第八章 普遍使用条文之一：不可抗力条文（force majeure

clause）

1 英国法律针对订约后情况有重大改变的不足之处

这一个条文（即 force majeure 条文）在许多尤其是比较长期的合约中出现，它主要针

对一种履约期间出现的不可以合理预见的情况有重大改变（change of circumstance）。
这是因为有了情况上的重大改变，根据英国法律是不影响合约中约定的义务，这还是
要严格/绝对去履行。除非是，这一个改变是严重到可以令合约受阻（frustration）。但英
国法律下合约受阻通常是不容易成立，因为解释十分严格。通常是以多花金钱与时间可
以解决的问题就都不会令合约受阻。笔者还清楚记得有 7、8 个案例是关于在苏伊士运河
因为埃及和以色列之间的战争而封闭时，船舶被迫要多花费大量的时间与燃油去绕道
南非的好望角而产生的争议，严重程度可以导致个别船东无法承担。但法院都拒绝去判
有关的租约或国际货物买卖合约受阻：The “Eugenia” (1963) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 381。这方面
在笔者所著的《国际商务游戏规则—英国合约法》一书第十二章有介绍，不去重复，除
了 Simon 勋爵在 National Carriers v. Panalpina (1981) A.C. 675 先例中所说：
“Frustration of a contract takes place when there supervenes an event (without default of
either party and for which the contract makes no sufficient provision) which so significantly
changes the nature (not merely the expense or onerousness) of the outstanding contractual
rights and/or obligations from what the parties could reasonably have contemplated at the
time of its execution that it would be unjust to hold them to the literal sense of its stipulations
in the new circumstances; in such case the law declares both parties to be discharged from
further performance.”。

另是 Bingham 大法官在 The “Super Servant Two” (1990) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 先例中所说：
“Since the effect of frustration is to kill the contract and discharge the parties from further
liability under it, the doctrine is not to be lightly invoke, must be kept within very narrow
limits and ought not to be extended …”。（因为合约受阻的后果是去杀死一个有效的合
约，所以这一个理论并不是轻易可去适用，并必须去局限在一个非常狭窄的范围与不
能让它去扩展。）

英国法律还有一个问题是它没有一个说法是在情况上有重大改变（不知维持多久的如
罢工或禁止出口）可去延长/延误履约的责任。正如 Gerard McMeel 教授所著的《The
Construction of Contracts—Interpretation, Implication and Rectification》一书之 22.03 段所
说如下：
“The common law did not develop a doctrine permitting temporary suspension of
performance for impediments to performance, such as strikes or export bans, whose duration
is uncertain. Furthermore the common law insists that a frustrated contract is a dead contract
…”。

与 22.17 段：“The common law did not develop any doctrine or power of suspension for
changes of circumstances which were likely to be temporary or of limited (but determinable)
duration, this is a weakness of the common law compared to other legal systems and is one of
the factors which makes necessary careful consideration of appropriate express terms,
especially in long-term contracts”。（普通法没有发展出一个理论或权利可去在暂时性的
情况改变的时候允许暂停合约的履行，这是普通法相比其他法律制度的一个弱点，并
造成了一些特别是长期的合约需要去加上明示条文针对。）

这样看来英国法律有许多令人不满意的地方，就是有了情况上的重大改变，合约要么
就是继续严格执行（否则就是违约），要么就是终止，没有中间的选择。但偏偏商业人
士更喜欢有中间选择，例如可以有一段时间去押后履行，可进一步观测情况会不会再
改变。此外，有了重大改变会被认为是 force majeure 但不足以构成合约受阻的情况也经
常有。例如是一些短暂的延误（short delay）。

这可举 Intertradex v. Lesieur (1978) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 509 为例，它涉及了一个 CIF 买卖，
货物是 800 吨的非洲马里的花生渣（Mali groundnut expeller）。 但由于在 Koulikoro 榨
油厂受到供电系统损坏的影响与火车运送花生去工厂时受到干预， 卖方只能交大约
500 吨货物。事发的时候该商品市场价格猛涨，买方向卖方索赔损失。卖方其中的一个
抗辩是去依赖买卖合约中的第 22 条的 force majeure 条文，是：“Sellers shall not be
responsible for delay in shipment of the goods or any part thereof occasioned by any…
breakdown of machinery…or any cause comprehended in the term ‘force majeure’”。英国
法院判合约受阻不成立，但根据 force majeure 条文就会成立，可见大家是两码事 。
Denning 勋爵是这样说：
“First as to frustration: I do not think the board (GAFTA 的 上 诉 仲 裁 庭 ) were right in
finding that the contracts were frustrated. The events were not sufficient to warrant any
finding of frustration. There was the breakdown of machinery at the factory. There was
difficulty getting raw material down by rail. Such events are commonplace in the world of
affairs. If a party desires to avoid such consequences, he must insert a stipulation to excuse
him…. Second as to clause 22: it gives an exemption in case of force majeure… If the
breakdown of machinery at Koulikoro had been proved to be by itself an effective cause of
the non-delivery, the notices (of force majeure) would have been good….”。

合约受阻与 force majeure 条文不一致是完全可以理解，毕竟后者是明示条文，在订约

自由下是任由双方去约定哪一些事项可包括在 force majeure 条文内。例如在 The “Super
Servant Two” (1990) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1，该合约的 force majeure 条文中一个特定的事项是
“不正常的价格与工资上涨”（abnormal increases in prices and wages）。但根据普通法，
这种以金钱可以解决的问题根本不大可能令合约受阻。

也 是 上 述 的 一 些 理 由 ， 所 以 以 英 国 法 作 为 适 用 法 的 合 约 就 经 常 去 加 上 一 条 force
majeure 条文，即使以其他适用法的合约也经常是一样做法。

2 “force majeure”一词的定义

“force majeure”一词本身是来自法国的《民法典》之 Article 1148，英文翻译是：

“There is no occasion for damages where, in consequence of force majeure or accident the
debtor has been prevented from conveying or doing that to which he was obliged or has done
what he was debarred from doing.”。

