán)格地忠實(shí)于這種以時(shí)間先后為準(zhǔn)的推論方式-參見(jiàn)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8.3.3 Whether the

31、 consideration provided is sufficient is a question of law, and the court is not, as a general rule, concerned with whether the valueof 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

32、 not, without more, constitute sufficient consideration in law to support the promisor ' s promise. The performa nee of an exist ing obligati on that is owed contractually to the promisor is capable of being sufficient consideration, if sueh performanee eonfers a real and praetieal benefit on th

33、e promisor. If thepromisee performs or promises to perform an existing eontraetual obligation that is owedto a third party, the promisee will have furnished suffieient eonsideration at law to support a promise given in exehange.對(duì)價(jià)是否充足是個(gè)法律上的問(wèn)題。 作為一般原則， 法庭并不關(guān)心對(duì)價(jià)的價(jià)值是否與允諾的 價(jià)值相稱。如無(wú)更多東西， 受允諾人履行或者承諾履行因公職而負(fù)

34、擔(dān)的即存責(zé)任在法律上 不能成為允諾人作出的允諾的充足對(duì)價(jià)。向允諾人履行既存的合同責(zé)任可以成為充足對(duì) 價(jià)，但條件是該履約行為可以為允諾人帶來(lái)真正實(shí)際的利益。 如果受允諾人履行或允諾履 行既存合同項(xiàng)下對(duì)第三人的義務(wù)，則認(rèn)為受允諾人依法提供了支持允諾的充足對(duì)價(jià)。Promissory Estoppel 禁止反言8.3.4 Where the doetrine of promissory estoppel applies, a promise maybe binding notwithstanding that it is not supported by eonsideration. This doe

35、trine applies where a party to a eontraet makes an unequivoeal promise, whether by words or eonduet, that he or she will not insist on his or her striet legal rights under the eontraet, and the other party aets, and thereby alters his or her position, in relianee on the promise. The party making the

36、 promise eannot seek to enforee those rights if it would be inequitable to do so, although sueh rights may be reasserted upon the promisor giving reasonable notiee. The doetrine prevents the enforeement of existing rights, but does not ereate new eauses of aetion.即使沒(méi)有對(duì)價(jià)支持， 一項(xiàng)允諾也可能因?yàn)榻狗囱栽瓌t的適用而具有拘束力。

37、禁止反言 原則適用于下列情況， 即如果合同的一方當(dāng)事人通過(guò)語(yǔ)言或行為做出了清楚明白的允諾來(lái) 表明他或她不會(huì)嚴(yán)格堅(jiān)持自己在合同項(xiàng)下的法律權(quán)利， 而另一方本著對(duì)這個(gè)許諾的信賴而 采取行動(dòng)改變了自己的狀況。 如果因此可能導(dǎo)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 RELATION立 法律關(guān)系的意旨Contraetual Intention 合同意旨8.4.1 In the absenee of eontraetual intention, an agreement

38、, even ifsupported by eonsideration, eannot be enforeed. Whether the partiesto anagreement 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(gè)協(xié)議即使有對(duì)價(jià)支持，也不能被執(zhí)行。協(xié)議的各當(dāng)事方是否意圖 在彼此之間建立有法律約束力的關(guān)系應(yīng)該通過(guò)對(duì)相關(guān)事實(shí)的客觀評(píng)估而確定。Comm

39、ercial Arrangements 商業(yè)安排8.4.2 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 o

40、f 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(duì)商業(yè)情境中達(dá)成的協(xié)議， 法庭一般都會(huì)推定當(dāng)事人具有受法律約束力的意旨

41、。 然而這個(gè) 推定可以被當(dāng)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(guān)于 當(dāng)事人意圖的 最終結(jié)論仍有賴于對(duì)他們所用 的語(yǔ)言和所有相關(guān)事實(shí)的客觀評(píng)估，而不是文件的標(biāo)簽。Social Arrangements 社會(huì)安排8.4.3 The parties in domestic or social arrangements are generally presumed not to intend legal consequences.當(dāng)事人在家庭或社會(huì)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

42、 THE CONTRA合同條款Express Terms 明示條款The rights and obligations of contracting parties are determinedby 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 re

43、duced 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'inten ti on,the courts tak

44、e in to acco unt a nu mber of factors in cludi ng the stageof 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-a-vis the subject matter of the stateme nt.8.5.2合同締約方的權(quán)利義務(wù)首先應(yīng)通過(guò)認(rèn)定合同的條款來(lái)

