第十章 其他相关方面的问题

§1 国际买卖的支付货款办法

在国际货物买卖，对卖方而言收到货款是最重要的事情。在岸上 /本土追债
已经是够困难了，但比起国际上仍是小巫见大巫。国际上卖方一般很难充份了解
外国买方的资信情况，更难了解他之后有了变化。去作出不断调查极其昂贵与不
便。卖方在买卖合约中保留货权（这可去看本书第五章之 1.4 段）也没有实质意
义，去外国向倒闭买方申张货权会是不可行、不划算或地雷处处。此外，还有各
种其他的经济或财政上风险，例如是法律的改变（买方国家有了外汇管制），
利率的改变，外汇的变动，等等。

向赖债的外国买方追讨欠的货款，即使找一个懂行的国际律师也非是易事 ，
昂贵的律师费用更是在所难免。这不像本土追讨欠款，一般的律师都会可以胜任
在当地法院向赖债买方起诉。更不用说国际买卖还有很多岸上/本土买卖不会有
的风险如外国法律的改变，政局的改变、外汇管制、货币贬值等等。可以去总结
地说，国际买卖在这种 “财政风险”（ economic risk ）或 / 与“财政风险”
（financial risk）是十分巨大，卖方要特别小心。

所以一贯以来的做法，卖方在没有获得支付或支付的保证，是不会肯把货
物 付 运 去 给 外 国 买 方 。 正 如 Staughton 大 法 官 在 The “Ciudad de Pasto” and
“Ciudad de Neiva”(1988) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 208 先例中所说：“It seems to me that in
the ordinary way a seller will not wish to part with the property in his goods if they
are shipped overseas until he has been paid in full.”。事实确是如此。但这也不一定，
反正怎么样去支付货款或保证支付货款纯粹是买卖双方之间的订约自由。但卖方
与买方之间的利益与期望显然是对立。

以下不妨去谈谈会在国际货物买卖中出现的支付货款的办法，这大致上可
以分为四种。（一）是“定期结算”（open account）；（二）是“托收”（bill
for collection）；（三）是“信用证”（ letter of credit）；（四）是“预付货
款”（cash in advance）。

1.1 不同支付货款办法对买卖双方的利弊比较
以上的各种办法对买方最有利是（一），而接下去的办法就逐步对买方不
利。但对卖方的利益而言就倒过来。而（一）与（四）在国际货物买卖合约应该
是比较少见，而且只能是适用在一些有特殊关系的买卖双方之间。
 先去简单介绍（一），这只适用在买方与卖方之间有非常了解与密切的关
系，甚至是跨国公司的分公司或联营公司之间的买卖，根本不存在卖方需要怕
买方将来支付货款会扯皮或买方会倒闭。在做法上就是卖方把货物付运后，把付
运单证交出给买方，而买方会马上以电汇或其他支付办法作出货款的支付，这
可称为是“见单即付”（sight payment）。更会是，定期结算在双方同意下会在
多次货物付运与在卸港交货后的一段时间内作出结算，例如是每 3 个月不等的
时间。这种支付办法显然对买方最有利，也是对卖方最不利。如果卖方面对不了
解与不可靠的买方，将来收不到货款的机会是非常之大。笔者据悉杨良宜先生早
期曾经处理过一些案件，涉及了中国卖方对欧美买方不了解的情况下去同意这
种付款办法。而同意的背景是中央下了一个出口的指标，为了达到指标，个别单
位就去接受这种支付货款的条文以扩大出口，结果有许多坏账根本是收不回来
而不了了之。

