DAMAGE--Breach Date Rule下损失以什么币种为准


2014/7/17 19:49:01 来源:伯宁律师 作者:伯宁 浏览次数:8716次

Breach Date Rule之二:损失币种的兑换日期
 
1 Forum-Currency Rule与Breach Date Rule的概述
 
“违约/毁约一天损失规定” (Breach Date Rule)之一是另章介绍的Market Price Rule,即按市场价格来计算损失。在本章要介绍另一个问题,就是有关损失币种的兑换(Date of Conversion Rule),这里重大的影响就是有关损失应该是以哪一种币种去作出计算与兑换。首先去简单介绍一下为什么这是一个重大的问题,这是根据损失计算大原则的“复原原则”,即以金钱把受害方恢复到合约被履行的地位。这也在逻辑上带出了这一条Breach Date Rule,即金钱的损失应该是以违约/毁约一天的计算为准。接下去的问题,就是损失计算的金钱到底是什么币种?要知道损失在国际案件中可以是任何国家的币种,甚至多于一种的币种。这一来如果判决只能以一种币种作出(例如作出判决国家的币种),就涉及了兑换的问题,而兑换用的汇率根据Breach Date Rule就应该为违约或侵权一天的汇率。
 
这里就带来了另一个方面的问题,就是国家法院与法律几乎都是要求本国的法院判决必须以本国的币种作出。这一来,如果有关的损失计算所针对的纯粹是一个本土的案件,就不应该有什么问题。在美国法院就以美元,在英国法院就以英镑,在中国法院就以人民币了。至于诉讼所带来的延误,就以利息去作出补偿,反正都是为了达到复原的效果。
 
现在就可以看到涉及国际案件的问题,因为有关的合约以其他币种结算,例如以美元,法郎,日元,人民币,更切实的情况是受害方蒙受了其他币种的损失,例如承租人的违约是造成了受害方船东的船舶损坏,导致修理是在新加坡进行,支付的修理费是新加坡元,购买零件是日元,计算损失就复杂了。如果这些合约所同意的去英国法院,或是中国法院,带来了一个问题是损失计算到底应该是以什么币种为准。如果是以英镑或人民币,就涉及了新加坡元与日元的兑换时采用的哪一天的汇率问题。或是另一种做法是英国或中国法院能否根据当地的法律有选择可去以本土以外的币种去对损失作出判决?这些问题涉及了法律需要肯定(certainty)与为了追求每一个案件的公平而必须要有伸缩性(flexibility)两个理念之间的冲突。
 
针对不同的币种,很不幸现况离世界大同还是遥不可及,每一个国家甚至不同地区都有自己的币种。欧共体的欧元看来是一个创举,但近年来的经济危机也可以看到是困难重重。其他还有极少数的例外情况,例如南美的萨尔瓦多(El Salvador)就以美元作为国家的币种,也没有自己的中央银行。在这一个现实情况下,就无可避免带来币种之间汇率的波动,这尤其是在经济动荡与严重通货膨胀的时候波动更为剧烈。历史上,在1914年放弃了“黄金标准”(gold standard)后,直到1945年的“布雷顿森林体系”(Bretton Woods Regime),国与国之间的币值波动是不得了。自从1961年开始,特别是在1971年8月美国单方面宣布美元与黄金脱钩之后,币值波动又趋向严重。各种不同的币种再也不会有稳定的汇率,甚至每天都会有波动,个别还会有贬值或升值。光是看近年来的人民币升值,与美元之间的兑换也导致了许多问题,目前的波动幅度在历史角度看来还是微不足道,但天知道几年后会是怎么样。反正是说明了汇率的问题将会长期存在下去,这无可避免所有国际性的商业活动以及其他事项(包括了诉讼)都会受到影响,正如在The “Volturno” (1921) 8 Lloyd’s Rep 449,Sumner勋爵所说:“fluctuations in foreign exchanges inevitably introduce a speculative element into all transactions and affairs.”
 
在英国法院(也包括伦敦仲裁),直到1975年之前的法律地位(程序法地位)是作出的判决或裁决必须是以英镑作为币种。这种做法当时与其他国家法院(特别是普通法系的国家)的做法基本上没有什么不同,例如美国法院判决就是以美元作为币种。这在上诉庭的Manners v Pearson & Son (1898) 1 Ch 581先例有提到,说:“if the defendants were within the jurisdiction of any other civilized State and were sued there, as they might be, the courts of that State would have to deal with precisely the same problem, and to express in the currency of that State, the amount payable by the defendants instead of expressing it, in the money of the contract.”
 
这可以被称为是“诉讼地点币种规定”(Forum-Currency Rule)。在Manners v Pearson & Son先例,更加说到英国法院是没有管辖权去对英镑以外的币种作出任何命令。这就更加提升到英国法院根本不存在有一个裁量权可以去适用外国币种,即使在个别案件中觉得是更加公平。
 
判决是以英镑作为币种已经解释过,而针对损失计算的币种根据Breach Date Rule也是以英镑作为币种,就是在违约/毁约的一天,如果合约的币种或是蒙受的损失是外币,也根据该天的汇率转换为英镑。如果原告提出索赔,告票或索赔请求中的损失金额就必须是这一笔转换后的英镑。
 
理论上把不同币种的损失去转换为英镑也可以使用其他较后日期的汇率,例如在审理的一天,或是作出判决的一天,或是真正支付或者执行的一天。但无论是以哪一天的汇率作为转换,都会有它的问题。显然是在Breach Date Rule下,还是违约/毁约的一天是最符合这一规定的做法。这就是英国在1976年以前的法律地位,正如Denning大法官在Cummings v London Bullion Company (1952) 1 KB 327所说:“I take it to be clear law that when a creditor comes to the courts to enforce a debt payable in a foreign currency the creditor is entitled to be put into as good a position as if the debtor had done his duty under the contract and had paid the debt in the foreign currency without the intervention of the courts. To do this, judgment must be given for the creditor for the debt turned into sterling at the rate of exchange ruling at the date when it should have been paid.”
 
Denning勋爵也在另一个贵族院先例Re United Railways of Havana and Regla Warehouses (1961) AC 1007说:“if there is one thing that is clear in our law, it is that the claim must be made in sterling and the judgment given in sterling. We do not give judgment in dollars any more than the United States courts give judgments in sterling.”
 
2   Forum-Currency Rule与Breach Date Rule带来的问题
 
这一个做法很容易就看出问题,就是在造成损失的违约/毁约如果币种是英镑,在几年后受害方胜诉,并向违约方取回这一笔英镑的损失,加上利息,就应该可以做到复原。但如果造成损失的是其他币种,但必须去马上转换为英镑并在将来根据英镑判决书去向违约方取回这一笔损失,但其间英镑相比真正损失的币种贬值,受害方可要亏了。当然,如果英镑在其间升值,受害方就可以赚了。但两种情况实际上都不应该发生,可现实中就经常会出现。例如在Di Feidinando v Simon, Smits & Co (1920) 3 KB 409 (CA),就涉及了意大利原告的真正损失是意大利里拉,其间由于里拉贬值,导致了最后判决的英镑金额是原告原来损失的双倍。
 
英国法律这一个问题在很长一段时间可以被商业社会所接受,原因是在大英帝国的年代,英镑相对稳定。这里可以节录一些说法,例如在The Baarn (1933) P 251 (CA),Scrutton大法官说:“a pound in England is a pound whatever its international purchasing power”。另在Treseder-Griffin v Co-operative Insurance Society (1956) 2 QB 127 CA先例,Denning大法官也说同样的话:“Sterling is the constant unit of &#118alue by which in the eye of the law everything else is measured. Prices of commodities may go up or down, other currencies may go up and down, but sterling remains the same.”
 
到了1960年,贵族院在Re United Railways of Havana and Regla Warehouses (1961) AC 1007曾经有机会去针对Forum-Currency Rule与Breach Date Rule作出检讨,但贵族院包括Denning勋爵拒绝去作出改变。该先例涉及了一个复杂的争议是有关古巴建造铁路的融资,但卡斯特罗当权之后把该铁路收归国有并作出不足够的赔偿,这导致了被告欠下原告融资债务。而在1947年到1949年,英镑相对美元大幅贬值,这严重影响了该先例而原告试图说服英国法院去对这一个Forum-Currency Rule与Breach Date Rule作出改变。但贵族院拒绝,其中Denning勋爵是这样说:“it may be said that in this conditions the rule is apt to produce an injustice to a creditor in the United States who is owed money in dollars: because, if he comes to our courts after devaluation, he does not recover sufficient sterling to compensate him for his loss. But I am afraid that, if he chooses to sue in our courts instead of his own, he must put up with the consequences … coming here, it must accept the rule of our law that we can only give judgment in sterling.”
 
而另有提到在有些情况下为了防止这种危险,受害方是可以在违约/毁约的一天去对有关的币种与英镑作出对冲(hedge),Reid勋爵是这样说:“…the original reason for the rule has no application in such a case…dollars lent in America are not a commodity, and if they are not repaid at the due date there can be no question of an American going into the market and buying dollars to replace those which the debtor failed to deliver.”
 
3  这方面问题对伦敦仲裁的影响与有关先例
 
但在这一个1960年先例之后,由于汇率的波动更趋严重,其中包括了英镑的贬值与波动,导致了英国法院有了不同的看法。这里最明显的就是Denning勋爵,他在之后的几个判决显示了他有了与Re United Railways of Havana and Regla Warehouses完全不同的看法。第一个是在The “Teh Hu” (1969) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 365先例,案情涉及了一个Lloyd’s Open Form的船舶救助之后对报酬所作出的伦敦仲裁裁决书。原告是日本的Nippon Salvage,它的成本是当时在升值的日元,而国际航运在当时通用的币种是美元,但偏偏裁决书按照英国法律所作出的裁决下报酬是以贬值的英镑为准。该案例到了上诉庭,Denning勋爵认为国际救助与仲裁都不必受到普通法下在这方面的约束,判是仲裁员有权去以外币计算救助人的费用并以外币去作出裁决书;或者作为替代,裁决书以英镑为准,但去把英镑贬值的影响去对赔偿金额作出相应的提高(that arbitrator had power to calculate salvors’ expenses and award in foreign currency and make his award in that currency; alternatively, salvage award should be calculated in sterling figures at time services will conclude and arbitrator should uplift those figures after devaluation.)
 
Denning勋爵也提到了当时的金融与仲裁环境,英国普通法必须作出改变并希望不要影响伦敦仲裁受到国际的支持,说:“I am afraid that the common-law rule on this subject is most unsatisfactory. It was fixed at the time when the sterling was a stable currency ‘of whose true fixed and constant quality there is no fellow in the firmament’. But that enviable state of affairs is gone. Sterling is no longer the most stable currency in the world. It has been de&#118alued more than once. We ought to recognize this. We should modify the common law to meet the new situation.”
 
但上诉庭的多数意见并不同意,换言之,Denning勋爵只是少数意见。其中Salmon大法官是这样说:“For myself I am afraid that if a foreign creditor chooses to enter into a contract governed by English law which obliges him to come to this country seeking payment in sterling, he also must put up with the consequences. For these reasons I would reluctantly dismiss the appeal. I only add that, like Mr Justice Brandon, I am very conscious that in the monetary conditions of today this view of the law may well prejudice the international acceptability of the Lloyd’s Form of Salvage Agreement. This is something that I too deplore. The difficulty can, however, easily be overcome for the future, as already indicated, by a fairly simple amendment of the present Lloyd’s Form of Salvage Agreement. I cannot agree that the confidence of foreign salvors and owners in the justice administered by our Courts can be shaken by the fact that in this particular case the decision of the Court is in accordance with the established rule of English law.”
 
但过了4年后,在另一个先例The “Kozara” (1973) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1,Denning勋爵的运气就好得多了。该先例涉及了一个期租合约的争议,租约的币种是美元,双方有了争议去伦敦仲裁并被裁定承租人败诉并要支付金额62,245.75美元。但承租人并没有去支付,这带来了强制执行的问题。在第一审的高院,Kerr大法官判是以美元作出的伦敦裁决书是不能被承认与执行的,即使事后去把裁决书转换为英镑也不能接受,说:“an award made in England and expressed in a foreign currency was not enforceable in the same manner as a judgment even when that currency was the money of account or even where it was the one with which the transaction had its closest connection…Nor could such an award be enforced upon conversion of the amount awarded into sterling.”
 