45、確定， 其次通過(guò)對(duì)條款的解釋來(lái)確 定。在確定合同條款是有時(shí)有必要認(rèn)定某一個(gè)表述到底是合同條款還是僅僅是一般陳述， 尤其是當(dāng)合同尚未見(jiàn)諸書面時(shí)。 某項(xiàng)表述是否具有合同性質(zhì)有賴于客觀認(rèn)定的當(dāng)事方的意 圖，而這是一個(gè)事實(shí)問(wèn)題。在確定當(dāng)事人的意圖時(shí)，法庭要考慮諸多因素，包括表述作出 時(shí)交易所進(jìn)行到的階段， 受表述人對(duì)該表述所賦予的重要性， 以及當(dāng)事人各自具有的相對(duì) 于表述標(biāo)的有關(guān)知識(shí)和技能。Oncethe terms of a contract have been determined, the court applies an objective test in construing or inte

46、rpreting the meaning of these terms. Whatis significant in this determination therefore is not the sense attributed byeither 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

47、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(huì)適用一個(gè)客觀標(biāo)準(zhǔn)解釋條款的含義。在這種情況下，重要的 不是某個(gè)當(dāng)事方對(duì)合同用語(yǔ)所賦予的含義， 而是一個(gè)通情達(dá)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(dāng)事人訂立合同時(shí)所處的事實(shí)網(wǎng)絡(luò)， 因?yàn)檫@能幫助確定 一個(gè)通情達(dá)理的人會(huì)如何理解合同語(yǔ)言。8.5.3 Wh

48、ere 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 Evidenc

49、eAct (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 evidenee of any oral agreement or statement maybe admitte

50、d in evidenee 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 o

51、f all exceptions to the rule, or whether other common law exceptions not explicitly covered in s 94 continue to be applicable.如當(dāng)事人已將合同表諸書面， 無(wú)論是口頭還是書面作出的某個(gè)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(Cap97,1997年修正)第93節(jié)和94節(jié)來(lái)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(lái)證明合同條款?！币虼?，任何口頭協(xié)議或 表述都不能被作為證據(jù)去推翻

52、、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(duì)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(zhēng)議的。8.5.4 It should, however, be noted that the scope of s 93 and s 94 hasbeen circumscribed by Parliament in certain circumstances.應(yīng)該提到的事，第 93條和 94條的適用范圍在某些情況下被國(guó)會(huì)有所限制。 見(jiàn)第 章 與消費(fèi)者保護(hù)（公平

53、交易）法（ Cap 52A, 2004 修正）第 17 條有關(guān)的消費(fèi)者保護(hù)規(guī) 則。Implied Terms 默示條款8.5.5 In addition to those expressly agreed terms, the court maysometimesimply terms into the contract.在上述明確表示的條款之外，法庭有時(shí)還可以為合同添加默示條款。8.5.6 Gen erally, any term to be implied must not con tradict any express term of the con tract.總的來(lái)說(shuō)，任何默示條款均

54、不得與合同的明示條款相抵觸。8.5.7 Where a term is implied to fill a gap in the con tractso as to giveeffect to the presumed in ten tio n of the parties, the term is implied in fact anddepe nds on a con siderati on of the Ian guage of the con tract as well as the surrounding circumstances. A term will be implied o

55、nly if it is so necessary that both parties must have in ten ded its in clusio n in the con tract. The fact that it would be reas on able to in clude the term is not sufficie nt for the implicati on, as the courts will not re-write the con tract for the parties.如果某個(gè)條款被默示出來(lái)的目的是為了填補(bǔ)合同的空白以體現(xiàn)推定出來(lái)的當(dāng)事人的意

56、圖，這個(gè)條款即屬于事實(shí)上的默示條款，其內(nèi)容之確定要考慮合同的用語(yǔ)以及周遭情況。 只有當(dāng)情況如此必須而當(dāng)事人必然曾經(jīng)考慮將某個(gè)條款納進(jìn)合同時(shí)，該條款才會(huì)被默示進(jìn)來(lái)。僅僅因?yàn)槿绻麑⒛硞€(gè)條款包括進(jìn)合同是合乎情理的這個(gè)事實(shí)還不足以使它成為默示條 款，因?yàn)榉ㄍゲ粫?huì)為當(dāng)事人重寫合同。8.5.8 Terms may also be implied because this is required statutorily, or on public policy con sideratio ns. The terms implied by the Sale of Goods Act (Cap393, 1994

57、 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 Sin gapore courts, like their En glish coun terparts, may imp

58、ly 'default'terms into specific classes of con tracts to give effect to policies that defi ne the con tractual relatio nships that arise out of those con tracts.默示條款的成立也可以是因?yàn)槌晌姆ǖ囊?，或者是出于公共政策的考慮。貨物買賣法(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(wú)具體的權(quán)威依據(jù)，但如果新加坡法院像他們的英國(guó) 同業(yè)那樣將一些“缺

59、省”條款默示進(jìn)合同以保持公共政策對(duì)合同關(guān)系的限制，這也并非不 可想象的。Classification of Terms合同條款的分類8.5.9 The terms of a con tractmay be classified intocon diti ons,warra nties or in termediate (or innomin ate)terms. Proper classificatio nisimporta nt as it determ ines whether the con tract may be discharged or termi nated合同條款可以分為條件(con ditio ns)，擔(dān)保(warra ntie