另去介绍（四），这适用在一些有信誉与有垄断性的卖方，他可以要求买
方预付货款或订货时就已经现金支付了货款（cash with order）。这种做法显然
对买方十分不利，因为买方根本不会知道将来能否收到购买的货物与会否是货
不对版。更加不会知道的是在支付了货款与交货的一段时间内，卖方会否倒闭。
但这种做法还是经常会有，例如杨良宜先生在早期购买英国的外贸与航运书籍，
价值很高，据悉都需要支付了货款（通过银行本票）后才会把货物付运，不像
现在是通常可以以信用卡做出支付，而杨良宜先生说是也遇上过两次货不对版。
其他也听说例如是发展中国家向波音公司购买飞机零件需要在订货时去支付货
款，波音公司收到货款后才会开始生产或付运。这种做法显然也是一面倒对卖方
有利，对买方不利。

接下去会是分别介绍（二）与（三）的做法，他们都是 CIF 或 FOB 买卖经

常会使用的支付货款办法。但可以先去解释与这两种办法经常有关系的一份文件
就是“汇票”（bill of exchange）。

1.2 汇票或银行汇票

汇票的法律在英国是来自 1882 年的《汇票法》（Bill of Exchange Act），该

立法在目前还是有效而且这些年来也没有什么大的变动。它在 Section 2 对汇票
的定义是说：“A bill of exchange is an unconditional order in writing, addressed by
one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it
is addressed to pay in demand or at a fixed or determinable future time a sum certain
in money to or to the order of a specified person, or to bearer.”
 “汇票”（bill of exchange 或 draft）是由卖方（在汇票的关系中可称为是
drawer）去对买方作出，要求或命令买方（可称为“drawee”）去做出支付一笔
特定金额的货款给卖方或特定的第三人（可称为“payee”）。这汇票是必须有卖
方的签字，而买方收到汇票后如果接受也必须签字确认。买方在签字接受汇票后
可称为“acceptor”。汇票的支付可以是要求马上，这种汇票可称为是“即期汇
票”（sight draft）。但也可以是根据双方的约定，支付是在稍后的时间例如是 3
个月后，这等于是给买方一段宽容的时间才去做出支付 ,可称为“远期汇票”
（term draft）。而到了 3 个月届满，可以去向买方要求作出支付。如果卖方对买
方的资信不放心，也可以多一个第三人（通常是银行）去加签（这可被称为是
“Signature by way of Aval”）作为保证汇票会在届满的时候做出支付。

汇票是有各种的写法，例如卖方如果欠他的银行钱，就可以在汇票的支付
写上他的银行作为是“payee”。当然，payee 也可以去写上是卖方自己，反正这
种可称为 “指令汇票”（order bill of exchange）。汇票也可以是“持有人汇
票”（bearer bill of exchange），就是支付汇票的钱给汇票的持有人。

也可以是倒过来买方向他的银行作出汇票，要求或命令他的银行（作为
drawee）去向卖方（作为 payee）在期限届满去作出支付。这一来在有关的银行
接受与签字后，卖方就对将来收取货款有了保证。显然，他也可以把该份汇票去
向其他银行通过背书或交出（这是针对持有人汇票的做法）去作出“议付”
（negotiate）与“贴现”（discount），把汇票转为现金，马上有钱可供使用。
而不论是通过背书或交出而持有汇票的人士都可称为是“holder”。

如果将来是买方甚至是买方的银行到了期限届满不去作出货款的支付，对
payee 或是 holder 最大的保障就是马上可以去向英国法院取得一个“简易判决”
（ summary judgment ） ， 这 在 1998 年 的 《 民 事 诉 讼 规 则 》 （ Civil Procedure
Rules） 是在 Part 24。这一个做法是不会允许卖方或是卖方银行作为被告去提出
任何的抗辩，对冲或是反索赔。唯一可以抗辩的就是有真凭实据的欺诈，不合法
或是欠缺对价/约因等导致合约无效的理由。还有在简易判决是去剥夺了被告开
庭审理的权利，导致了被告根本没有拖延诉讼的机会，而原告也可以在很省钱
与时间的情况下取得判决。可以说，简易判决是法院审理案件的例外做法，他去
通过一个“简易处理”（summary disposition）办法去把争议处理掉，省得花大
家的时间与金钱，包括法院的时间。在 Three Rivers District Council v Bank of
England (No 3) (2001) UKHL 16 先例中，贵族院针对简易判决有以下的介绍：