在 Matsoukis v. Priestman & Co (1915) 1 K.B. 681 先例，Bailhache 大法官在听取了大陆

法律师的专家意见后，说：“The words ‘force majeure’ are not words which we generally
find in an English contract. They are taken from the Code Napoleon and they were inserted by
this Roumanian gentleman or his advisors, who were no doubt familiar with their use on the
Continent. I have had the evidence of a Belgium lawyer as to their meaning, and he said that
the words are understood on the Continent to mean ‘causes you can not prevent and for which
you are not responsible’.”。

由于 force majeure 条文有许多不同版本，所以如果含糊的条文会是被英国法院视为太

不肯定而判是无效。这在 British Electrical and Associate Industries (Cardiff) Ltd v. Patley
Pressings Ltd (1953) 1 WLR 280 先例中，一个买卖钢材的合约中有一句说是“subject to
force majeure conditions”，这被法院判是不肯定哪一个版本而无效。

Donaldson 大 法 官 在 Thomas Borthwick (Glasgow) Ltd v. Faure Fairclough Ltd (1968) 1

Lloyd’s Rep. 16 先例中也针对“force majeure”一词的解释说：“the precise meaning of
this term, if it has one, has eluded lawyer for years.”。

但看来，今天英国法院是不会判“force majeure”一词无效，即使条文没有其他特定事
项。这可去节录《Chitty on Contracts》一书第 29 版之 14-147 段所说：
“Sometimes the actual expression ‘force majeure’ is employed. Force majeure is not a term
of art in English law, although it is well known in continental legal systems, for example that
of France. The meaning of force majeure may nevertheless be ascertained by reference.
…”。

其中一个作为依据的是可去合并国际商会对 force majeure 定义的一条标准条文。该条文

名为 Force Majeure (Exemption) Clause of the International Chamber of Commerce，可节
录如下：
“(1) that the failure was due to an impediment beyond his control ( 无法履约是由于一个他
无法控制的障碍); and
(2) that he could not reasonably be expected to have taken the impediment and its effects
upon his ability to perform the contract into account at the time of the conclusion of the
contract; (他在订约时无法合理估计该障碍与它去影响他履约的能力的后果) and
(3) that he could not reasonably have avoided or overcome it or at least its effects. ( 他无法合
理去避免或超越该障碍或它所造成的后果)”。

3 force majeure 条文应该针对的方面

一条全面与拟定得好的 force majeure 条文应该针对 4 个方面：

（1）针对的事项是什么；
（2）给与通知的责任；
（3）发生 force majeure 事项的后果；
（4）有争议时谁去裁定。

以下去逐一分析这 4 个方面。

3.1 针对的事项是什么？

通常的 force majeure 条文去包括什么事项会有以下 3 种写法：

（一）是只去泛泛的去说 force majeure，而没有其他个别事项；
（二）是有一连串的个别不可抗力事项，然后在结尾加上一个通称语言，如
circumstances beyond the control of the parties，或干脆是 other force majeure events；
（三）是说明一般的不可预见与不可控制的事项。

第一种写法在英国法律中已经解释过，即使是有效也不明确是包括一些什么，它也会
带来双方不必要的争议，所以应该去避免这种写法。

至于第二种写法，有先例说在 force majeure 条文结尾加一个通称语言并不会去适用同

类规则：Ambatielos v. Anton Jurgens Margarine Works (1923) A.C. 175。

现实中，多数的 force majeure 条文会是去写出一连串的个别不可抗力事项，这好处是

至少可在 force majeure 的基础上去包括或扩大一些特定事项并去明确后可减少争议。

3.1.1 不同版本 force majeure 条文的介绍

以下笔者信手拈来去节录以下的一条 force majeure 条文：
“the company shall not be liable to the customer for any loss or damage which may be
suffered by the customer as a result, directly or however indirectly, of the supply of goods or
services by the company being prevented, hindered, delayed or rendered uneconomic by
reason of circumstances or events beyond the reasonable control of the company including
but not limited to act of God, war, riot, strike, lock-out, trade dispute or labour disturbance,
accident, break-down of plant or machinery, fire, flood, storm, difficulty or increased expense
in obtaining workmen, materials or transport or other circumstances affecting the supply of
the goods or of raw materials thereof by the company’s normal source of supply or the
manufacture of the goods by the company’s normal means or the delivery of the goods by the
company’s normal route or means of delivery.”。

另 去 多 举 一 个 例 子 是 伦 敦 食 糖 商 会 拟 定 的 标 准 格 式 合 约 Refined Sugar Association

Contract 之第 17 条的 force Majeure 条文如下：
“Force Majeure
Should EEC legislation, government intervention, ice, war, strikes, rebellion, political or
labour-disturbance, civil commotion, fire, stress of weather, act of God or any cause of force
Majeure (whether or not of like kind to these before mentioned) beyond the Seller’s control
prevent directly or indirectly within the delivery period stated in the contract:
(a) the supply or delivery in whole or in part of the sugar allocated or to be allocated by the
Seller against the contract, or
(b) the means of transport declared or to be declared for loading the sugar and the Seller or
his agent be unable to supply other means of transport of equal character to enable him to
effect delivery within the contract period,

the Seller shall immediately advise the Buyer by cable or by teleprinter of such fact and the
quantity so affected and the delivery period shall be extended by 45 days. If the Seller is
prevented from advising immediately through the circumstances beyond his control he shall
notify the Buyer as soon as possible. If the delivery is still prevented by the end of the
extended period, the contract shall be void for such quantity without penalty payable or
receivable.”。