但到了上诉庭,这被改变过来,判是仲裁庭有管辖权去作出外币币种的裁决书,只要该币值是与有关合约有最密切与真正的关系,说:“the arbitrators did have jurisdiction to make an award in a foreign currency whenever that was the proper currency of the contract i.e. the currency with which the payment under contract had the closest and most real connection; accordingly, in this case, the arbitrators were entitled to make their award in United States, dollars and their award was valid.”
 
以上两个先例是针对伦敦仲裁,笔者还记得当时伦敦海事仲裁员包括“伦敦海事仲裁员协会”(London Maritime Arbitrators Association,简称LMAA)都对英镑不断贬值,但租约或其他海事合约都是以美元计算,造成外国原告前来伦敦仲裁都因此得不到足够的赔偿而深表忧虑,担心会严重影响伦敦仲裁在国际航运的受欢迎度。
 
4  这方面问题与欧共体《罗马公约》的先例
 
接下去另一个先例是Denning勋爵以欧共体法律作为理由去回避这一条Forum-Currency Rule与Breach Date Rule,名为Schorsch Meier v Hennin (1975) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1。案情涉及了德国的原告索赔一笔供应汽车零件但没有收到货款的案件,原告要求英国法院以德国马克作为损失计算与判决,并提到了根据《罗马公约》106条,欧共体国家的成员是可以以英镑以外的其他币种作出判决。该106条其实与这一问题关系不大,说:“Each Member State undertakes to authorise, in the currency of the Member State in which the creditor or the beneficiary resides, any payments connected with the movement of goods, services or capital, and any transfers of capital and earnings, to the extent that the movement of goods, services, capital and persons between Member States has been liberalized pursuant to this Treaty.”
 
反正是Denning勋爵判是原告胜诉,说:“This is the first case in which we have had actually to apply the Treaty of Rome in these courts. It shows its great effect. It has brought about a fundamental change. Hitherto our English courts have only been able to give judgment in sterling. In future when a debt is incurred by an English debtor to a creditor in one of the Member States— payable in the currency of that state — the English court can give judgment for the amount in that money. This change will have effects to, beyond the Common Market. It has already made us think about of our own laws. As a result, it is my opinion, that, whatever the foreign currency, be US Dollars or Japanese Yen, or any other, the English courts can give judgment in that money where it is the currency of the contract.”
 
但在该上诉庭,也不能说是所有的大法官都是一致的看法。其中Foster大法官只给了一个简短的判词说他同意Denning勋爵。至于Lawton大法官说他感觉关于Forum-Currency Rule与Breach Date Rule,他必须依从一直以来的先例,就算要作出改变也不是他的责任或权力,说:“it is disturbing to find that a rule which does injustice to a foreign trader is found on archaic legal nonsense of this kind. It is however my duty to apply the law, not to reform it.”
 
针对这一条Forum-Currency Rule与Breach Date Rule的改变,到此只是停留在伦敦仲裁与《罗马公约》的说法。真正在普通法作出改变还是需要在贵族院作出决定,毕竟一直以来的先例(包括Re United Railways of Havana and Regla Warehouses (1961) AC 1007先例)是在贵族院作出的。
 
5  作出根本性改变的贵族院先例:Miliangos v Frank (Textiles)
 
这一机会终于在Miliangos v Frank (Textiles) (1976) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 201先例到来。该先例的案情是涉及了瑞士的原告出售了一些布料给英国的被告,但被告没有作出货价的支付,这导致了原告在英国法院(也就是被告的所在地)去作出诉讼,而索赔的金额是以瑞士法郎为准的。贵族院以多数意见同意去作出对15年前在Re United Railways of Havana and Regla Warehouses的判决的改变,其中Wilberforce勋爵与另外三位大法官的总结判决是:“the rule adopted by the House of Lords in Re United Railways of Havana and Regla Warehouses to the effect that an English Court could not give judgment for payment of a sum of foreign currency could not now be justified in view of the change which had come over the ‘foreign exchange rate’ situation generally and the position of sterling in particular in the course of the last 15 years, and must be abandoned.”
 
针对一直以来的Breach Date Rule,Miliangos v Frank (Textiles)先例也把币种的兑换日期改为了所谓的Payment-Date Rule,也就是支付一天。这可以去节录《McGregor on Damages》(18th edn,2009年)之16-029段:
 
“In fact, it was not the date of judgment that was chosen by their Lordships but the date of payment in the sense of the date when the court authorizes the claimant to enforce the judgment by levying execution for a sum expressed in sterling. The choice, said Lord Wilberforce, ‘is between (i) the date of action brought, (ii) the date of judgment, (iii) the date of payment’ in the sense indicated. Of these the date of payment undoubtedly ‘gets nearest to securing to the creditor exactly what he bargained for’. Lord Fraser put the matter thus:
 
‘Any conversion date earlier than the date of payment would, in my opinion, be open to the same objection as the breach date, namely that it would necessarily leave a considerable interval of time between the conversion date and the date of payment. During that interval currency fluctuations might cause the sterling award to vary appreciably from the sum in foreign currency to which the creditor was entitled. In my opinion, it would not be justifiable to disturb the existing rule of taking the breach date, merely to substitute for it some other date rather nearer to the date of payment but still more or less distant from it. If the date of raising an action in this country were taken for conversion, a period of a year or more might easily elapse, allowing for appeals, before payment was made. The date of judgment would be better but there seems no reason why one should stop short of the latest practicable date, which seems to be the date when the court authorizes enforcement of the judgment.’
 
Lord Fraser indeed rightly pointed out that the conversion date should theoretically be at the still later point in time of the date of actual payment of the debt by the defendant as this would give to the claimant exactly the cost in sterling of buying the foreign currency, ‘but theory must yield to practical necessity to this extent that, if the judgment has to be enforced in this country, it must be converted before enforcement.’”
 
贵族院唯一持不同意见的是Simon勋爵,他认为汇率波动的问题已经存在了很长的一段时间,其中在Re United Railways of Havana and Regla Warehouses的先例中,贵族院也有去考虑到,所以这不足为一个去作出改变的原因。此外,Simon勋爵认为更重要的原因是这方面的改变应该留待议会去立法改变,说:“The main ground of my dissent from the opinion of my noble and learned friends is that this type of issue is unsuitable for law reform by judiciary. It is the sort of case where, in my view, a wide range of advice, official especially but also commercial, is required. The training and experience of a Judge is unsuitable for this type of decision-making unaided: his circumspection is too narrow; his very qualities of keen perception of his immediate problem ten to mitigate against sound judgment of the wider and more general issues involved. But if Courts are to undertake legislative responsibilities, something might be done to equip them better for the type of decision-making which is involved. Official advice and a balanced executive view might be made available by a law officer or his counsel acting as amicus curiae. I venture to suggest consideration of some such machinery.”
 
 这一个重要的先例在后来的枢密院也有提到,在Trinidad Homes Developers Ltd v. IMH Investments Ltd (2003) UKPC 85, Hoffman勋爵是这样说:“The writ … asked simply for payment in United States currency. Judgments in this form have been possible since Milangos v. George Frank (Textiles) Ltd, a decision of the House of Lords which has been followed in Trinidad and Tobago. The fact that the judgment may express the obligation in US Dollars does not necessarily mean that a defendant has to pay in that currency. It means that US Dollars are the unit of account for measuring the sum which has to be paid. If the defendant pays in the different currency (e.g. dollars of Trinidad and Tobago) they must be the equivalent of the US Dollar debt at the time of payment.”
 
由于在Miliangos先例中容许判决去以外币作出,推翻了Forum Currency Rule,自然存在利息的问题,因为每一种币种都会有不同的利率。这一点也被明确下来是要按照外币或被认定币种的利率为准。法院是这样说:“A Swiss creditor, kept out of money he ought to get in Swiss francs, would reasonably borrow in Switzerland his replacement Swiss francs pending judgment. What he would have to pay to borrow them would have nothing whatever to do with the English sterling bank rate or the basic English lending rate … The approach of English law should be : if you opt for a judgment in foreign currency, for better or worse you commit yourself to whatever rate of interest obtains in the context of the currency”。在The “Texaco Melbourne” (1994) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 473的先例,上诉庭就因为认定了损失计算的币种是加纳塞地(cedis),所以利息也是加纳塞地的利率。在一定程度上,一个币种如果在下跌,它的利率会相应提高。这可能会对冲部分损失,但这并不是一定的。例如在目前2010年人民币相对港币是强势,但反而是人民银行在加息。
 
6  侵权在Miliangos先例前的法律地位
 
针对侵权,在贵族院的Miliangos v Frank (Textiles) (1976) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 201先例之前的法律地位,也是根据同样的大原则。但这种案子相比合约方面少得多,加上会涉及币种与汇率的问题,通常是国际性的侵权。这种案件在以前的年代也不多,有的话往往也是涉及了船舶,例如船舶碰撞。在船舶碰撞,如果受害方船舶没办法修理,例如是全损。这一来侵权与造成损失的一天就是Breach Date Rule下的一天,把外国币种的损失转换为英镑也就是该天为准。这在The “Volturno” (1921) 8 Lloyd’s Rep 449的船舶碰撞先例中,Sumner勋爵说:“if the damages were such as need not be repaired at all, the whole loss might have been measured by the immediate depreciation of the ship…if there was any conversion into sterling, it would have been calculated at the rate current at the time of the collision.”
 
但如果船舶的损坏要进行修理,这一来就表示受害方船舶的损失是指支付修理费的时候,因为这才是造成损失的一天。这方面的先例The “Baarn” (1933) P 251 (CA)。
 
虽然船舶碰撞的一天与后来做出修理的一天肯定有不同,甚至会隔了很长一段时间,但在Breach Date Rule下,没有有关的先例表明是以哪一天Breach Date的汇率为准。估计是因为国际侵权的案例不多,或两个不同日子的汇率差别并不显著,不值得去诉讼。
 
7  Miliangos先例后的进一步问题
 
重要的贵族院先例Miliangos v Frank (Textiles) (1976) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 201把Breach Date Rule改变为Payment-Date Rule,但还是没有解决太多的问题或者又带来了新的问题。例如在该先例,案情是针对债务,所以在违约或侵权的案件是否适用,还是会有争议。虽然在Miliangos先例中贵族院表示了也应该延伸去违约与侵权的案例,但这也只是“说说而已”(obiter),并不能作为约束性的判决,因为根本在该案件下没有需要去针对。所以,在该先例中Simon勋爵认为这一个大问题不应该通过案例去解决而是应该立法,有他的道理。通过案例只能针对案情去作出有约束力的判决,与案情无关法院即使有说法也只是没有约束力的obiter。但通过立法,就可以去全面想到还会有什么问题,而好的立法是可以非常全面地针对,而且有针对的全部是有约束性的法律地位。
 
而其他Miliangos先例没有解决的问题是在该先例下,原告是瑞士公司,合约适用法是瑞士法,应支付的钱是瑞士法郎,而合约结算的钱也是瑞士法郎。这一来,Miliangos先例判是以瑞士法郎作为币种去作出支付而不是转换为英镑看来是合情合理得多。但许多国际性的争议,不会是这么一面倒指向一个国家。例如,原告是中国公司,合约结算的钱是美元,这一来,Miliangos先例的Payment-Date Rule是否适用就还是不肯定
 
再下一个没有解决的问题是到底以英镑或是其他币种作出索赔与判决是否是原告的选择权,或是被告也可以去坚持某一个币种?如果在某一个币种被认定后,法院或者仲裁员是否可以去强制性适用,不理会原告同意不同意?这里涉及的问题是在其间英镑贬值的时候,外国的原告就不喜欢这一Forum-Currency Rule与Breach Date Rule了,认为他的损失得不到充分的赔偿了。但反过来如果其间英镑增值,就轮到原告喜欢Forum-Currency Rule与Breach Date Rule了,但被告就不喜欢了。
 