“The method by which issues of fact are tried in our courts is well settled. After
the normal processes of discovery and interrogatories have been completed, the
parties are allowed to lead their evidence so that the trial judge can determine where
the truth lies in the light of that evidence. To that rule there are some well-recognised
exceptions. For example, it may be clear as a matter of law at the outset that even if a
party were to succeed in proving all the facts that he offers to prove he will not be
entitled to the remedy that he seeks. In that event a trial of the facts would be a waste
of time and money, and it is proper that the action should be taken out of the court as
soon as possible. In other cases it may be possible to say with confidence before trial
that the factual basis for the claim is fanciful because it is entirely without substance.
It may be clear beyond question that the statement of facts is contradicted by all the
documents or other material on which it is based. The simpler the case the easier it is
likely to take that view and resort to what is properly called summary judgment. But
more complex cases are unlikely to be capable of being resolved in that way without
conducting a mini-trial on the documents without discovery and without oral
evidence. As Lord Woolf said in Swain v Hillman, at p 95, that is not the object of the
rule. It is designed to deal with cases that are not fit for trial at all.”

但即使是简易判决还是解决不了买方在支付届满前倒闭，汇票还是不能防
止损失的问题。

较早曾提到的“Signature by way of Aval”是在 G+H Montage v Irvani (1990)

1 Lloyd’s Rep 14 先例中有解释，上诉庭的 Mustill 大法官是这样说：

“The placing of a signature on a bill of exchange, by someone who is neither

drawer nor acceptor, coupled with delivery of the bill thus signed, is a potential source
of liability in two directions. First, towards those who subsequently become holders of
the bill. Secondly, towards prior parties, including in particular the drawer.

Where the party is not the holder of the bill, but a stranger to it, he may incur
liabilities in more than one way. (I omit from consideration the liabilities of persons
who signs as agents, or as accommodation parties, or for honour only, since these are
not material to the present case.) Where the stranger simply ‘backs’ the bill, but
appending his signature without qualification or explanation, his position is prima
facie governed by s.56 of the Act –

56. Where a person signs a bill otherwise than as drawer or acceptor, he thereby
incurs the liabilities of an indorser to a holder in due course.
 Thus, the quasi-endorser, or anomalous indorser, as he has been described, will
be liable to subsequent parties in the event of dishonour, even if at the time of
indorsement the drawer has not yet signed: see s.20. but he will not by his signature
alone incur liability to the drawer/payee.”

在该先例带出了汇票的法律冲突问题，因为根据英国法律，在《汇票法》之
Section 48(1) 与 Section 59 是要求汇票的 acceptor 如果没有做出支付，是必须给
加签的第三人（可称为是“avaliser”）通知。但如果按照德国法律，加签的第三
人被视为是“担保人”（guarantor），没有这一个要求。这导致了整个案例的结
果就取决于英国法或德国法适用。在国际上为了统一这一个法律冲突的问题，联
合 国 通 过 了 一 个 公 约 名 为 1988 年 的 《 Convention on International Bills of
Exchange and International Promissory Notes》。它需要十个国家签字才能生效，但
目前为止还是不足够。所以这一个法律冲突还是会持续，虽然汇票也是合约的一
种，大可以去加上一条管辖与适用法条文。

1.3 托收（collection）

托收就是卖方去把有关货物作出付运后，取得这一套付运单证，加上（或
不加上，看双方约定）一份汇票，去向买方要求支付货款。这表示要把付运单证
送去买方的所在地，这涉及了两种做法。第一种就是把汇票与付运单证快递去交
出给买方，要求支付。这是希望买方会去履行他在买卖合约的责任，去接受汇票
并支付货款，而不是先去把付运单证收下并去利用，主要就是以正本提单去向
船东在卸港取货。