另多举一个例子是在 The “Marine Star” (1996) 2 Lloyd’s Rep.383 一条非常详尽的针对买

卖合约的 force majeure 条文如下：
“Force Majeure Clause
Neither party shall be liable for any breach, delay or non-performance hereunder which
directly or indirectly results from or is caused, in whole or in part, by revolutions or other
disorders, was, declared or undeclared, acts of public enemies, embargoes or other restrictions
imposed by law, arrest or restraint of officials, rulers or people, perils of the sea or other acts
of God, accidents or navigation, or by breakdown or injury to ships, pipelines, machinery or
other facilities of the seller or those from whom the seller obtained products purchase
hereunder, used for production transportation, receiving, manufacturing, handling, or delivery
of the products purchased hereunder, or the raw materials from which such products are
manufactured, or other impairment or interference with sellers means of supply,
transportation or other facilities, or by fires, storms explosions, or other casualties, or by
strikes, lockouts or restraint of labour, either partial or general from whatever cause, or if
performance hereunder is hindered, delayed or prevented by, or would violate or controvert,
any law, rule, order or request of government, federal, state or foreign, or any agency or
representative thereof, or which directly or indirectly results from cause beyond sellers or
buyers control, whether such other causes be of the classes herein specifically provided or
not. In the event of the foregoing, seller shall not be obliged to pro-rate product/or deliveries
hereunder nor shall seller be obligated to deliver from a terminal, use a berthing, loading or
unloading facilities, type of carrier or manner of delivery other than those designated in the
contracts and in the absence of any such designation(s) those customarily used in the
performance hereunder, regardless of whether a commercially reasonable substitute is
available.”。

3.1.2 应该是包括在 force majeure 一词中的事项

在这一方面也已经有过不少先例，首先是在 Matsoukis v. Priestman & Co (1915) 1 K.B.

681，案情涉及一个造船合约，工程受到 1912 年煤炭工人大罢工的影响而延误。该造船
合约有条文针对延误交船要每天支付一笔议定赔偿，除非是在包括 force majeure 的一
些情况。Bailhache 大法官拒绝把“force majeure”一词视为等同于英国普通法中的“天
意”（Act of God），判是煤炭工人大罢工可以被视为是 force majeure 事件与它构成了
部分的延误交船。

在 Lebeaupin v. Richard Crispin & Co (1920) 2 K.B. 714 先例，案情是涉及两个有关供应

加拿大三文鱼罐头的合约下，卖方没有交货。McCardie 大法官判是三文鱼的供应数量
并没有降低，不交货只是卖方或发货人/罐头厂（canners）自己可以控制的原因所造成。
所 以 ， McCardie 大 法 官 不 认 为 是 合 约 受 阻 。 但 该 合 约 中 有 一 句 “ subject to force
majeure”， McCardie 大法官接受可包括战争、罢工、立法与行政干预（例如是禁令）、
意外的设备故障，但不包括正常的坏天气（除了是非正常的风暴）与经济上的因素
（例如是欠缺资源）。他说：
“I take it that a ‘force majeure’ clause should be construed in each case with a close
attention to the words which precede or follow it, and a due regard to the nature and general
terms of the contract. The effect of the clause may vary with each instrument.”。
在该先例，由于 force majeure 条文一开始就说明了“在罐头厂与发货人的控制以外”，
而 事 实 的 认 定 是 事 故 可 以 在 罐 头 厂 的 控 制 之 内 ， 所 以 判 是 卖 方 不 能 去 依 赖 force
majeure 条文。这样看来，force majeure 条文的解释还是主要在所用的文字。

其他可被认定为 force majeure 的事项及先例在笔者的《国际商务游戏规则—英国合约

法》一书有谈到：
“战争：Zinc Corp v. Hirsch (1916) 1 K.B. 541
罢工：Matsoukis v. Priestman & Co (1915) 1 K.B. 681; Torquay Hotel v. Cousins (1969) 2
Ch. 106
行政干预，如禁运：Tradax v. Andre (1976) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 109
拒 绝 给 出 口 证 / 进 口 证 ： Walton v. British Italian Trading (1959) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 223;
Coloniale Import Export v. Loumidis Sons (1978) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 560
扣押：Yrazu v. Astral Shipping Co. (1904) 20 T.L.R. 153
不正常风暴等坏天气：Lebeaupin v. Richard Crispin & Co (1920) 2 K.B. 714
水灾令货物运不出来：Alfred Toepfer v. Peter Cremer (1975) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 118; Tradax
v. Andre (1976) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 109; Bunge v. Alfred Toepfer (1978) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 506;
Avimax v. Dewulf (1979) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 57.
火车车皮受干预：Intertradax v. Lesieur – Tourteaux SARL (1978) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 509.
机器停顿故障：Thomas Borthwick (Glasgow) Ltd v. Faure Fairclough Ltd (1968) 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 16; Sonat v. Amerada Hess (1988) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 145.

除非明示写明，否则不包括在 force majeure 的事项及先例有：

财政来源不足够：The “Concadoro” (1916) 2 A.C. 199（船长没有钱无法开航）
生 意 估 算 错 误 ： Atlantic Paper Stock v. St. Anne Nackawic Pulp & Paper Co. (1975) 56
D.L.R. (3d) 409
成本高涨：Brauer v. James Clark (1952) 2 All E.R. 497（涨价 20%-30%）
第 三者不履行或被出卖 引致： John Batt v. Brooker, Dore (1942) 72 Lloyd’s Rep. 149;
Thomas Borthwick (Glasgow) Ltd v. Faure Fairclough Ltd (1968) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 16（班轮
公会不肯给船位）”。

顺便可去节录《Chitty on Contracts》一书第 29 版 14-148 段针对有哪些 force majeure 事项

如下：
“It has rightly been observed that the concept of force majeure in English law is wider than
that of ‘Act of God’ or vis major, as these latter expressions appear to denote events due to
natural causes, without any human intervention. In Lebeaupin v. Crispin & Co (1920) 2 K.B.
714 McCardie J. reviewed the previous authorities on force majeure, and it now seems that
war, strikes, legislative or administrative interference, for example, an embargo, the refusal of
a licence, or seizure, abnormal storm or tempest, flooding which inhabits shipment from river
ports, interruption of the supply by rail of raw material, and even the accidental breakdown of
machinery can amount to force majeure, but not ‘bad weather, football matches or a funeral,’
a failure of performance due to the provision of insufficient financial resources or to a
miscalculation, a rise in cost or expense, the failure by a third party to fulfil his contract, or
any act, negligence, omission or default on the part of the party seeking to be excused. The
words ‘force majeure’ are, however, rarely unqualified. The type of circumstances may apply
to limit, extend or explain the meaning of ‘force majeure.’ Further the clause may refer to
performance being ‘prevented,’ ‘hindered’ or ‘delayed’ by force majeure. The expression
must therefore be construed with regard to the words which precede and follow it and also
with regard to the nature and general terms of the contract.”。