在下一个更大的问题,就是根据Miliangos先例可以摒弃英镑的转换与判决并改为使用外国的币种,那应该是什么币种?较早已经提到,在Miliangos先例的话显然这一币种就应该为瑞士法郎,但其他的案件就不会这么简单了。在一个普通的违约案件,就往往会涉及到至少3种不同的币种。第一个情况是合约结算的币种,这里更会有情况是合约是有多过一种的币种作为结算。例如在Lesotho Highland Development Authority v Impreglio SpA (2005) UKHL 43,先例涉及了非洲建造最大的水坝工程,合约约定的币种意大利里拉,英镑,法郎与马克的一揽子货币。第二种情况是原告或者受害方真正作出支付的币种。而第三种就是原告或者受害方自己的币种,例如中国公司就会是人民币,日本公司就会是日元。这第三种与第二种情况不同之处就是中国公司会在违约或者侵权造成损失的时候去以其他币种作出支付,但还是会通过人民币来转换为外币。所以,中国公司作为原告还是可以说是它蒙受的真正损失是人民币。要知道,选择哪一个币种作为索赔与判决的重要性就是在不同币种之间也是有很大的汇率波动的,不光是在英镑与其他币种之间。这一个由Miliangos先例带来的问题带来了一连串的案例,其中有两个著名先例先后去到贵族院:The “Despina R” and “Folias” (1979) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1与The “Texaco Melbourne” (1994) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 473。
 
8  Miliangos先例后的发展
 
8.1  Miliangos先例中的Payment-Date Rule是否适用在违约与侵权?
 
在Miliangos v Frank (Textiles) (1976) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 201先例后不久,很快的6个星期后就有了一个违约的案例,名为Jean Kraut AG v Albany Fabrics Ltd (1976) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 350。案情涉及了货物买卖合约,涉及到瑞士法郎,而且瑞士法郎相比英镑在违约到审理期间汇率上涨。在原来的索赔请求中,原告按照一直以来的Breach Date Rule去把该笔瑞士法郎按违约一天的汇率转换为英镑进行索赔。当原告代表律师知道了Miliangos先例的判决后,马上申请修改索赔请求,从英镑改为瑞士法郎。被告的抗辩显然是说Miliangos先例只能针对债务,而不是违约的损失。高院的Eveleigh大法官判是Miliangos先例完全适用。但这里还是有一点不明朗之处,就是该合约是适用瑞士法律而不是英国法律。
 
可以说这方面是一直到了The “Maratha Envoy” (1977) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 217的上诉庭先例才有了明确,该著名先例涉及了滞期费的赔付是否以美元计算与判决,而租约是适用英国法。这是Denning勋爵所说的:“in contracts where the currency of the contract is a foreign currency, but the proper law of the contract is English law, the Court can and should give judgment in the foreign currency: and this is both when it is for a debt due under the contract…or damages for breach of contract.”
 
至于Payment-Date Rule在侵权案件的适用,这稍后在贵族院的The “Despina R” and “Folias” (1979) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1先例有明确适用,这稍后再介绍。
 
8.2  Payment-Date Rule是原告的选择权或是强制性适用?
 
在Miliangos v Frank (Textiles) (1976) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 201先例也没有去明确的另一个问题就是Payment-Date Rule是否只是原告的选择权。在后来的一个先例Barclays Bank International Ltd v Levin Bros (Bradford) Ltd (1977) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 51中,看来Mocatta大法官认为是原告的选择权。但在The “Maratha Envoy” (1977) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 217的上诉庭先例被Denning勋爵所明确了Payment-Date Rule是强制性的,否则会对被告不公平,说:“Once it is recognized that a judgment can be given in a foreign currency, justice requires that it should be given in every case where the currency of the contract is a foreign currency: otherwise one side or the other will suffer unfairly by the fluctuation of the exchange.”
 
这一个说法也是被著名的Sir Roy Goode教授所认同:《Payment Obligations in Commercial and Financial Transactions》 (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 1983) 。
 
8.3    损失支付以何种币种作出?
 
在Miliangos v Frank (Textiles) (1976) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 201先例并没有明确的问题也在The “Maratha Envoy” (1977) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 217的先例中被Denning勋爵认为是应该以合约中被双方同意结算的币种为准来进行支付。但这一问题也不能就这么说死,例如合约会是没有双方同意结算的币种,如实物交换的合约或是双方同意以一揽子货币的结算。所以在The “Maratha Envoy”先例后,虽然有了去依从的先例如The “Pearl Merchant” (1979) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 123与The “Doric Chariot” (1979) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 123,最后还是要贵族院的The “Despina R” and “Folias” (1979) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1先例中去明确。该贵族院先例是两个不同案件同时上诉去贵族院,因为针对的都是同一个问题,也就是关系到Miliangos先例的适用。
 
8.3.1  侵权损失的币种
 
针对The “Despina R”,是一个侵权案件,涉及了两艘希腊船舶在上海港外碰撞。针对责任方面,双方同意了责任的分摊是由Despina R轮承担15%,Eleftherotria轮承担85%。至于在损失方面,由于原告Despina R轮所花的修理费用以及修理期间的延误(也就是侵权所造成的损失)涉及了人民币,日元与美元,这就涉及了侵权是否适用Payment-Date Rule的问题。在贵族院,明确了Payment-Date Rule也适用在侵权案件并摒弃了Breach Date Rule。至于侵权案件的币种,在一定程度上比违约案件的币种更加难以决定。因为在违约案件,至少会有一个双方同意的币种作为起点的考虑。贵族院的Wilberforce勋爵认为侵权损失计算的币种一般是以受害方营运所用的币种为准,说:
 
“My Lords, in my opinion, this question can be solved by applying the normal principles which govern the assessment of damages in cases of tort (I shall deal with contract cases in the second appeal.) These are the principles of restitution in integrum and that of the reasonable foreseeability of the damage sustained. It appears to me that a plaintiff, who normally conducts his business through a particular currency, and who, when other currencies are immediately involved, uses his own currency to obtain those currencies, can reasonably say that the loss he sustains is to be measured not by the immediate currencies in which the loss first emerges but by the amount of his own currency, which in the normal course of operation, he uses to obtain those currencies. This is the currency in which his loss is felt, and is the currency which it is reasonably foreseeable he will have to spend.”
 
但接下去的案件表示这一方面还是有不明确,首先要介绍的先例是The “Lash Atlantico” (1987) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 114。案情涉及了Lash Atlantico轮把一艘挂靠在泊位的Manina III轮碰撞并导致严重损坏,责任方面非常清楚,但争议是在损失计算。受害方的希腊船东(Manina III Shipping Company)要求计算损失的币种是美元,这是可以理解的,毕竟在国际航运中都习惯以美元结算。但被告Lash Atlantico轮船东抗辩指币种应该是希腊的德拉克马(drachmas),而在其间德拉克马贬值。该船舶是交给希腊公司作为船舶代理人去管理的,并且在被告要求原告所交出的文件披露中显示了该公司的营运与资产负债表全部是以德拉克马作为币种。这就带来了不稳定的审理,在高院,Sheen大法官判决计算损失的币种应当是德拉克马。但去了上诉庭,多数意见判决以美元为准,说:
 
“it was impossible and would be quite unrealistic to conclude that the plaintiffs did not feel this loss in dollars simply because they did not manage the vessel themselves but had it managed through their managing agents; the reality was that the plaintiffs’ trading venture in the form of this vessel was conducted exclusively in U.S. dollars; it was irrelevant in what currency the resulting accounts were draw up, in order to give a trading picture of the vessel during a particular year when that currency had no viable commercial significance whatever; everything pointed to U.S. dollars as the appropriate currency and the appeal would be allowed”。
 
但上诉庭持不同意见的Croom-Johnson大法官说:
 
“The collision was on Feb. 23 1979; the plaintiffs’ loss took place then. The quantification would clearly take some time, and it was met in several different currencies, the agents buying with dollars in the local currencies, which needed to be used in order to discharge liabilities in, say, Rumania … The payment of all the losses incurred as a result of this collision would first be met by the managing agents in the way that I have described. The dollars were the agents’ dollars and not the plaintiffs’.
 
But I think one can test the position of the plaintiffs in this way. If, for example, there had been a theoretical settling up between them and the plaintiffs needed to reimburse the managing agents for any expenditure which they had made in the course of the year for the various losses, repairs and incidental expenses caused by this collision, they could not have made them in dollars because they did not have any. If they had wanted to reimburse the managing agents in dollars, they would have had to have bought them, and they would have had to have bough them with drachmas; that would have represented the loss which the shipping company in fact incurred.”
 
另一个要介绍的先例是 The “Transoceanica Francesca” and “Nicos V” (1987) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 155,也是涉及了船舶的碰撞。原告的Transoceanica Francesca轮船东是意大利公司,起初索赔请求的币种是意大利里拉(lire)。但在3年半后,原告申请修改请求,变为以美元索赔。显然,在其间里拉贬值。显然,国际航运与美元的关系十分紧密,这包括在碰撞的时候,该船舶是正在履行租约的,租金收入是美元。但从原告披露的文件看来有许多证据显示了与里拉的密切关系,包括银行账户只允许持有美元进账最高额度为110万美元,超过的部分需要自动转为意大利里拉。这看来是重要的,正如对方大律师指出:“the dollar accounts have the appearance of being used merely as a matter of convenience and that sums were being converted into lire. For example, the 1976 accounts how that at the end of the year the balance was transferred out of dollars into a lire account, but in truth the plaintiffs “felt their loss” in their own currency, namely lire. Their ships where insured against loss in lire. Those ships were regarded as lire assets/ There were frequent conversions from dollars into lire and, save for the balance in hand in the dollar account, the plaintiffs regarded lire as the currency of their own accounts”。
 
另外看来重要之处是原告原来提出的索赔请求是里拉,隔了很久才修改为美元。高院的Sheen大法官是这样说:“It is, indeed, significant that the claim was advanced in lire in 1982. At that time the decision of the House of Lords in the Despina R, (1979) 1 Lloyd’s Rep.1 was well in the mind of all those practicing in this field. Furthermore, as the Admiralty Registrar pointed out, one asks oneself whether a commercial organization such as the plaintiffs would have put forward their claim in lire if their true operating currency was U.S. dollars”。
 
最后高院的判决是以原告的损失币种应当以里拉来支付。
 
8.3.2  违约损失的币种
 
至于在另一个案件The “Folias”,是一个期租租约(租期为一个从地中海去南美洲包括巴西的回程航次)的案件,并在伦敦仲裁作出了裁决。案情是由于船舶冷藏机坏了(这涉及了不适航,是船东的责任),导致货物(洋葱)的损坏。最后导致了承租人要去对货方作出赔偿,货方(巴西收货人)索赔的损失有关的币种是巴西雷亚尔(Brazilian cruzeiros)。在承租人赔付之后,再向船东通过伦敦仲裁要求补偿。由于原告承租人是一家法国公司,他认为自己真正的损失币种是法郎,至于赔付巴西收货人的币种也是以法郎去兑换。可以说,法郎就是原告的本土货币(home currency)。这一来,案例涉及的币种就有3个,一个是租约的美元,另一个是赔付给巴西收货人的巴西雷亚尔,还有一个就是原告索赔的法郎。在伦敦仲裁,仲裁庭判是以法郎作为裁决书的币种。显然在其间由于汇率波动,以哪一种币种去作出裁决是有实质的分别的。
 
在The “Folias”,贵族院支持了仲裁庭的裁决以法郎作为币种。贵族院没有说较早前判是合约中双方同意结算的币种(这在国际性的货物买卖合约或租约绝大部分是美元)应该是主要考虑的币值的两个先例是错误的:Jean Kraut AG v Albany Fabrics Ltd (1976) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 350和The “Maratha Envoy” (1977) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 217。但贵族院的Wilberforce勋爵认为针对这一问题是要有弹性,反正就要找出最能够代表原告感觉到的损失的一种货币。这也不一定是原告“马上面对的损失币种”(Immediate Loss Currency)(在该案例中为巴西雷亚尔)的币种。Wilberforce勋爵是这样说:“a flexible rule in which account must be taken of the circumstances in which the loss arose, in which the loss was converted into a money sum, and in which it was felt by the plaintiff.”可以说,贵族院明确下来适用的货币就是原告感觉到损失的货币,带出了“Loss Felt Currency Rule”。
 
针对巴西雷亚尔与法郎,去选择后者的原因也可以去节录Wilberforce勋爵所说如下:“I think it must follow from this that their loss, which they claim as damages, was the discharge of the receivers’ claim, together with the legal and other expenses they incurred. They discharged all these by providing francs — until they provided the francs to meet the receivers’ claim they suffered no loss. Then secondly was this loss the kind of loss which, under the contract, they were entitled to recover against the owners? The answer to this is provided by the arbitrators’ finding that it was reasonable to contemplate that the charterers, being a French corporation and having their place of business of Paris, would have to use French francs to purchase other currencies to settle cargo claims arising under the bills of lading. So in my opinion the charterers’ loss was, according to normal principle, the sum of French francs which they paid.”
 