但另一种办法就是卖方把汇票（如果加上的话）与付运单证去通过在买方
所在地的代理人向买方要求接受与作出支付货款。这代理人是可以通过任何人士
但比较普遍的还是通过一家银行。这一家银行通常会是卖方的银行，而如果该银
行在买方所在地没有分行，就会 通过另一家银行作为“分代理人”（ sub-
agent）去向买方提出要求。可以说，卖方委托去向买方取货款的银行可称为是
“remitting bank”，而该银行委托的分代理人可称为是“collecting bank”。他们收
到钱之后都必须在扣除他们的费用后把货款汇给卖方。

如果 collecting bank 去在收到货款之前把付运单证交出给买方，这会是危险。

他是会要对卖方负责赔偿损失，原因是违约与侵占了卖方对付运单证的主权。这
种情况会发生，因为买方可能是 collecting bank 的客户，把付运单证交出会是希
望去帮助买方筹措资金，例如把付运单证转售给分买方。

针对卖方与他的银行或与分代理人的另一家银行之间的托收关系，国际商
会也有一套规则与做法，名为 Uniform Rules for Collections 1995 或 URC522。

以托收的办法对卖方还是有一定的风险，因为如果买方不支付货款，卖方
即使持有一套付运单证可以对船上的货物有控制，也会面对在遥远的卸港去转
售货物或其他处理办法，这经常会是十分困难与损失重大。而如果买方能去占有
这一套付运单证并把该票货物转售给其他善意的分买方，这在本书第七章的
3.10.5 段所提到的“买方控制货物”（buyer in possession）与 1979 年《货物销售
法》Section 25 及 1989 年《Factors Act》Section 9，卖方甚至会失去了该批货物的
主权给分买方。

目前的国际货物/商品买卖通过托收的办法还是经常有，特别是在著名的国
际贸易商与大石油公司之间，甚至不委任银行去托收。对他们而言，买卖双方都
知道大家的背景，就没有必要去花钱要银行托收，更不用花更多的钱要银行开
信用证。

1.4 信用证

在国际货物买卖，特别是涉及中国的进出口，这支付货款的保证通常就是
通过“信用证”（letter of credit 或 bankers’ documentary credits）。由于杨良宜先
生与司嘉小姐很快会出版《信用证与见索即付的保函》（ Letter of Credit and
Demand Guarantee）一书，会全面针对这方面的问题（包括信用证的种类与操
作，对信用证普遍适用的一套标准条文，也就是国际商会在 2007 年最新修改的
UCP600，等等方面），所以可在本书略过这重要课题，除非必须去涉及。但为
了完整，笔者还是会去简单对一些最重要的方面，例如涉及了买方在买卖合约
下的责任，去简单介绍。

1.4.1 信用证的定义与作用

首先介绍的是信用证的定义与作用，这可去节录 Hamzeh Malas & Sons v

British Imex Industries Ltd (1958) 2 QB 127 先 例 ， Jenkins 大 法 官 说 ： “ [T]he
opening of a confirmed letter of credit constitutes a bargain between the bank and the
vendor, which imposes upon the banker an absolute obligation to pay, irrespective of
any dispute there may be between the parties as to whether the goods are up to
contract or not.”

这就是在买卖双方之间，卖方由于对买方的经济状况不了解，加上已经提
到过国际买卖的风险例如政局的改变、外汇管制等风险，所以买方通过信用证去
把一个“可靠的账房”（reliable pay-master），也就是一家国际银行或有信誉
的银行去作出对卖方的付款保证。这信用证也就是银行（作为开证银行）与卖方
（作为受益人）之间的一个合约，而合约的内容就是只要卖方向开证银行及时
提供一套特定的“付运单证”（shipping documents），特别是包括了“装船提
单”（on board bill of lading），银行就一定会马上做出货款的支付。信用证更会
是去说明是可以向其他的银行“议付”（negotiate）。反正是，如 Denning 勋爵
在 Trans Trust SPRL v Danubian Trading Co Ltd (1952) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 348 先例所说：
“ an irrevocable promise to pay money to the seller in return for the shipping
documents.”