3.1.3 force majeure 事项怎么样影响合约的履行

如果发生 force majeure 事项，会怎么样影响合约的履行通常也会在 force majeure 条文

中规定。它会是以不同的动词说明，最常见的是 “阻止”（prevented）、“妨碍”
（hindered）或“延误”（delayed）。比较少见的甚至是如果出现 force majeure 事项
“导致不经济”（rendered uneconomic）去履约，等的规定，反正这是订约自由。

“阻止”一词被解释为依赖的订约方无法履行他的合约义务，不论是实质上
（physically）或法律上（legally）。但如果只是使履约更困难或要亏本，这是往往不足
够。

“妨碍”是一个比较广泛的文字，《Chitty on Contracts》一书第 29 版 14-143 段是这样解

释这一词：“A wider scope is, however, given to the word ‘hindered’ and Lord Loreburn
said: ‘to place a merchant in the position of being unable to deliver unless he dislocates his
business and breaks his contracts in order to fulfil one surely hinders delivery.’ Where, due to
executive restrictions following a strike, charterers could not load unless they dislocated their
business and broke other contracts, loading was ‘hindered.’ A contract of sale of goods which
contemplates the carriage of goods by sea may be hindered by the shortage of ships due to
enemy action and an increased risk with resultant rise in freight rates. Normally, however, a
mere rise in price rendering the contract more expensive to perform will not constitute
‘hinderance.’ The words ‘impede’, ‘impaired’ and ‘interfered with’ may, in context, be
construed as equivalent to ‘hindered’.”。

至于“延误”一词，《Chitty on Contracts》一书第 29 版 14-143 段是这样解释这一词：

“If provision is made for an extension of time for performance if ‘performance’ is delayed
by circumstances beyond a party’s control, the word ‘delayed’ is not necessarily to be treated
as equivalent to ‘prevented’ and circumstances which merely hinder performance may fall
within the provision.”。

至于在 force majeure 条文中用的是哪一个动词，甚至把几个动词一起用上，就看情况

而定或订约方的水平。例如在 BIMCO 标准格式造船合约 Standard Shipbuilding Contract
2007 第 24 条文，它是针对一些 force majeure 事项可去允许延长交船日期，所以条文中
只是用“延误”一词。

3.2 给与通知的责任

3.2.1 为什么要给通知

“force majeure”条文经常会规定想去依赖的一方必须在特定的时限内给与对方通知，
否则不可以去依赖。这样规定是有其原因，因为不去依赖的一方往往是不知道有这种事
故出现，所以给了通知就可允许他马上作出调查，否则等到将来出争议的时候再去调
查就会导致什么证据都没有了。在针对通知的责任方面，条文最好也去针对通知是给谁，
例如在一个建筑合约内会要求通知也去给与建筑师或工程师。

3.2.2 通知的时限

另一方面要去针对的是给与通知的时限，理论上当然是越短越好，但这也要符合实际。
在笔者有参与的 BIMCO 标准格式造船合约 Standard Shipbuilding Contract 2007 的拟定，
大家还探讨过是否把一些是属于公开消息（public domain）的 force majeure 事项，如地
震或火山爆发，也要求去依赖的船厂给与通知。毕竟，发生了这种巨大的灾难，恐怕去
给船东 force majeure 通知是船厂最后要去关心的事情。但最后还是决定不去区分哪些事
项要给通知，哪些不必给通知。毕竟，会有地区性的地震影响造船进度是外国船东不一
定能够从公开消息中知悉的。

3.2.3 通知的细节/内容

再一方面要去针对的是，会要求 force majeure 通知给一定程度的细节/内容。例如，建

筑合约经常会要求承建商提供 force majeure 干预的程度与估计会带来的进度的影响。在
Intertradex v. Lesieur (1978) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 509 中, 合约的 force majeure 条文是要求通知
必须要说明延误的原因（The notice shall state the reason[s] for the anticipated delay ），
但该通知由于只有说明一个原因（榨油厂供电系统损坏），但没有去说明另一个同时
发生的原因（火车运送花生去工厂时受到干预）而被判是有缺陷。Denning 勋爵是这样
说：
“That shows that if there are two reasons, the notice must give the reasons, stating the
occurrences which caused non-performance. If they occur successively, two successive
notices must be given. This is necessary so that buyers can check it up to see whether the
reasons are valid. The eighth sentence said that ‘the sellers shall provide, if required,
satisfactory evidence’ justifying the delay or non-fulfilment. Hence the necessity for notice of
the occurrence.

So it comes to this: if the break down of machinery would by itself have been sufficient to
prevent delivery, the sellers would be protected by the force majeure clause, even though
there may have also operated another cause, namely, the difficulty in getting raw materials.
But, if the breakdown of machinery would not by itself have prevented delivery, and if the
goods could have been delivered in time, but were prevented by the difficulty of getting raw
materials, then the sellers could not rely on the force majeure clause: because they give no
notice in regard to the difficulty in getting raw materials.”。

3.2.4 不给及时/准确通知的后果

最后要在 force majeure 条文针对的是去说明上述的一些要求如果没有被遵守会带来的

后果。许多条文会去说明不去依照就会导致不能去依赖 force majeure 的事项，这一来，
及时与准确的通知就会是一个先决条件。这种文字可以像 BIMCO Standard Shipbuilding
Contract 2007 的相关条文，它在列了一连串的 force majeure 事项后，加上最后的一段，
是说：
“The Builder shall notify the Buyer within [five (5)] running days of when the Builder
becomes aware of the occurrence of any event of delay on account of which the Builder
asserts that it may be entitled to claim an extension of the Delivery Date. A failure to so
notify shall bar the Builder from claiming any extension to the Delivery Date.”。