8.4  代表原告感觉到的损失的规定带来的进一步问题
 
The “Despina R” and “Folias” (1979) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1先例又带来了进一步的问题,主要在两个方面。第一个方面就是不像以前的Breach Date Rule,最终的判决或裁决会以何种币种失去了肯定性。即使原告提出的索赔是根据一个币种,但如果被告提出抗辩,最后会是怎么样判决或者裁决也难以去肯定,因为这一规定本身就不稳定。例如在The “Folias” (1979) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1先例,因为原告是一家法国公司,判是最感觉到的损失是法郎。但如果原告是一家跨国公司,这就不好说了。第二方面的进一步问题是看来对原告有所偏袒,这在一些后来的案例中也可以看到最后的判决多数就是接受了原告提出的币种。这里也可以想得到,因为到底哪一种币种最能代表他所感觉到的损失只有听原告的一面之词。被告虽然可以通过要求原告作出文件披露,希望从中能够找到一些资料去抗辩原告索赔的币种。但这做法毕竟还是不容易,除了会涉及大量的文件披露而导致诉讼的昂贵与延误,也要同时考虑到特别是在今天的国际仲裁甚至法院都在大力压制文件披露的申请。
 
反正是在The “Folias”先例后,还是有源源不断的案例例如: The “Dione” (1980) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 577;The “Federal Huron” (1985) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 189;The “Kefalonia Wind” (1986) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 273; Metallhandel JA Magnus BV v Ardfields Transport Ltd (1988) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 197;The “Texaco Melbourne” (1994) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 473;The “Mosconici” (2001) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 313;Barings plc v Coopers & Lybrand (2003) EWHC 2371 (Ch);Nomura International plc v Credit Suisse First Boston International (2003) EWHC 160; Virani Ltd v Manuel Revert y Cia SA (2004) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 14;等,其中不少就是针对这方面进一步的问题。
 
8.5 倾向原告选择币种作为索赔的有关先例
 
在上小段所举的案例中许多都是根据原告所要求的币种作出判决。例如在The “Dione” (1980) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 577,船东作为原告向承租人提出索赔。承租人认为币种应该是阿根廷比索(pesos),这对承租人有利因为在有关的期间比索大幅度贬值。但船东是要求美元作为币种,虽然美元也并非是他的本土货币(原告是希腊船东)。理由是起初的损失(阿根廷小工的超时工资)船东是以美元购买比索去作出支付。结果是法院支持原告船东的请求。
 
另在The “Federal Huron” (1985) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 189,案情涉及了一批大豆的C&F买卖,在法国卸港被发现货损,这导致收货人(是一家法国公司)向船东提出索赔。原告收货人是要求以美元作为币种去计算损失,因为这是他买卖大豆业务所结算的货币。但船东认为法国法郎才是收货人真正感觉到的损失币种。其间,美元对法国法郎升值,所以带来了争议。Bingham大法官支持原告收货人的请求,说:“I conclude that the cargo receivers’ main claim for damage to the cargo can only be fairly expressed in dollars. They had paid dollars to buy the cargo. I have no reason to suppose that they sold francs to finance this payment, although they may have done so. But the evidence is overwhelming that the cargo receivers treated soya beans as a dollar commodity. In purchases of raw beans the dollar was always the money of account. ”
 
在另去介绍的是Virani Ltd v Manuel Revert y Cia SA (2004) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 14, 案情涉及了一个买卖合约的违约索赔。原告卖方是一家英国公司,而被告是一家西班牙公司,双方的合约是以西班牙比塞塔(pesetas)结算(买卖的布料是285 比塞塔一米)。原告提供证据说明他是以美元作为营运的币种,包括这批布料是向巴基斯坦购买后转售给被告,支付的是美元。但被告认为西班牙比塞塔才是最能代表原告感觉到的损失的币种,毕竟这也是合约结算的币种。但法院支持原告,认为双方订约的时候应该料想到在国际贸易中美元才是有最紧密与真正的关联,其中上诉庭Ward大法官说:
 
“The Judge’s finding that the defendant company would in all probability know that anyone who ventured into the Pakistan market would be dealing in dollars and not in rupees in a conclusion which cannot be challenged and, to be fair to Mr. Pickering (被告代表大律师), he did not seek to challenge that party of the judgment. It is then a matter of inference from that finding of fact as to whether it was reasonably within the contemplation of the parties that this international trader would have protected itself by ventures into the exchange market to buy forward and protect against fluctuating exchange currencies.
 
The fact is that the defendant is a large dealer in this cloth and is as familiar as the claimant with the vagaries of exchange rates rising and falling. It must be within the reasonable contemplation of anyone engaged in foreign transactions to expect that steps will be taken to protect the &#118alue of the particular transaction by covering it in the way the claimant did. It thus seems to me to be an irresistible inference that it was within the contemplation of the parties that dollars would be the currency which most closely and truly would express any loss suffered by the seller if the buyer did not complete.”
 
可以说在这一方面少有的是对原告不利的著名先例就是The “Texaco Melbourne” (1994) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 473,但它涉及了非常特殊的事实(稍后介绍),不大可能在其他违约案件中出现,所以改变不了这一个最能代表受害人感觉到损失的币种问题对原告有利。另也有一些案例是原告在诉讼期间把原来索赔的币种作出修改,看来也会带来一定程度的不良影响:The “Transoceanica Francesca” and “Nicos V” (1987) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 155; Barings plc v Coopers & Lybrand (2003) EWHC 2371 (Ch)。
 
8.6  其他有关原告感觉到损失币种的先例介绍
 
首先介绍的是Ozalid Group (Export) Ltd v African Continental Bank先例,它是在The “Folias”先例之后4个月作出决定,判是原告正常营运的币种(normal operating currency)就是判决所采用的币种。但在另一个先例Metallhandel JA Magnus BV v Ardfields Transport Ltd,虽然原告是要求以正常营业币种作为损失的计算,但也没有被法院接受。Gatehouse大法官是这样说:“The questions then seem to be, as far as I can see, first, in what currency will an award of damages ‘most truly express the plaintiffs loss?’ and, secondly, whether the parties must be taken reasonably to have had such other currency in contemplation.
 
The fact that a foreign plaintiff will necessarily have his bank accounts in, keep his financial books in, and fund his purchases of other currencies from the currency of his own country cannot automatically result in an award of damages in our Courts in that currency. It must depend on the particular circumstances of the case.
 
The facts in The “Folias” which led the House of Lords to decide that French francs, not Brazilian cruzeiros, still less US dollars (which was the currency of the charter-party), was the appropriate currency for the award in that case are set out in particular at pp.8 and 430e-g. They are very different, of course, from the facts here, which are essentially simple.
 
In my judgment, the parties to this contract cannot be said to have had in contemplation that damages payable by the first defendants to the plaintiffs, if damage or loss of the goods should occur for which they were responsible, should be measured in guilders. I accordingly make an award in sterling…”
 
在Barings plc v Coopers & Lybrand (2003) EWHC 2371 (Ch),案情涉及了著名的金融事件导致了百年老店的霸菱银行倒闭。起因在1995年2月因新加坡霸菱期货公司的总裁兼首席交易员尼克李森(Nick Lesson)预期经济萧条已久的日本股市将自谷底反弹,便于1994年期陆续持有高达4万个新加坡国际金融交易所(SIMEX)即大阪证券交易所(OSE)的日经指数期货契约的多头部位(投资人手上持有金融商品[股票、债券等]称为多头部位。此意味投资人看好商品未来行情[上涨],因此会在市场建立多头部位[购买金融商品]),以及日本长期公债(JGB)与欧洲日元期货契约。但日本经济却因遭逢阪神大地震及金融机构超贷倒闭事件而继续疲惫不振,终于在一年内暴跌近4,000点。该事件爆发后,当天日经下跌1,000点,激发了机构法人的停损性卖盘,而日经更是一蹶不振。这个案例涉及了新加坡霸菱期货公司起诉他的会计师索赔金额庞大的损失,理由是会计师应该在更早的时间可以觉察到尼克李森这种没有授权与危险的交易,可以新加坡霸菱期货公司及时采取保障措施。显然,新加坡霸菱期货公司去做出的损失支付是日元,所以在原来的索赔请求中的损失币种也是日元。但在诉讼期间日元下挫,这导致了原告申请修改索赔请求为新加坡元。理由是新加坡霸菱期货公司是一家新加坡的公司,所有正常营运的币种是新加坡元,包括支付员工的工资以及目前在清盘的币种。但法院判决以日元为准,这看来与下一个介绍的先例The “Texaco Melbourne” (1994) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 473也有一点不一致。
 
8.7  对原告不利的贵族院先例:The “Texaco Melbourne”
 
现在跳过去介绍另一个针对这方面的非常重要的贵族院先例,就是The “Texaco Melbourne” (1994) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 473。案情涉及了原告(加纳共和国政府)买了一船燃油,由被告拥有的Texaco Melbourne轮来承运。该批燃油准备从加纳一个港口的炼油厂运到加纳另一个卸港后分批转售给其他的油公司。但这批燃油并没有最终运到该卸港,这导致了加纳政府向船东提出索赔。这方面的责任是明确的,唯一涉及的就是损失的计算。特别是,到底计算的币种是以美元或者以加纳的塞地(cedis)。在有关期间(1982年的违约到1991年的审理,长达9年),塞地的币值有了灾难性的下跌。在1982年违约发生的时候,汇率为2.75塞地折合1美元,加纳政府的损失就高达2,886,178美元。但到了审理的一天,根据塞地兑美元的汇率,得出的美元金额只是21,165美元。所以,加纳政府希望是以Breach Date Rule来计算它的损失,但被告船东显然希望以Payment-Date Rule。加纳政府的索赔请求是美元,这显然不是原告的本土货币(home currency)或正常营运币种,而在该案例唯一扯得上美元关系的就是如果要去为该批燃油在市场上购买一批替代燃油,最近与最可能的市场是在意大利,支付的价格必须是以美元。而被告的抗辩是指加纳的塞地才是原告感觉到的损失(loss felt by the plaintiff)。结果在该案例,大法官之间也有不同的看法。在高院的第一审,Webster大法官判决以美元为准。到了上诉庭,以多数意见把该判决推翻,但其中的Hirst大法官持相反意见。最后到了贵族院,以一致的意见支持上诉庭的判决。换言之,加纳政府只能取回21,165美元的损失,这笔钱恐怕远不足以支付自己与对方的律师费。
 
在该先例中,Goff勋爵去把这一方面的法律演变作出简单的介绍,这里去节录如下:
 
“Before the decision of your Lordships’ House in Miliangos v. George Frank, (Textiles) Ltd., (1976) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 201, it was accepted that a money judgment could in this country only be expressed in sterling. It followed that if, for example, an action was brought in this country to recover a debt which was expressed to be in a foreign currency, the amount of the debt in that currency had to be converted into sterling as at the date when it fell due, and judgment was then entered in the sterling sum so ascertained (see In re United Railways of Havana and Regla Warehouses Ltd., (1961) A.C. 1007). Likewise as award of damages had to be assessed in sterling as at the date of breach, so the judgment could be entered in sterling. This became known as the breach date conversion rule. However, as currencies began to float in the middle of this century, sterling itself began to depreciate against other important currencies, notably against the U.S. dollar. In the result, not only did parties (notably those engaged in shipping) tend to contract with reference to the U.S. dollar instead of the pound sterling, but it also began to be perceived, by arbitrators and lawyers practicing on the City of London, that the effect of the breach date conversion rule was to render the English jurisdiction increasingly unattractive to businessmen. In consequence, arbitrators responded by making their awards in foreign currencies, a practice which was upheld by the Court of Appeal (see Jugoslavenska Oceanska Plovidba v. Castle Investment Co. Inc., (1973) 2 Lloyd’s Rep.1); and in the end, as is well known, in the Miliangos case (1976) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 201, this House decided to depart from the Havana Railways case (1961) A.C. 1007, and to hold that it was open to an English Court to give judgment for a sum of money expressed in a foreign currency fell to be identified. Appeals in two cases, one concerned with damages in tort (Owners of M.V. Eleftherotria v. Owners of M.V. Despina R. [The “Despina R.”]) and one with damages in contract (Services Europe Atlantique Sud (SEAS) of Paris v. Stockholms Rederiaktiebolag Svea of Stockholm [The “Folias”]), were heard together by your Lordships’ House (1979) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1. It is the second of these cases which is most relevant to the problem facing your Lordships in the present appeal. In that case, Lord Wilberforce expressed the applicable principles as follows. First, it is necessary to ascertain whether there is an intention, to be derived from the terms of the contract that damages for breach of contract should be awarded in any particular currency or currencies. In the absence of any such intention, ‘the damage should be calculated in the currency in which the loss was felt by the plaintiff or’ (adopting the words of Lord Denning, M.R. in the Court of Appeal (1978) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 535) ‘which most truly expresses his loss’. The application of that principle in The “Folias” itself is revealing, and indeed is of considerable relevance to the present case. The claim in that case arose under a charterparty, under which Swedish shipowners chartered their vessel to French charterers for a round voyage from the Mediterranean to the East Coast of South America. The charterers shipped a cargo of onions at Valencia in Spain for carriage to Brazilian ports, and issued bills of lading in respect of the shipment. The cargo was delivered damaged in Brazil, and the charterers settled with the Brazilian receivers; claim in Brazilian cruzeiros, which they purchased with French francs, the currency in which they carried on their business. They then claimed to be indemnified by the shipowners under the terms of the charter-party, their claim taking the form of one for damages for breach of contract. The Judge at first instance (myself) held, reversing the arbitrators, that cruzeiros were the appropriate currency for the award of damages to the charterers. In so holding, I was influenced by previous authority (The Canadian Transport, (1932) 47 Lloyd’s Rep. 409), and by practical difficulties involved in identifying a currency, other than the currency in which the charterers’ liability to the receivers was in fact discharged. My decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal, whose decision was in turn affirmed by your Lordships’ House. It is instructive for present purposes to refer to the reasoning which led Lord Wilberforce to reach this conclusion. He said:
 