1.4.2 开出信用证与履约担保/见索即付保函时间的前后

会有国际买卖是卖方也要去提供金额较低的担保，以保证会供应与付运货
物。因为在国际上商品市场价格经常暴升暴跌，而订立合约的时候与实际付运的
时候通常有一段时间，期间市场价格肯定有所变动。如果市场暴跌，合约如果有
问题也只会出现在买方，例如是 FOB 买方拒绝开出信用证与拒绝派遣船舶去装
港。但如果市场暴升，就变了是卖方会出问题，不论是 FOB 卖方或 CIF 卖方都
会去拒绝供应有关货物。所以，在买方提供了信用证的情况下，也经常会有买卖
合约要求卖方提供金额较低的“履约担保”（performance guarantee）或“见索
即付的保函”（demand guarantee）。显然，信用证与卖方的履约担保或见索即
付的保函都是十分重要，买方不开出信用证是卖方根本不用去装货，所以都属
于是“条件条文”（condition）应该是没有疑问。在买卖合约中规定了在什么时
间必须开出信用证或见索即付的保函都必须严格执行。会有情况是在时间上没有
去规定，这一来，会有争议是开出信用证与开出见索即付的保函在时间上是否
是有先后或是同时作出。看来，法律会是认为卖方必须先去开出见索即付的保函
买方才需要去开出信用证：United Trading Corp SA v Allied Arab Bank Ltd (1985)
2 Lloyd’s Rep 554。

1.4.3 开出信用证是卖方付运货物的先决条件

已经提到在买方开出信用证之前，卖方是不必去作出交货与付运货物，换
言 之 ， 开 出 符 合 买 卖 合 约 要 求 的 信 用 证 是 “ 先 决 条 件 ” （ condition
precedent ） ： Dexters Ltd v Schenker & Co (1923) 14 Ll LR 586; Ets Chainbaux
SARL v Harbormaster Ltd (1955) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 303; Garcia v Page & Co Ltd (1936)
55 Ll LR 391; Trans Trust SPRL v Danubian Trading Co Ltd (1952) 1 Lloyd’s Rep
348。此外，在 FOB 买方没有准时开出信用证的情况下而导致晚了去装货，船舶
在这一段时间的等待是不计算卖方在买卖合约下要承担的装货时间与滞期费：
The “Spear 1”(2004) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 260。至于在 CIF/CFR 买卖，卖方在等待买方
开出信用证而导致他所租用的船舶面对延误，这方面的额外租金或滞期费是卖
方可去向买方索赔损失，因为是他的违约所导致的。

The “Spear 1”的先例也可以适用在其他涉及了买方没有去准时开出信用证

的情况，例如在买卖合约要求买方在付运前 30 天内开出信用证，但买方在计划
付运前的一天才开出信用证。这一来，如果说是先决条件已经履行，卖方有责任
去付运货物。但这说法是去剥夺了卖方在买卖合约中的合法权利与默示了买方违
约所造成的延误，比买卖合约规定的时间晚了 29 天才开出信用证。看来比较公
平的做法是去延长卖方的付运日期 29 天。这看来是符合 The “Spear 1”先例的精
神。在 Tamari & Sons Ltd and Another v “Colprogeca” (1969) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 18 先例
中，有类似但不是完全针对这方面问题的争议。该 CFR 买卖约定了付运日期是 8
月 25 日，另约定了信用证（并必须有一家里斯本银行保兑）必须在 7 月 16 日
开出，这一天被卖方接受可去延至 7 月 18 日。到了 7 月 18 日，卖方收到的信用
证并没有被里斯本银行保兑。卖方要求买方去作出补救，并表示愿意去延长开出
信用证的时间，但条件是买方必须同意去同步延长付运日期，不能仍是 8 月 25
日。买方到了 7 月底才勉强同意去延长付运日期 4 天，并拒绝去再延长。到了 8
月 25 日，卖方显然感觉到情况悲观，去接受了买方的违约/毁约并终断买卖合
约，卖方事后向买方提出损失索赔并且胜诉。英国的一审法院认为是不必针对买
方的违约应否去同步延长付运日期，说是根据双方之间的谈判，但看来是觉得
这样去处理合理。Megaw 大法官是这样说：