如果条文没有去规定，就会带来它到底是条件条文还是中间条文的争议与不稳定，因
为中间条文只会允许被通知方索赔收不到及时与准确通知所导致的损失，而这在通知
晚了半天/一天作出的损失可能是零。这种不稳定可去举 Bremer v Vanden (1978) 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 109，买卖合约对通知的要求只是说“ sellers shall advise buyers or reasons
therefor”，这被贵族院判是不足够明确可去构成先决条件，不让卖方去依赖 force
majeure 事项。但另在 Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum Co SA v. Okta Grude Oil Refinery
AD (2003) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 645，该合约的通知条文是说：“shall give prompt notice to the
other party”。这被上诉庭的 Aikens 大法官判是如果没有给通知，force majeure 事项就
不能去依赖。

3.3 发生 force majeure 事项的后果

force majeure 条文通常也写清楚一发生它所包括的事项会带来什么后果。它大可以去写
明一发生这种事项就会令合约中断，但很少 force majeure 条文会去这样写，因为后果
太极端，变了是与合约法下的合约受阻一样。但这种条文不是没有，例如在 The “Super
Servant Two” (1990) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 通常去约定的后果会是有针对性，而其中允许一段
更长时间去履行会是最常见。它也会规定在延长一段时间后 force majeure 事项仍然存在，
这 就 会 允 许 去 取 消 有 关 的 合 约 。 在 本 章 第 3.1 段 介 绍 的 Refined Sugar Association
Contract 就是这样去针对的。

也会有 force majeure 条文去针对的后果是以另一种履约的方法去作为替代（例如只需

要去部分交货）或可以/不可以做些什么，例如在上述节录 The “Marine Star” (1996) 2
Lloyd’s Rep.383 的 force majeure 条文。

反正是订约方要小心考虑 force majeure 事项会带来怎样的后果，与怎样是恰当的去该

有关合约中作出针对，因为这完全只能去依赖明示条文。举一个例子，在西伯利亚的冰
天雪地中的一个铺设油管的工程合约，它的 force majeure 条文就不能光针对发生 force
majeure 事项就可以去相应延期。这是因为在这种环境下的工作只能在每年的 4 月到 9
月份进行，这导致在 9 月底发生了一连几天的 force majeure 事项，就会需要延期至第
二年的 4 月中旬了，光去延期多几天是完全不足够的。

3.4 有争议时谁去裁定

如果双方对某一些情况是否属于 force majeure 事项有争议，这可以去将来留待法院或

仲裁庭作出判决 /裁决，但这显然是一种不方 便与昂贵的做法，所以有一些 force
majeure 条文会规定由中立的第三者去尽早作出裁决。在一些建筑合约内，通常的做法
是让建筑师或者工程师去裁定并决定有关延长的时间：Hickman v. Roberts (1913) AC
229；Perini Corporation v. Commonwealth of Australia (1969) 12 BLR 82。

4 force majeure 条文是否是免责条文

这一个问题有至少 2 个方面，（一）是如果 force majeure 条文是属于免责条文中的一

种，它就会被严格解释（strict construction）；（二）是 force majeure 条文会受到 1977
年《不公平合约法》的管制。其中第二点只是针对英国的消费者，估计与大多数的读者
无关。

看来这一个问题是有些不同看法。Ewan Mckendrick 教授在其所著的《Force Majeure and

Frustration of Contract》一书中是认为 force majeure 条文只是针对订约方在一些无法合理
控制的情况下的重大改变去作出怎样的履行，没有理由把它当作是免责条文。在《Chitty
on Contracts》一书第 29 版之 14-137 段也表达了同样的看法，但说是两种的条文很难区
分，因为它们都针对解除一方订约方的履约义务/责任：“…Force majeure clauses have
been said not to be exemption clauses, although it is difficult to draw any clear line of
demarcation between the two types of clause, since the effect of each may be to relieve a
contracting party of an obligation or liability to which he would otherwise be subject, and
force majeure clauses may nevertheless be affected by the Unfair Contract Terms Act
1977.”。

但看来是无法说死，因为有太多不同版本的 force majeure 条文，有一些版本是属于或

接近免责条文，但另一些版本就不应该是免责条文了。这里的区分可以先节录
Fairclough Dodd & Jones Ltd v. J H Vantol Ltd (1957) 1 WLR 136 先例中 Tucker 勋爵所说：
“ Force majeure clauses are of different kinds. In the case of an exception clause it is
generally true to say that it only operates on the happening of an event which would otherwise
result in a breach, but there is nothing to prevent the parties providing for an extension of the
time for performance or for a substituted mode of performance on the occurrence of a force
majeure event whether or not such event would have prevented performance.”。

这样看来，如果 force majeure 条文是对一个本来是违约的情况下去免责，特别是在针

对后果是让违约方去中断合约，这就有较大的可能是本质上属于或接近免责条文（如
The “Super Servant Two” [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 的 force majeure 条文）。但在该先例中
的 force majeure 条文是说明后果去延期两个月，然后是让买方而不是去依赖 force
majeure 事项的卖方有选择权去中断合约，所以贵族院判这不是免责条文。

在 Gerard McMeel 教授所著的《The Construction of Contracts—Interpretation, Implication

and Rectification》一书之 22.36 段对区分不同内容的 force majeure 条文同样的说：
“A force majeure clause is more likely to be treated as an exemption clause if its operation
only benefits one party or is only likely in practice to benefit one party. In addition a power to
suspend performance or render alternative and equivalent performance is less likely to lead to
characterization as an exemption clause than a clause which brings the contract to an end.”。

5 针对规则是否适用

force majeure 条文如果属于免责条文，针对规则就肯定要适用：Photo Productions Ltd

v. Securicor Transport Ltd (1980) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 545, HL。但即使不属于免责条文，看来
针对规则也会适用，只要该条文是偏袒订约一方或不公平，这可看本书第四章之 4.1 段。
所以，看来针对规则的适用实际分别恐怕不大。