‘The essential question is what was the loss suffered by the respondents. I do not find this to be identical with that suffered by the cargo receivers: the charterers’ claim against the owners is not one for indemnity in respect of expenditure sustained but is one for damages for breach of contract … I think it must follow from this that their loss, which they claim as damages, was the discharge of the receivers’ claim, together with the legal and other expenses they incurred. They discharged all these by providing francs to meet the receivers’ claim they suffered no loss. Then secondly was this loss the kind of loss which under the contract, they were entitled to recover against the owners? The answer to this is provided by the arbitrators’ finding that it was reasonable to contemplate that the charterers, being a French francs to purchase other currencies to settle cargo claims arising under the bills of lading. So in my opinion the charterers; recoverable loss was, according to normal principle, the sum of French francs which they paid.’
 
I turn to the facts of the present case. There are a number of facts which point to the Ghanaian cedi as the currency in which the department felt its loss. First of all, the currency in which the department carried on business within the Ghana was at the material time the cedi. Consistently with this, the department’s bank accounts were maintained in cedis, as were its books and accounts. In particular, had the cargo been delivered by the shipowners at Takoradi(加纳卸港), the department could and would have sold it on the market there to Ghanaian companies, and would have recovered payment in cedis. Second, by virtue of Ghana’s stringent exchange control legislation, no person other than the Bank of Ghana (a separate entity with its own legal personality, distinct from the State of Ghana and its government departments, including the department) was or is permitted to receive or own foreign currency. Accordingly, when the department wanted purchase crude oil from overseas for use in the refining process at its refinery, the bank would provide the necessary foreign currency for this purpose, debiting the department’s account (or the account of its buying agents) with the amount in cedis equivalent to the sum in foreign currency required, and itself paying the foreign currency to the seller out of its own foreign currency holdings. Likewise, in the absence of a right of set-off, the bank would provide the foreign exchange for the payment of freight in foreign currency. This procedure did not, however, apply to the fuel oil in the present case, which was the product of the department’s own refinery, and was being supplied to Ghanaian companies. This sale was, as is usually the case in such circumstances, being carried out in the domestic currency in question, here the cedi.
 
It was these circumstances (with others) which persuaded Mr. Justice Webster (1992) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 303 to reach the conclusion “without much hesitation” that, when the shipowners failed to deliver the cargo at Takoradi, the department felt its loss in cedis. Prima facie, in my opinion, it is impossible to fault that conclusion. ”
 
这一个先例看来是对原告不利,但正如已经提到过,原因是它涉及了非常特殊的事实,不大可能在其他的案件中会出现。该批燃油是从加纳一个港口的炼油厂提炼后再以Texaco Melbourne轮运去加纳另一个卸港,然后分批转售给其他的加纳油公司。换言之,所以涉及的币种只有加纳cedis,与美元(或任何其他币种)是一点关系都没有。至于加纳政府争辩说最近的市场是在意大利,购买替代燃油需要是以美元作出支付,这已经被高院认定是当时在加纳卸港没有一个可供买卖的市场。至于去意大利市场,则被视为是不现实,而加纳政府也的确没有去这样做,否则至少可以争辩“马上面对的损失的币种”(Immediate Loss Currency)是美元。另一个重要的事实就是原告由于加纳的外汇管制根本不持有或者不能持有美元。所以在该先例是没有办法与美元扯得上任何关系,可以让原告争辩美元才是他感觉到的损失。显然,如果这批燃油是来自外国,好像在Virani Ltd v Manuel Revert y Cia SA (2004) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 14先例的布料是原告从巴基斯坦以美元购买,这一个重要的先例结果就会不一样了。光是看结果,该先例的确是得出对原告受害人很不公平的判决,这方面可去节录在Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly (1994) p.314, 《The Currency of Damages in Contract》一文中所说“Surely it is not a satisfactory outcome of a dispute under English law that a party who is entitled to compensation for the loss of valuable goods which he was about to sell should, over 10 years after that loss, be awarded a sum which (even including interest) then had a purchasing power of about 2% of the purchasing power he would have obtained 10 years earlier if he had not been deprived of his goods.”
 
9  总结英国法律对损失计算的币种
 
目前英国法律对损失计算的币种是可以去总结如下:
 
(一)损失可以根据任何外国的币种,败诉的被告是可以以被认定的外国币种作出支付,或者根据支付当天的英镑汇率来以英镑支付。
 
(二)如果有关的合约默示或者明示表达了双方的订约意图是损失以某一种币种去做出支付,就必须以该种货币为准。这种约定会是针对所有的损失或是个别的损失,例如在买卖合约或租约中就经常对船舶的延误会同意以美元作为币种的议定损失,也就是“滞期费”。一般合约都会有针对结算的币种(money of account),但也会有针对支付的币种(money of payment)。通常这两种币种都会是一样的,例如在租约内,有条文约定租金是美元,另有条文约定支付是去针对船东某一个银行帐号。这两种不同的约定或条文可以节录Denning勋爵在Woodhouse A.C. Israel Cocoa Ltd. S.A. v Nigerian Produce Marketing Co. Ltd (1971) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 25说:“The money of account is currently in which an obligation is measured. It tells the debtor how much he has to pay. The money of payment is the currency in which the obligation has to be discharged. It tells the debtor by what means he has to pay”。但如果这两种币种是不一样的,就会带来不稳定,这在The “Agenor” (1985)1 Lloyd’s Rep. 155案例中出现。案情涉及了很大的一笔滞期费,到底是应该以美元支付还是英镑支付。租约的条文第9条针对滞期费率是以美元为准,但另一条文第30条针对运费的支付是以英镑为准。还有第40条去约定汇率是根据提单的一天为准,并有依据说:“Demurrage/Despatch and any other payments, under this Charter Party shall also be made in British External Sterling”。换言之,针对滞期费结算的币种是美元,但针对支付滞期费的币种是英镑。高院的Staughton大法官不同意裁决书的决定,判以英镑为准,原因是:“as a general rule the judgment of award should be in the money of account but a different solution was appropriate where the contract provided, as it did here, an agreed exchange rate between the money of account and the money of payment; in such cases the judgment or ward should prima facie be in the money of payment; that was what the creditor had lost if payment had not been made; that was what the debtor might have tendered and the creditor would have been bound to accept at any time at least up to the commencement of proceedings; and there was no suggestion or finding in the award which would displace that prima facie rule here”
 
       Staughton大法官也另去提到如果以原告船东感觉到损失的币种而言,也应该是英镑。
 
(三)如果找不出在合约中有这方面的订约意图(通常合约只会有结算币种,没有去针对支付损失的币种),下一步去看哪一种币种最能代表原告所感觉到的损失(Loss Felt Currency)。这里会有三种可能的币种:第一就是合约结算的币种(Currency of the Contract);第二是原告的币种, 也就是他在营运中使用的币种(Plaintiffs’/Claimants’ Currency);第三是真正支出的币种,这也是在发生损失时马上会面对的币种,例如损坏后在韩国修理要支付韩元或中国大陆修理要支付人民币(Expenditure Currency)。这第三个币种也可以当作是“马上面对的损失的币种”(Immediate Loss Currency)。
 
10   Miliangos先例对其他方面的适用或影响
 
以上已经详细介绍了Miliangos v Frank (Textiles) (1976) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 201先例在违约方面以及侵权方面的适用,在其他方面该先例也有很大程度但不完全是一致的影响,可以简单去做出介绍。
 
10.1        复原(Restitution)
 
针对复原,在BP Exploration Co v Hunt (No 2) (1979) 1 WLR 783 QB也明确了Breach Date Rule被摒弃,但针对复原的案件,主要的问题不是原告的损失而是被告的不当得利。所以针对的币种,并非是Miliangos先例的原告感受到损失的币种(loss felt currency),而是被告感受到得利的币种(the money in which the defendant felt its gain)。这方面比较近期的先例还有Gloyne v Richardson (2002) EWCA Civ 166 (CA); Papamichael v National Westminster Bank plc (2003) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 341 (QB); Niru Battery Manufacturing Co v Milestone Trading Ltd (No 2) (2004) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 319。
 
10.2  破产(Insolvency)
 
针对破产,Breach Date Rule也是被明确摒弃了,但也并非是去依从Miliangos v Frank (Textiles) (1976) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 201先例的Payment Date Rule。这是因为破产要面对许多债权人,要去对破产人的资产平均分摊。这些债权人的债权可能是有许多不同的币种,去追究他们所感觉到损失的币种也会是太过复杂。所以在re Lines Bros Ltd (1983) Ch D 1 (CA),认为只应该有一个汇率兑换的日期针对所有的债权人,即正式开始清盘的一天。这方面也有立法针对,在《Insolvency Act 1986》, c 45, s 322与《Insolvency Rules 1986》, r 4.91 and r 6.111。
 
11  汇率损失的索赔
 
与违约损失计算的币种有一定程度关系的是汇率损失的索赔(damage for currency loss),这种争议会是原告指称被告违约,如延误做出支付,导致他没有及时去把支付的币种兑换为另一种在升值的币种而蒙受损失。这种索赔案件也曾经与Miliangos v Frank (Textiles) (1976) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 201先例扯上关系。第一个要介绍的先例是Ozalid Group (Export) Ltd v African Continental Bank (1979) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 231,涉及了原告英国公司以C&F出售一批机器给被告尼日利亚公司,但后者延误支付货款。原告在事后提出汇率损失的索赔,声称如果他能够及时收到美元货款,他就会按照当时的外汇规定去兑换为英镑。但由于被告延误支付9个星期,而其间英镑兑美元的汇率上升,令原告蒙受损失。表明看来这不像是Miliangos先例的案件类别,因为欠下的货款已经作出支付,不需要考虑哪一种是最能代表原告感受到损失的币种。但在该先例,Donaldson大法官还是去大篇幅与Miliangos先例扯上了关系,说:“The law on claims which involve foreign currencies was revolutionized by the decision of the House of Lords in Miliangos v Frank (Textiles) (1976) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 201. Previously the law had been that all claims had to be made in sterling, any necessary conversion into sterling being made at the rate of exchange prevailing at the date of breach of contract or duty…These cases decide that it is for the plaintiff to select the currency in which to make his claim and it is for him to prove that an award or judgment in that currency will most truly express his loss and accordingly most fully and exactly compensate him for that loss…Notwithstanding that in the present case the price of the goods was agreed to be paid in US dollars, it is clear that the plaintiffs’ loss was incurred in sterling and that this was foreseeable by the defendants.”
 
结果是Donaldson判原告索赔汇率损失胜诉,说:“Once it is proved that the plaintiff’s true loss is to be measured in sterling, any payment made on account in a different currency falls to be credited against that sterling loss at the rate of exchange ruling at the date of payment.”
 
看来这一判决的理由是因为法律在Miliangos先例与The “Despina R” and “Folias” (1979) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1先例有了发展,所以在原告感觉到的损失币种为英镑的前提下成功索赔汇率损失。
 
接下来的是International Minerals & Chemical Corp v Karl O Helm AG (1986) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 81先例,案情涉及了原告美国公司把一家在卢森堡的子公司出售给被告,合约约定的币种为比利时法郎。诉讼涉及了原告对延误支付的索赔,这被高院判是胜诉并命令被告以法郎作出支付。但原告另有一项额外的索赔,就是在其间美元上涨,如果被告准时支付的话原告会马上把法郎转换为美元,但延误支付就导致了汇率损失。原告也指称被告是知道他会是这样做的,这表示在订约时被告是可以预料到会有这种损失类别的。在这一先例中,Hobhouse大法官不是以Miliangos先例与The “Despina R” and “Folias”先例作为理由,而是去根据损失遥远性(remoteness)的Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex. 341先例,说:
 
“…the late payment of money…is justified by the fact that the usual loss is an interest loss and that compensation for this has been provided for and limited by statute. It follows that a plaintiff, where he is seeing to recover damages for the late payment of money, must prove not only that he has suffered the alleged additional special loss and that it was caused by the defendant’s default, but also that the defendant had knowledge of the facts or circumstances which make such a loss a not unlikely consequence of such a default. In the eyes of the law, those facts or circumstances are deemed to be special, whether in truth they are or not, and knowledge of them must be proved. Where, as in the present case, the relevant facts or circumstances are commonplace, the burden of proof will be easy to discharge and the Courts may well be willing to draw inferences of knowledge; in other case, there may be a question which would, in any event, have had to be dealt with under the second rule in Hadley v Baxendale, and then the burden of proof will be more significant. I do not see it as any objection to the recovery of the damages claimed in the present case that in very many other international transactions similar damages would be recoverable in the event of default.”
 
接下去的贵族院先例The “Lips” (1987) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 311与International Minerals & Chemical Corp v Karl O Helm AG先例的判法一致,没有去与Miliangos先例与The “Despina R” and “Folias”先例扯在一起。值得一提的是在上诉庭,Neill大法官说要根据Hadley v Baxendale的第二条损失规定去针对这一问题。这表示要成功索赔,原告必须证明在订约前有通知被告而且被告知道会有这种损失。另在诉讼或仲裁的时候,也必须在文书的索赔请求中特别提出。
 
而最后针对这方面的先例是Travelers Casualty and Surety Co of Canada v Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada (UK) (2006) EWHC 2716,案情涉及了再保险人延误赔付给原告的受保人。延误直到作出判决其间美元(赔付的币种)兑换英镑(受保人的币种)从弱变强,导致了汇率损失高达5,000,000美元。
 
12  Miliangos先例对其他国家或地区的影响
 
英国Miliangos v Frank (Textiles) (1976) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 201的先例对其他普通法国家或地区都带来深远的影响,因为只要诉讼涉及这些国家的外国币种,就难免要涉及这一个问题。在受英国法律影响的国家,包括美国,普遍认同Miliangos的先例,认为英国贵族院能够去摆脱以前Breach Date Rule针对损失兑换的时间是一种进步与现实的做法。但许多国家接下去的发展都有了一定的差异,导致了今天还是在这一方面并不稳定。这显然不是一件好事,特别是针对国家法院的诉讼,会多了一个因素或考虑需要去进行“择地行诉”(forum shopping)。以下去简单介绍一些笔者看来是与中国大陆关系更密切的普通法国家与地区在这个问题的法律。
 
12.1 香港地区
 
香港地区一直以来都是紧密地跟从英国的法律,这包括在损失的计算一直是根据“Forum-Currency Rule与Breach Date Rule”。到英国贵族院判决了Miliangos v Frank (Textiles) (1976) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 201先例后,第一个先例并没有去依照。这一个先例是地方法院的判例Stibbe (Burtotex) Ltd v Bayman (1975) unreported DCCJ005215/1976 (DC HK),认为Miliangos先例是涉及了英镑,而英镑在不断的贬值,所以该先例与港币是没有关系的,Breach Date Rule并没有对原告有任何不利的影响,所以可以不必理会该贵族院的先例。看来,这样去区别Miliangos 先例的不同事实有一点奇怪,也没有掌握到该重要先例所带来的重大改变。
 
但接下去的先例就很快紧跟了英国法院的判决,毕竟香港在殖民地的时期最高上诉的法院是英国枢密院,大法官是与贵族院同一批的人,所以香港法院应该是去跟从。而第一个去跟从The “Despina R” and “Folias” (1979) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1的香港先例就是Sabah Shipbuilding, Repairing & Engineering Sdn Bhd v Houston Engineering and Equipment Ltd (1978) HCA001810/1976 (CFI HK)。在该先例中香港法院认为选择哪一个币种是非常难于决定的事情(an extremely difficult matter to decide)。最后香港法院决定以有关合约支付或结算的币种为准,而不是根据原告认为是“最自然与恰当的币种”(natural and proper currency)。
 
接下去紧跟了英国法律去作出同样有关币种的案件有Balasing Guring v Ng Lay (1986) unreported HCA004587/1985 (HC HK); Chak Kak v Pacrim International Capital Inc (2008) unreported CACV 366/2007 (CA HK)。另也有香港的判例是有关的利息,也是以判决的币种利率为准:Fargo Shipping Co v Hwa Haur Trading (Hong Kong) Co (1976) unreported HCA0011959/1978 (HC HK)。此外香港高院的程序也特别有了这方面特定的《执行指引》(Practice Direction),好像英国法院的做法,去针对外国币种的判决:Practice Direction of the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the Peoples Republic of China, PD 162。而有关的命令是以这样的措辞:“It is adjudged that the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff (state the sum in foreign currency for which Judgment has been order) or the Hong Kong dollar equivalent at the time of payment”。
 
12.2 新加坡
 
新加坡与香港的情况有一点一致,就是在Miliangos v Frank (Textiles) (1976) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 201先例作出之后的14年,新加坡法院的判决最后是可以上诉去英国枢密院。所以,新加坡法院紧跟Miliangos先例的判决是可以预料到的。这些案例有:Sarathi Co v The Vishva Pratibha (1980) 2 MLJ 265 (High Ct Sing); Ooi Han Sun v Bee Han Meng (1991 SLR 824), (1991) 3 MLJ 219 (High Ct); Tatung Electronics (S) Pte Ltd v Binatone International Ltd (1991) 1 SLR 204, (1991) 3 MLJ 212 (CA); Wardley Ltd v Tunku Adnan (1991) 1 SLR 721 (HC) 724; Indo Commercial Society (Pte) Ltd v Ebrahim (1992) 2 SLR 1041, (1992) SGHC 230 (HC); Chinsim Trading (Pte) Ltd v Indian Bank (1993) 2 SLR 144 (HC) 153-54; Thai Kenaf Co v Keck Seng (1993) 2 SLR 92 (HC);TKM (Singapore) Pre Ltd v Export Credit Insurance Corp of Singapore (1993) 1 SLR1041 (High Ct Sing), aff’d (1994) 2 SLR 137 (CA); Re Mohamed Yunus Valibhoy, ex p Bank of Credit and Commerce Hong Kong (1995) 1 SLR 601等。
 
其中去稍作介绍的是Wardley Ltd v Tunku Adnan先例,新加坡高院跟从Miliangos 先例的判决去作出瑞士法郎的判决。法院认同Breach Date Rule并不现实,因为在现代的世界,兑换每天甚至每个小时都有很大的波动。此外,也判利息也是根据瑞士法郎的利率为准。
 
另在Sarathi Co v The Vishva Pratibha先例中,它是Miliangos先例判决4年后作出的。该先例重要的地方就是认同去找出原告感觉到的损失的币种,并非是让原告得利,让他去选择,而是强制性的。该先例,根据新的Payment-Date Rule,在该先例事实上是相比Breach Date Rule对原告不利,但法院认为还是要强制使用,原告不能在这一问题上输打赢要。在12年后,在Indo Commercial Society (Pte) Ltd v Ebrahim先例也作出了同样的判决,并引申了Wilberforce勋爵在Miliangos先例所说:“(creditor) has no concern with pounds sterling; for him what matters is that a Swiss franc for good or ill should remain a Swiss franc.” 去作出判决说:“that some plaintiffs may suffer loss from the strict application of Miliangos should not be allowed to detract from its logic”。
 
新加坡法院在双方并没有对损失与判决的币种作出争辩的情况下,也会去以法院认为是恰当的外国币种作出判决,这是在Chinsim Trading (Pte) Ltd v Indian Bank的先例,案情是有关一个美元的信用证,法院这样说:“the parties focused their energies on the issues of liability and left the issue of the proper currency and sum of claim unaddressed. I will not go into the issue beyond referring to the House of Lords decision in Miliangos v Frank (Textiles) Ltd … and say that the proper currency for this judgment should be the American currency”。同样的判决也出现在Thai Kenaf Co v Keck Seng。
 
可以总结说,新加坡在这一个问题上的法律地位是基本上与英国一致。
 
12.3  马来西亚
 
马来西亚在Miliangos v Frank (Textiles) (1976) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 201先例前是强制性使用Forum Currency Rule与Breach Date Rule:Overseas Chinese Banking Corp v Firm of Yaik Joo Ann (1936) MLF 88 (HC)。在Miliangos先例后,马来西亚法院很快就全面接受。在Den Norske Bank Asa v Owners of the Ship “Forum Alaska” (1998) MLJU 55 (High Ct [Johor Bahru]),法院提到Miliangos先例并说马来西亚法院一定要勇敢去作出外国币种的判决,如下:
 
“The realization that currency stability is a thing of the past prompted the English Court of appeal and the House of Lords to change the English jurisprudence as early as 1975. We in Malaysia must not be left behind…
 
The English judges were bold enough to hold that if an amount due under a contract was in a foreign currency, the courts have the power to give judgment in that foreign currency. In Malaysia the time has come to be progressive and pragmatic in thought and action. Malaysian judges must be bold and be brave enough to hand out judgments in foreign currencies.”
 
另在Owners of Cargo Carried in the Ship Gang Chen v The ship Gang Chen (1998) 6 MLF 492案例中,原来的审理双方都没有针对损失计算币种的问题。但到了要求作出判决命令之前,马来西亚令吉(ringgit)币值严重下挫,这导致原告回去法院要求把判决改变为美元。法院根据Miliangos先例与The “Despina R” and “Folias” (1979) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1先例,把判决改为美元,并认为美元才是合约结算的币种以及最能代表原告感觉到损失的币种。至于原告没有在较早的诉讼中作出请求与争辩,看来并不影响法院的做法。
 
12.4        南非
 
南非也是基本上跟随了Miliangos v Frank (Textiles) (1976) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 201先例。这里只去介绍在Miliangos先例后第一个南非最高院的案例,名为Standard Chartered Bank of Cananda v Nedpern Bank Ltd 1994 (4) SA 747 (AD)。这是一个侵权(涉及疏忽误诉)案件,最高院的多数同意Miliangos先例与The “Despina R” and “Folias” (1979) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1先例,作出了美元的判决。但值得一提的是有一个反对的声音,Harms大法官批评这一个原告感觉到损失币种的规定太不肯定,不应当去跟从,说:“I fail to see why, simply because the plaintiff is a foreign plaintiff, these basic principles(这是指按照Forum Currency Rule)do not apply and why he should be treated differently. The argument that to do otherwise would mean that the plaintiff may be denied the amount of his actual loss … misses the point – it is inherent in the law of delict and the principle of nominalism that a plaintiff may, at the end of the day, be out of pocket. In any event, any loss flowing from the depreciation of the local currency is not caused by the wrong …”
 
看来,社会科学的微妙之处就在于赞成与反对的意见都可以找到自己的看法与理由。但是本案中Harms大法官对Miliangos先例的批评意见在其他国家法院与南非法院是绝无仅有的,这显示了Miliangos先例带来的重大改变得到了普遍认同,认为它带来的好处(对受害方的公平)还是超越了它带来的弊端(对损失计算币种的不肯定)。
 
12.5  美国
 
美国在这方面的问题起点是在1792年的《Coinage Act》,在20段时说明法院的判决必须是以美元为准,节录如下:“The money of account of the United States shall be expressed in dollars … and all accounts in the public offices and all proceedings in the courts shall be kept and had in conformity to this regulation”。
 