这一方面可去介绍 The “Super Servant Two” (1990) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1，该先例是明确在合

约内的 force majeure 条文不是一条免责条文。但由于该条文是一面倒去允许船东取消合
约，所以在判决中还是以针对规则去对待。该条文是如下：
“17.1 Wijsmuller （ 船 东 ） has the right to cancel its performance under this Contract
whether the loading has been completed or not, in the event of force majeure, Acts of God,
perils or danger accidents of the sea, acts of war, warlike-operations, acts of public
enemies, restraints of Princes, rulers or people or seizure under legal process, quarantine
restrictions, civil commotions, blockade, strikes, lockout, closure of the Suez or Panama
Canal, congestion of habours or any other circumstances whatsoever, causing extra-ordinary
periods of delay and similar events and/or circumstances abnormal increases in prices and
wages, scarcity of fuel and similar events, which reasonably may impede, prevent or delay the
performance of this contract.”。

案情是该合约下，船东同意提供一艘拖轮把一个钻井平台（名为 Dan King）从日本造

船厂拖去鹿特丹附近海域。针对所用的拖轮，该合约是说明船东随便选择其中一艘说：
“Super Servant One or Super Servant Two in Wijsmuller’s option”。船东本来是计划以
Super Servant Two 去拖带 Dan King，但不幸在尚未开始拖的时候，她在另一个拖带合
约中因事故沉没。船东也无法去以另一艘拖轮 Super Servant One 去履行，因为她已经有
其他的任务，非要履行不可。

在上述的情况下，明显是英国普通法中的受阻无法成立。如果合约只规定 Super Servant

Two 负责拖带，她的沉没，特别是不涉及船东的过错/疏忽，就应该是合约受阻。但在
本合约，因为是涉及了有另外一艘拖轮的履行，而船东还没有行使选择权，就不能说
是合约无法履行而受阻，因为还有另一艘拖轮。

但针对 force majeure 条文，由于 Super Servant Two 的沉没明确是符合条文中最后一句

的“会阻碍、防止或延误合约的履行”（ reasonably may impede, prevent or delay the
performance of this contract. ） ， 而 force majeure 的 事 项 也 是 该 条 文 所 包 括 的 海 难
（perils or danger accidents of the sea）。所以判是 Super Servant Two 的沉没只要不涉及
船东的过错/疏忽，是可以依赖 force majeure 条文。这又是一个明显的例子是受阻与
force majeure 条文并不走在一起。但很有争议的是如果 Super Servant Two 的沉没是涉及
了 船 东 要 负 责 的 船 员 疏 忽 （ 这 一 点 的 事 实 还 没 有 认 定 ） ， 船 东 能 否 去 依 赖 force
majeure 条文。

船东的争议是“海难”可以包括船员有疏忽或是没有疏忽，这在海上保险中最明显。保
单（包括在已经过时的劳氏保单[Lloyd’s S.G. Policy]）只是说明这一个承保风险，就已
经包括了搁浅或碰撞等海上风险，不论船员有没有疏忽。保单并没有一个承保风险是
“船员航行的疏忽与过错”（error or negligence in navigation）。这一个事项只是在针对
提单的 1924 年《海牙规则》中出现，这是由于它是免责事项，会适用针对规则。加上，
《海牙规则》要求船东要在航次中小心与谨慎照顾货物，所以去整体解释《海牙规则》，
就有必要在免责事项中说明是包括船员航行的疏忽与过错。

而在本案件，force majeure 条文并不是免责条文，而且不存在有《海牙规则》要去整体

解释的问题。加上，Super Servant Two 由于还没有被船东选择去履行该拖带合约，所以
船东不存在欠对方（Dan King 的所有人）一个小心与谨慎的责任。

但高院与上诉庭不同意，Bingham 大法官首先是认为该 force majeure 条文虽然不是免

责条文，但还是适用针对规则，说：“The present clause is not, as the Judge accepted, an
exceptions clause. It is not therefore directly covered by Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v. The
King (1952) 1 Lloyd’s Rep.1. The clause is, however, one which confers on one party only a
right exercisable in a very wide range of circumstances to nullify the contractual bargain
made between the parties at no cost to itself and regardless of the loss which the other party
may sustain. To such a clause the broad approach indicated by Canada Steamship is in my
judgment appropriate.”。

Bingham 大法官接下去针对第 17.1 条的 force majeure 条文从文字上看来是够广泛去包

括船员疏忽（这主要就是“无论任何”[whatsoever]一词），但从整个条文的结构去看，
特别是个别的 force majeure 事项，都是与船东疏忽无关，如天灾、战争、港口拥挤等。他
是这样说：
“The language of clause 17 is, I think, wide enough to embrace events caused by
Wijsmuller’s negligence. But the general tenor of the clause, opening with a reference to
force majeure and acts of God and including such events as acts of war, civil commotion,
canal closure and harbour congestion, strongly points towards events beyond the direct or
indirect control of Wijsmuller.

Clause 17.1 is not deprived of a sensible application if read as excluding events brought about
by the negligence of Wijsmuller their servants or agents. Almost all the events listed could
only occur wholly independently of Wijsmuller and there is none which could only occur as
the result of Wijsmuller’s negligence.”（第二段是指第 17.1 条文完全可以给它一个合理
的解释，因为所有明示的 force majeure 事项都可以在船东没有疏忽的情况下发生，而
没有任何一个事项是必需要船东的疏忽才能去给它一个解释或一点意思，例如事项说
明就是船东/船员的航行疏忽或过错这一个事项）。