至于在美元以外的外国币种,美国法律也是与英国Breach Date Rule一致,也就是在违约或侵权发生的一天去把外国币种的债务或者损失金额兑换为美元后去作出索赔。这在纽约上诉庭的先例Hoppe v Russo-Asiatic Bank 138 NE 497 (NYCA 1923) (Hoppe)有明确的判决,说明是不论针对合约还是侵权,不论是债务或损失,也不论当事人是否是美国人或外国人,“Forum-Currency Rule与Breach Date Rule”都适用。但美国法院把这一问题视为是实体法(substantive law),而不是程序法(procedural law),这可以从一些早期的最高院先例中显示出来。第一个先例是Guinness v Miller 299 US 71 (1925) 80,第二个先例是Deutsche Bank Filiale Nurnberg v Humphrey 272 US 517, 47 S Ct 46 (1926)与第三个先例Zimmermann v Sutherland 274 US 253 (1927)。这些先例都是涉及了美元与德国马克的兑换日期,因为其间德国在第一次世界大战后经济崩溃,马克币值下降。在第一个先例中,最高院是支持上诉庭的著名Learned Hand大法官,认为Breach Date Rule适用,也是损失兑换的日期。但后来的两个先例,却适用判决日期的兑换率(Judgment-Date Conversion),而理由是Guinness v Miller的合约适用法是美国法,但后来两个先例的合约适用法是德国法。这可以从Zimmermann v Sutherland先例的判词中其中一句显示:“The distinction between Deutche Bank and Hicks v Guinness is not … that the plaintiff in Hicks v Guinness was in the United States, but that, as the court understood the facts, the debt was payable in New York and subject to American law, so that upon a breach of the contract there arose a present liability in dollars”。
 
这种说法是与英国法律有所偏离的,毕竟在英国这个问题是被认为是程序法。这方面也可以去看“美国法律学会”(American Law Institute 或简称ALI)在1969年作出的《The Restatement of the Law Second, Conflict of Laws》(这可被称为是the Second Restatement)针对这一方面的说法。这里也不妨去简单一提有关Restatement的作用,它并非是立法,而目的只是为了去鼓励美国各级的法院,不论是联邦法院或者是地方法院,去作为参考并作出尽量统一的判决。
 
在The Second Restatement,首先是说明美国法院必须以美元作出判决:“the rule of this Section owes its existence to the fact that an Anglo-American court may only render a judgment for money damages in its own local currency”。但针对索赔的外国币种的兑换问题,在另外的段节名为“Time for Converting Foreign Currency into Local Currency”,就说明如果适用法是美国法,Breach Date Rule适用。但如果有关的诉因是适用外国法,就会是不一样,说:“§144. When in a suit for the recovery of money damages the cause of action is governed by the local law of another state, the forum will convert the currency in which recovery would have been granted in the other state into the local currency as of the date of the award”。
 
这种情况一路维持到英国贵族院的Miliangos v Frank (Textiles) (1976) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 201先例后接近10年才重新在美国成为一个热点问题。之所以隔了这段时间,是因为其间美元比起外币一路升值,所以对原告更有利,但被告对此也并不警觉,以致没有太多的人提出这一问题。直到1980年中期,美元开始对其他外币下跌,问题才再度浮现。基本上美国做出的针对可以分三个方面去探讨,以下去作出简单的介绍。
 
美国第一方面的针对可以去看1986年ALI作出的The Third Restatement,它基本上就是跟从了Miliangos先例的判决。其中在“Time for Converting Foreign Currency into Local Currency”,它再也不是像在The Second Restatement中那样,而是说:
 
Ҥ823 (1) Courts in the United States ordinarily give judgment on causes of action arising in another , state, or denominated in a foreign currency, in United States dollars, but they are not precluded from giving judgment in the currency in which the obligation is denominated or the loss was incurred.
 
(2) If, in a case arising out of a foreign currency obligation, the court gives judgment in dollars, the conversion from foreign currency to dollars is to be made at such rate as to make the creditor whole and to avoid rewarding a debtor who has delayed in carrying out the obligation”。
 
从这两条规定的文字看来,第一条文改变了Forum Currency Rule, 第二条文改变了Breach Date Rule,但实际上与Miliangos先例有区别,其中一个比较重要的区别是可以去看The Third Restatement针对第二条文的评述,如下:
 
“If the Court gives judgment in United States dollars … the date used for conversion should depend on whether the currency of obligation has appreciated or depreciated relative to the dollar. In general, if the foreign currency has depreciated since the injury or breach, judgment should be given at the rate of exchange applicable on the date of injury or breach; if the foreign currency has appreciated since the injury or breach, judgment should be given at the rate of exchange applicable on the date of judgment or the date of payment”。
 
The Third Restatement与Miliangos先例不同的地方是后者并不考虑币值升降与否,而是以原告最能感觉到损失的币种为准,至于这一个币种对原告是好是坏,就不予考虑,正如Wilberforce勋爵在Miliangos先例所说的“for good or ill”。但The Third Restatement则考虑损失发生后至判决这一段时间的币值升降情形,如果损失发生后,该币种升值,则适用Payment Date Rule。如果该币种贬值,则适用Breach Date Rule。这样规定将对原告太偏袒,也令双方当事人太晚(在最后作出判决的时候)才会知道判决结果。去依照The Third Restatement作出判决的案例有El Universal, Compania Periodistica Nacional SA de CV v Phoenician Imports, Inc 802 SW 2d 799,法院选择了Breach Date Rule,因为外国原告的本土货币(home currency)在违约与判决期间下跌。
 
美国第二方面的针对是由the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL)这一组织所草拟的立法。该组织是去针对美国各州立法的统一,而不是好像ALI那样去针对法院判决的统一。NCCUSL草拟的立法是《Uniform Foreign-Money Claims Act》,这好像是“示范法”(model law)一样,要求各州去根据其立法。其中Section 4针对“索赔的恰当币种”(proper money of the claim)说:
 
“(a) The money in which the parties to a transaction have agreed that payment is to be made is the proper money of the claim for payment.
(b) If the parties to transaction have not otherwise agreed, the proper money of the claim, as in each case may be appropriate, is the money:
(1) regularly used between the parties as a matter of usage or course of dealings;
(2) used at the time of a transaction in international trade, by trade usage or common practice, for valuing or settling transactions in the particular commodity or service involved; or
(3) in which the loss was ultimately felt or will be incurred by the party claimant”.
 
上诉的规定看来是非常接近英国的Miliangos先例。到了2009年中,美国的50个州份只有22个接受。
 
美国第三方面的针对是来自纽约州的立法。这立法虽然只针对一个州,但对国际商业合约非常重要,因为有不少合约的适用法会是规定为纽约州法律。在Miliangos先例后的10年左右,在1985年纽约律师协会作出了一份针对外国币种判决的报告,名为《Report on Foreign Currency Judgments (City Bar Report)》。内容对英国之Miliangos先例之后的发展推崇备至,其中也提到Breach Date Rule会影响纽约作为国际金融与贸易的中心(adversely affects New York’s status as a leading center of international finance and commerce)。在2年后,纽约州也立了法摒弃了Breach Date Rule:《New York State Chapter Law》(20 July 1987, Ch326)。但该立法也是与Miliangos先例及The Third Restatement有区别,例如针对转换汇率,它采用了Judgment Date Rule,说:“Such judgment or decree shall be converted into currency of the United States at the rate of exchange prevailing on the date of entry of the judgment or decree.”另也有说法是立法只针对“责任指定为外国币种”(obligation denominated in a foreign currency),这被视为是太局限,立法只适用在一些外国币种的债务与议定损失索赔。至于在其他不少类别的案件,例如侵犯商标,原告与被告之间往往就没有合约关系,更谈不上会指定一个币种了。
 
总结说,美国目前的地位是非常混乱的,特别是在兑换外国币种的日期方面。在纽约州与其他没有跟从《Uniform Foreign-Money Claims Act》立法的州份,法院还是根据普通法去针对这一方面的问题。其中有判例是按照Breach Date Rule:Gathercrest Ltd v First American Bank and Trust 805 F 2d 995 (11th Cir 1986); Middle East Banking Co v State Street Bank Int’l 821 F 2d 897 (2d Cir 1987); Gonzalez v Banco de Santander-Puerto Rico 932 F 2d 999 (1st Cir 1991); Delchi Carrier SpA v Rotorex Corp 88-CV-1078, Lexis 12820 (N D NY 1994); Reliastar Life Insurance Co v IOA Inc 303 F 3d 874 (8TH Cir 2002); Elite Entertainment Corp v Khela Brothers Entertainment Inc 396 f Supp 2d 680 (ED Virginia 2005); Ligas v IPD Sales & Marketing LLC 2007 WL 29008893 (ED Missouri 2007)。
 
也有判例是跟从The Third Restatement,在一定程度是给法院裁量权去善待原告:Nikimha Securities Ltd v The Trend Group 646 F Supp 1211 (ED Penn 1986); Nimrod Marketing (Overseas) Ltd v Texas Energy Investment Corp 769 F 2d 1076 (5th Cir 1980); Sunrise Shipping Ltd v M/V American Chemist 1999 AMC 2906 (ED Louisiana 1999 )。
 
更加有一些判例是跟从The First Restatement与The Second Restatement的法律冲突去对待:Laminoirs-Treffileries-Cableries De Lens SA v Southwire Co (ND Georgia 1980); Black Sea &Baltic General Insurance Co v Al Nisr Insurance Co 575 F Supp 685 (SDNY 1983); Cronel Watch SA v Peterson State Bank 565 F Supp (ND Ill 1983); Seguros Banvenez SA v S/S Oliver Drescher 761 F 2d 855 (2d Cir 1985); Fils et Cables D’Acier de Lens v Midland Metals Corp 584 F Supp 240 (SDNY 1984); La Societe de Diffusion Vinecole SA v Peartree Imports Inc 1984 US Dist Lexis 17891 (SD NY 1984); Ingersoll Milling Machine Co v Granger 833 F 2d 680 (7th Cir 1987) (applying Illionois law); Pecaflor Construction Inc v Landes 198 Cal App 3d 342, 243 Cal Rpt 605 (1st Dist 1988); Budejovicky Budvar NP v Czech Beer Importers Inc 2006 WL 1980308 (D Conn 2006); Levis Strauss & Co v Aetna Casualty and Surety Co 184 Cal App 3d 1479, 237 Cal Rptr 473 (Ct App Cal 1986); Sembawang Shipyard Ltd v (MD Penn 2007); Societe Civile Succession Richard Guino v Redstar Corp 153 Cal App 4th 697, 63 Cal Rptr 3d 224 (Ct App Cal 2007).
 
去统一解决这个问题,看来是要国会去立法或是最高院作出判决,但这种发展不像会很快会发生。
 
12.4  加拿大
 
加拿大的法律地位也是混乱的,原因是来自几个方面。一个重要的方面是在加拿大立国之后4年所通过的一个立法,就是1871年的《Currency Act》,其中section 12说:“all public accounts established or maintained in Canada shall be in the currency of Canada, and any reference to money or monetary &#118alue in any indictment or other legal proceedings shall be stated in the currency of Canada”。这立法显然是为了保护当时还非常脆弱的加拿大元,但显然在措辞上太过强硬。如果严格按照这条规定的文字,在加拿大法院进行的诉讼就不能在请求中提到“我丢了钱包,钱包里有10美元”这样的事实。所以在以前去按照Breach Date Rule就没有问题,因为在违约或侵权的一天就已经把外币转换为加拿大元,然后在加拿大法院的诉讼中提出。但一去跟从Miliangos v Frank (Textiles) (1976) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 201先例中的Payment Date Rule,就会违反《Currency Act》的立法,因为索赔请求显然不再会以加拿大元提出。这种案例有不少,只去先举一个较早的先例Baumgartner v Carsley Silk Co (1971) 23 DLR (3d) 225 (Que CA),在第一审是以美元做出判决,但这在上诉庭被推翻,认为是违反了《Currency Act》。但有其他州份做出美元的判例,显然是没有理会《Currency Act》:Sandy Frank Film Syndication Inc v CFQC Broadcasting Ltd (1983) 23 Sask R 241 (CA); Trans North Turbo Air Ltd v North 60 Petro Ltd (2003) YJ No 60 (SC)。更重要的是在Miliangos先例后第一个在加拿大法院判决的案例 Batavia Times Publishing Co v Davis (1978) 20 OR (2d) 437。案情是去执行一个美国法院的判决,判决显然是以美元做出。安大略省的法院表示希望按照Miliangos先例,但受到《Currency Act》的局限,说:
 
“I do not believe that the Courts of Canada are able to move to the date of effective payment as providing the rate of exchange as the English Courts have now done in cases involving circumstances similar to those outlined in Miliangos…
If I could be satisfied that there are no procedural or practical problems and that the Currency and Exchange Act either did not apply to judgments or did not prevent a judgment being given for a sum of foreign currency and its equivalent in Canadian dollars, as the English Courts are now doing, I would adopt the effective date of payment as being the date for determining the rate of exchange. Because I am not certain that there are no problems and because I assume that the Currency and Exchange Act does not permit judgments to be given as they are now being given in England, I will use the rate of exchange as prevailing at the date of the second judgment herein, the date of my judgment… ”
 
加拿大的10个州份其中有三个(Ontario, British Columbia 与 Prince Edward Island)去立法跟从Miliangos先例的Payment Date Rule, 例如在1984年安大略省的立法《Courts of Justice Act》规定:“Where a person obtains an order to enforce an obligation in a foreign currency, the order shall require payment of an amount in Canadian currency sufficient to purchase the amount of the obligation in the foreign currency at a bank in Ontario listed in Schedule I to the Bank Act (Canada) at the close of business on the first day on which the bank quotes a Canadian dollar rate for purchase of the foreign currency before the day payment of the obligation is received by the creditor.”
 