所以，Bingham 大法官判是针对 force majeure 的第 17.1 条文只针对船东没有疏忽的事

项而不包括船东有疏忽的事项。这样去解释免责条文（或适用针对规则）在本书第九章
4.1 段有关免责条文的解释有介绍。

再接下去 Bingham 大法官是针对合约整体的解释，这就是第 16 条免责条文说明拖带全

部是 Dan King 所有人的风险，而船东是完全免责，除非是船东本人故意的行为或错漏
所造成（howsoever caused unless caused by the deliberate actor omission of Wijsmuller）。
这种免责条文在拖带合约中经常见到，因为风险比较大，所以拖轮都不愿意承担拖带
的风险。这一条文在文字上与第 17.1 条的 force majeure 条文很不一样，导致 Bingham
大法官认为要去局限 force majeure 条文的解释说：
“It could not be supposed that Wijsmuller could cancel under clause 17.1 where they had
deliberately brought about the event relied on. But, in contrast with clause 16 there is no
express exclusion of deliberate acts or omissions. So some restriction of the wide language of
clause 17.1 is to be understood. In considering the breadth of the clause it is significant that
the words ‘howsoever caused’ which appear in clause 16.1 do not appear here.”。（虽然 17
条文没有说明，大家不会认为由于船东本人故意行为所造成的事故他仍可以去取消合
约，不必去像第 16 条文一样说明。所以，第 17 条文应该局限去解释…）

最后 Bingham 大法官也解释了这两条条文的不同针对是可以商业背景上理解。针对免责
条文，除了这是拖带合约一般的做法外，Dan King 所有人可以很容易在保险市场去为
Dan King 的拖带投保。但针对 force majeure 条文，如果船东去取消拖带合约，Dan King
所有人的损失就很难在这种商业风险去投保了。所以，该 force majeure 条文应该去严格
解释，就是 Super Servant Two 的沉没不包括是由于船员过错/疏忽所引起。

6 同类规则的适用

同类规则在本书第四章第 7 段有详述，它不像多在 force majeure 条文的解释中适用。这

可 去 节 录 Gerard McMeel 教 授 所 著 的 《 The Construction of Contracts—Interpretation,
Implication and Rectification》一书之 22.49 段说：
“The courts have generally not applied the restrictive rule of language – ejusdem generis –
to the general phrases often found in force majeure clauses, whether at the head or the foot of
the clause. On ordinary principles the sweeping words are more likely to be restrictively
interpreted but in practice the courts do not appear to have done this.”。

其中一个原因可能是法官/仲裁员会对 force majeure 条文的敌意比较低与这些条文通常

本身就已经是订得非常完整，对有可能出现的 force majeure 事项去包罗万有，并加上
一些十分广泛的文字像“无论任何”（whatsoever），这会导致同类规则不适用：The
“Mozart” (1985) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 239。

7 force majeure 事项是在依赖的订约方的控制以外

这 是 国 际 商 会 的 Force Majeure (Exemption) Clause of the International Chamber of

Commerce（在本章第 2 段有介绍）中的第 1 条文，要求：“(1) that the failure was due
to an impediment beyond his control”。这也是英国法律去解释 force majeure 条文的考虑，
类似的文字更是经常在不同版本的 force majeure 条文写明。这方面的案例也有不少，只
去 介 绍 近 期 的 Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum Co SA v. Okta Grude Oil Refinery AD
(2003) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 645。案情是有关一个前南斯拉夫的炼油厂声称无法履行合约去供
应与处理原油，原因是政府的要求。他依赖合约中的 force majeure 条文说明是不必在
“acts or compliance with requests of any governmental authority…beyond the control of the
party affected”的事项下负责。但法院认定的事实是他自己去挑起政府提出这一个要求，
所以事项并非在他的控制以外。Longmore 大法官说：“a force majeure event, if it is to be
effective, still has to be beyond the control of the party affected.”。

但可去比较较早的另一个贵族院先例：Czarnikow v. Rolimpex (1978) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 305

中，涉及的是一个食糖的 FOB 买卖合约，装港是波兰，卖方是一家波兰的国有企业。
在 1974 年的秋天，由于大雨与水灾导致甜菜失收。结果是波兰政府下令马上禁止食糖
出口，这导致了部分的食糖无法交货。卖方依赖了 force majeure 条文的有关部分：
“Should the delivery in whole or in part within the delivery time specified be prevented or
delayed directly or indirectly by government intervention…stress of weather…or any cause of
force majeure (whether or not of like kind to those before mentioned), beyond the seller’s
control…”。

买方指称卖方是波兰国有企业，所以有关 force majeure 事项并非是在卖方的控制之外。

但这不被法院接受，认为从证据上看来卖方不能视为是波兰政府的机构，并且是享有
充分的自主权。

这种案件对中国大陆社会主义国家来说还是非常有关系的，因为国有企业甚至不是国
有企业在社会主义的制度下如果要去适用 force majeure 事项，只要问题涉及政府（例
如是取不到出口证或进口证）都会有可能被外国公司指称这不是在中国公司的控制之
外。这一来就要根据证据去看中国公司是否享有充分的自主权，虽然到底怎样的程度才
能算是充分自主还是因人而异。

8 force majeure 事项是无法合理在订约时去针对

这 是 国 际 商 会 的 Force Majeure (Exemption) Clause of the International Chamber of

Commerce 中的第 2 条文，要求：“(2) that he could not reasonably be expected to have
taken the impediment and its effects upon his ability to perform the contract into account at
the time of the conclusion of the contract.”。

在合约受阻的理论下，是需要 双 方在订约时无法合理预见（ the parties could [not]

reasonably have contemplated at the time of its execution）：National Carriers v. Panalpina
(1981) A.C. 675。但合理预见并没有明确的定义，如果是严格去看待，所有会发生的
force majeure 事项在一定程度上都可以预见，例如是战争、政治问题、自然灾难，等等。
但去事后分析与在商业谈判中去准确预测并在合约内针对是两码事。加上，经常会有商
业人士去乐观地订约，并希望可能会发生的 force majeure 事项将来不会出现。还有是，
商业人士中也有比较乐观与比较悲观的区别。所以，何谓预见（foreseeability）不到的
事项是指一些不大可能会发生的情况而令合理的订约双方觉得没有必要花工夫去在订
约时明示针对与在如果发生的情况下怎样分摊风险（an event so unlikely to occur that
reasonable parties see no need explicitly to allocate the risk of it occurrence, although the
impact it might have would be of such magnitude that the parties would have negotiated over
it, had the event been more likely.）。国际商会条文中的文字接近这个理念。