以上的措辞也显示了各州份的立法怎样去绕过《Currency Act》,因为如果两个立法有直接的冲突,联邦法律的《Currency Act》还是超越了州立法的效力。所以在措辞上是要求败诉方支付一笔加拿大元的金额足够或相等于另一笔判决的外国币种根据支付日期的汇率(The defendant shall pay the plaintiff the amount in Canadian dollars equivalent to X amount of [the relevant foreign currency] at the date the payment is eventually made)。
 
另在British Columbia州,在1996年也有这方面的立法,名为《Foreign Money Claims Act》规定说:
 
“1(1) If, before making an order for the payment of money arising out of a claim or loss, the court considers that the person in whose favour the order will be made will truly and exactly compensated if all or party of the money payable under the order is measured in a currency other than the currency of Canada, the court must order that the money payable under the order will be that amount of Canadian currency that is necessary to purchase the equivalent amount of the other currency at a chartered bank located in British Columbia at the close of business on the conversion date.
(2) The conversion date is the last day, before the day on which a payment under the order is made by the judgment debtor to the judgment creditor, that the bank referred to in subsection (1) quotes a Canadian dollar equivalent to the other currency.”
 
除了《Currency Act》以及加拿大的三个州份有自己的立法所带来的混乱外,还有的原因是加拿大法院对普通法也有不同的看法。部分法院认为还是直到早期最高院判是根据Breach Date Rule的先例(Custodian v Blucher [1927] SCR 420与Gatineau Power Co v Crown Life Insurance Co [1945] SCR 655)被最高院自己去推翻,下级法院还是受到Breach Date Rule的约束。但另有部分法院认为并没有受到约束,以前最高院的先例是可以去做出区分,因为时代已经变了。其中针对以哪一天外国币种与加元的汇率为准,就已经是每一个法院各说个的,有很大的裁量权。
 
例如是继续适用Breach Date Rule的汇率判例有:NV Bocimar SA v Century Insurance of Canada 53 NR 383; Dollina Enterprises Ltd v Wilson Haffenden (1977) 1 FC 169 (TD); Schweizeriche Metallwerke Selve & Co v Atlantic Container Line (1985) 63 NR 104 (CA); Capitol Life Insurance Co v Canada (1988) 2 CTC 101; Kruger Inc v Baltic Shipping Co (1988) 1 FC 262 (Fed Ct); Lee S Wilbur & Co v The Martha Ingraham (1989) FCJ No 427 (TD); Shibamoto & Co v Western Fish Producers Inc (1991), 48 FTR 176 (TD); Kiat v Ng (1992) 128 NBR (2d) 374 (QB)。
 
另也有判例是针对受害方对违约做出补救一天的汇率:Santa Marina Shipping Co SA v Madeg Holdings Inc (1986) 6 FTR 269(Fed Ct Can)。或是受害方原告提出诉讼一天的汇率: Airtemp Corp v Chrysler Airtemp Ltd (1981) 121 DLR (3d) 236 (Ont High Ct); Clinton v Ford (1982) 137 DLR (3rd) 281 (Ont Ct Ap); Equipments Stosik Inc v Hock Seng Lee Heavy Industries Sdn Bhd (2007) QCCA 1531; Armetc Ltd v Canada Export Development Corp(2007)QCCA 99。或是被告作出抗辩一天的汇率:Promech Sorting Systems BV v Branco Rentals& Leasing Ltd (1994) 93 Man R (2d) 36 (QB)。或是开庭的一天的汇率部分案例:Ripulone v Pontecorvo (1989), 98 NBR (2d) 267 (QB), var’d 104 NBR (2d) 56 (CA)。或是判决一天的汇率:Alliedsignal Inc v Dupont Canada Inc (1999) FCJ No 38, 86 Carswells Practice Cases (3d) 324 (Fed Ct App); PLB Holdings v Gehring 2002 ABQB 594, 322 AR 205 (QB); Proctor v Schellenberg 2002 MBQB 135, aff’d without reference to this point, 2002 MBCA 170, 30 CPC (5th) 89 (Man Ct App); PLB holdings Corp v Gehring, 2002 ABQB 594, 322 AR 205 (Alta QB); Lloyd’s v Berezowski 2006 AMQM 625, 63 Alta L R (4th ) 169 (QB)。或是根据判决的一个指定日期(如判决后3个月内做出支付):Skaggs Companies Inc v Mega Technical Holdings Inc (2001) 1 WWR 359 (Alta QB)。或是做出支付一天的汇率:Ferris v Welsh (1985) BCJ No 128 (Co Ct) (QL)。更或是判有不同的币种与汇率:Grex SA v Canadian Dairy Commission (1984) 24 BLR 206 (Fed Ct); McCutcheon v McCutcheon (1989) 102 NBR 271 (QB); Reading and Bates Construction Co v Baker Energy Resources (1995) 1 FC 483 (CA) 506。
 
还有其他类似加拿大情况的英联邦国家,包括澳大利亚与新西兰,但此处不去多讲。
 
13  国际性和地区性的公约或规定
 
接下去是简单介绍有部分国际公约及地区性规定或协议(不论是否生效)已经有条文去片面针对兑换币种日期的问题。第一个是《华沙公约》(1929年Warsaw Convention as amended at The Hague in 1955),它针对责任限制(金额是以SDR的一揽子货币),是要求根据Judgment Date Rule去兑换为诉讼地点法院的币种。这是在Article 22 (6)说:“The sums mentioned in terms of the Special Drawing Right in this Article shall be deemed to refer to the Special Drawing Right as defined by the International Monetary Fund. Conversion of the sums into national currencies shall, in case of judicial proceedings, be made according to the &#118alue of such currencies in terms of the Special Drawing Right at the date of judgment.”同样的规定也出现在针对船舶碰撞的责任限制公约。
 
另在一个尚未生效(也不像是会有足够国家承认去令它生效)的《Convention on International Bills of Exchange and International Promissory Notes》(1989)中,有一些条文针对本章所讲的一些问题。其中在Article 75 (4),说明不排除汇率损失的索赔:“Nothing in this Article prevents a court from awarding damages for loss caused to the holder by reason of fluctuation in rates of exchange if such loss is caused by dishonor for non-acceptance or by non-payment.” 更重要的是Article 75 (3) (d),它说明原告受害方有权针对损失币种兑换的日期去选择Breach Date Rule或Payment-Date Rule:If such an instrument is dishonored by non-payment, the amount payable is to be calculated…If no rate of exchange is indicated in the instrument, at the option of the holder, according to the rate of exchange on the date of maturity or on the date of actual payment.
 
在2004年的《UNIDROIT’s Principles of International Commercial Contracts》Article 7.4.12有一条文是说:“Damages are to be assessed either in the currency in which the monetary obligation was expressed or in the currency in which the harm was suffered, whichever is more appropriate.”
 
美国与英国曾经在1977年有一个没有生效的双边协议草案,名为《The United Kingdom-United States Convention on the Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil Matters》,这是在Miliangos v Frank (Textiles) (1976) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 201先例后一年,其中Article 17 (5)说:“Money judgments entitled to enforcement under this convention may be enforced by the court addressed either in the currency specified in the judgment or in the local currency at the buying rate in the place where and on the date when enforcement is granted…”
 
在Miliangos先例的20年前“国际法协会”(International Law Association或简称ILA)就已经预测到这方面的问题,这是在1952年的年会中所作出的报告《Report of the Forty-Fifth Conference Held at Lucerne August 31 to September 6 1952》并在1956年年会上拟定了一个国际公约草稿名为《Payment of Foreign Money Liabilities, revised Draft Convention》,它虽然没有生效,但有一些条文针对20年后Miliangos先例才解决的问题。其中在Article 6是说:“In a case of proceedings instituted to recover a sum of money expressed in a currency which is different from that of the forum, the creditor shall claim the sum of money so expressed…”
 
针对这一Article 6,该公约草稿在评论说明是英美等国家特有的问题:“Art.6 is the first of a series of provisions dealing with the peculiar difficulties arising in those cases in which proceedings become necessary. These difficulties exist mainly in the Anglo-American countries by reason of the fact that, in these countries, the plaintiff cannot claim and the Court cannot award any sum of money other than a sum of moneta fori”
 
此外,它也有两条条文针对违约至判决期间的贬值问题,要求被告去作出额外的赔偿。这是Article 4:“If the debtor does not pay at the date of maturity and if after such date the currency in which the sum of money is due depreciates in relation to the currency of the place of payment, the debtor…shall pay an additional amount equivalent to the difference between the rate of exchange at the date of maturity and the date of payment, unless the debtor shall prove that his failure to pay results from ‘force majeure’ or default of the creditor or that the creditor has not suffered any damage resulting from the delay.”
 
另一条条文更是去针对判决后直到执行期间的贬值问题,是在Article 8:“in the event of the depreciation, between the date of judgment and satisfaction of the judgment, of the currency in which the sum of money is due in relation to the currency of the forum, the provision in Article 4 shall apply and the judgment shall not preclude the creditor from pursuing the claim so arising.”
 
14  结论
 
以上所探讨的问题与中国大陆的关系显然是人民币汇率相对美元,港币甚至其他外国币种的上升。这一问题可以说是影响到商业,生活与政治的每一个层面,不限于诉讼。显然中国已经面临着许多这种问题,包括在外国法院的诉讼或要去择地行诉到外国法院去向外国公司提出索赔。以上探讨的问题恐怕都应该将这些行动考虑在内。
 
对笔者而言,就想到有不少在香港仲裁的案件(主要是一些非海事的案件),案情会涉及了多年前港商或外商在中国大陆的投资争议,金额往往不是小的数目,动不动就数以千万或上亿人民币。但短短几年来,恐怕人民币相对港币的升值幅度不低于25%至30%,而且仍然在升值。这一来在香港仲裁,如果几年前索赔的金额是以人民币或港币作为币种,其中的一方当事人(到底是原告还是被告要看不同的案件而言)就可能可以去提出人民币(或港币)不是原告“感觉到损失的币种”(loss felt currency),而这是强制性(mandatory)的。例如说港商或外商在多年前的投资是以港币在当时对人民币的兑换比率,而当时的法律地位是港商或外商根本不能够去持有人民币,所以恰当的损失币种应当是港币。或是港商作为一家香港公司,它日常营运的币种是港币。但坚持以人民币作为币种的另一方当事人会有不同的争辩,例如有关合约的结算或支付的币种是人民币。反正,只要认定了一个币种是原告感觉到损失的币种,也轮不到原告或被告去选择。由于原告感觉到损失币种的规定的不肯定与富争论性,双方都有话可以说。到目前在笔者作为仲裁员的案件还没有遇到这一方面的争辩或申请修改请求(只有一个仲裁案件曾经提出过,但没有去跟进),这可能是当事人的律师尚不警觉或金额上的差别还没有很显著去吸引这一方面的关注。

微信扫描二维码
关注伯宁律师公众号