9 force majeure 事项是依赖的订约方无法合理避免或控制

这 是 国 际 商 会 的 Force Majeure (Exemption) Clause of the International Chamber of

Commerce 中 的 第 3 条 文 ， 要 求 ： “ (3) that he could not reasonably have avoided or
overcome it or at least its effects.”。

这是要求依赖的订约方去采取合理措施来避免或控制 force majeure 事项带来的对合约

履行的影响。在 B&S Contracts and Designs Ltd v. Victor Green Publications Ltd (1984)
ICR 419, CA 中，上诉庭的 Griffith 大法官说：“Clauses of this kind have to be construed
upon the basis that those relying on them will have taken all reasonable efforts to avoid the
effect of the various matters set out in the clause which entitle them to vary or cancel the
contract.”。

另是 Kerr 大法官也说了同样的话，并认为依赖的订约一方想去依赖他自己工人的罢工
作为 force majeure 事项是有困难的，说：“it is clear that where an exception of strikes is
invoked, then like all other exceptions it is subject to the principle that the party seeking to
rely on it must show that the strike and its consequences could have been avoided by taking
steps which were reasonable in the particular circumstances.”。

同样的理念也在贵族院的 Bremer v Vanden (1978) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 109，判是在 CIF 买卖

下，如果发生 force majeure 事项，卖方不必想其他办法去履约，例如去买其他已经付
运的货物（goods afloat）。因为这是在商业上不合理的要求，买得到的话市场价格也肯
定高涨。该案例中，Wilberforce 勋爵是这样说：“I am of the opinion that the existence of
a duty to buy afloat is impracticable and commercially unsuitable.”。

再多举一种适用同样理念的常见例子，也就是依赖 force majeure 条文的订约方只需要

去合理办事。这就是卖方在出现 force majeure 事项的时候，手中只有足够在一个买卖合
约中提供的货物，但他在当时订了好几个同样的买卖合约，他应该怎样做？看来，只
要卖方去合理办事，例如把货物提供给较早订的合约而再后来订的合约就去依赖 force
majeure 条文，他应该可以这样做。这种争议在 Intertradex v. Lesieur (1978) 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 509 中出现，Denning 勋爵说：
“Mr. Hallgarten（买方代表大律师） submitted that the defence of force majeure are not
available: because （卖方）had some groundnuts available. They had, he said, sufficient to
fulfil this contract, but instead of fulfilling it, they fulfilled two or three other contracts —
which were earlier in point of date. I put to Mr. Hallgarten this instance: Suppose （ 卖
方）had entered into 15 equal contracts and they had only enough groundnuts to fulfil one of
these contracts. If they fulfilled one of them, would they be liable in damages on all the other
14? Mr. Hallgarten submitted that they would be. I cannot agree with that at all. This is a
question which has often been discussed. It seems to me that, when a supplier had many
contracts to fulfil, but only has enough of the goods to fulfil one of them, then, if he
reasonably appropriated what he has to that one, he can rely on force majeure as to the
others.”。

10 force majeure 事项是依赖的订约方订约时已经知道的

这一个问题与第 8 段的 force majeure 事项是无法合理在订约时去明示针对的分别是本

段针对订约时合理预知一定会发生（bound to operate）而不是合理预见不大可能会发生
（unlikely to occur）而不去针对的情况。这方面可去节录《Chitty on Contracts》一书第 29
版之 14-140 段，如下：
“…However, in Trade and Transport Inc v Lino Kaiun Kaisha Ltd (1973) 1 WLR 210 where
the clause in question referred to ‘unavoidable hindrances, ’ Kerr J. stated that a party would
be debarred from relying upon such a clause if the existence of facts which show that the
clause was bound to operate should reasonably have been known to that party prior to the
conclusion of the contract, and would have been expected by the other party to be so known.
But subsequently in Channel Island Ferries Ltd v Sealink United Kingdom Ltd (1988) 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 323, Parker L.J. expressed doubts whether, because of pre-contract
improvidence, a party would be disable from relying on a force majeure clause, even if such
clause would otherwise have applied; there was no principle of law that a party who entered
into a contract could not rely on its terms because he was improvident in entering into it. It
may, nevertheless, be argued that the parties to a contract cannot reasonably have intended
that one party should be entitled to rely on a force majeure clause which, as the result of facts
known to him at the time of entering into the contract, he reasonably foresee would inevitably
come into operation and so affect the performance expected of him by the other party.
However, it has been held that there is no justification for limiting the ordinary meaning of
words in a force majeure clause to events or states of facts not in existence at the date of the
contract or to those which are unpredictable at the time it was made.”。

只去一提是这个问题看来还是有争议，这是 Mustill 勋爵在 Hoecheong Products Co Ltd

v. Cargill Hong Kong Ltd (1995) 1 WLR 404 所说的。

11 举证责任

这显然是要依赖 force majeure 条文的订约方去举证，这通常是在 3 个方面。（一）是发

生的事项是在条文内，不论是在个别事项或是在该条文的通称内；（二）是该 force
majeure 事项影响了合约的履行；（三）是他已经采取了合理行动去避免或减轻这一个
影响。

针对举证责任，有许多先例有明确，包括像 Bremer v Vanden (1978) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 109

等，不去多讲。

12 总结

本章只是粗略的介绍了 force majeure 条文，特别只针对原则上怎么样去解释，因为解

释合约就是本书所要针对的内容，但 force majeure 条文有太多的内容，也有无数的重
要先例。它也是一条非常重要与普遍的合约条文，特别是在国际性的合约内，例如是国
际货物买卖与大型工程合约。这方面恐怕要留待专门的书籍去针对，例如像 Ewan
Mckendrick 教授所著的《Force Majeure and Frustration of Contract》一书。