“The seller of goods to be shipped abroad commonly stipulates in his contract

that he shall have a period of time before he is obliged to ship the goods after he is
assured by the establishment of a credit that the purchase price will be paid to him.
That is something which is well known to everybody who takes part in the
transactions of this sort and I have no doubt whatever that it is well known to the
parties to this contract. When, therefore, the credit was not established until Aug.
15(on the assumption that it was then duly established and confirmed), the
consequence was that the sellers, if they were still to be obliged to ship by Aug 25,
would have had only 10 days in which to make their arrangements for shipment. The
sellers from the outset protested about this matter. They demanded of the buyer that if
the letter of credit were to be opened belatedly, the shipping period should be
extended accordingly...

They (Sellers) were prepared to negotiate to see if the transaction could still go
through, despite the buyer’s breach. They gave the buyers the opportunity to put the
matter right; but it was made quite clear in the correspondence, as appears from the
summary of it in the award, that, on each occasion when they made an offer of a new
or varied contract with a postponed date for the establishment of the credit, it was
conditional upon the buyers for their part agreeing to a corresponding extension of the
shipment period. That is something which one might have thought was entirely
reasonable, sensible, and commercially proper. The buyers ultimately (I think about
the end of July) agreed to extend the shipment period by four days to Aug. 29, 1966.
That was something that not unnaturally was unacceptable to the sellers and they
refused to accept it. Right up to Aug 25 (and I am still assuming for this purpose that
the credit was duly established and confirmed in accordance with its terms by Aug 15)
the buyers were still adopting the form attitude that they would not agree to any
extension of the shipment period beyond Aug.29. the sellers were not prepared to
accept that and they said, as in my judgment they were fully entitled to do, ‘Very well;
you have broken an essential term of this contract by your failure to provide the
confirmed credit at the due date or, indeed, until something like a month thereafter – if
then. We have made you an offer that we will still allow this contract to go on in
varied terms if you will extend the shipment period accordingly. You, the buyers, have
refused to accept that offer that we have made. We have done our best to make this
commercial transaction work. We are no longer prepared to play with it. You have
broken the contract long ago in an essential term. You have shown you are not
prepared to accept what we offered and in the circumstances we are going to treat the
contract as at an end.’ ”

1.4.4 怎样才算是开出信用证

既然开出信用证是这么重要的条件条文，买方就有必要去知道怎么样才算
是开出信用证。开出信用证，特别是一个保兑的信用证，涉及了三个不同的合约
第一个就是买方与开证银行之间的合约，也就是开证银行承诺去开出信用证，
而买方就提供担保以及支付有关费用作为对价。第二个合约是开证银行与受益人
也就是卖方。这一个合约是开证银行承诺受益人在他交出一套信用证规定的付运
单证后，去作出货款的支付。第三个合约是保兑银行与受益人之间，也就是保兑
银行承诺去与开证银行负有连带责任去支付受益人。

这里可去顺便一提的就是在第一个合约有提到是有对价/约因，这显然是一
个英国法律下有效与有约束性的合约。但第二个与第三个合约，是看不出有什么
对价/约因，也就是受益人的卖方根本没有任何好处给开证银行或保兑银行。尤
其是信用证是在买卖合约订立后才开出，所以卖方的承诺去接受买卖合约并不
能是作为信用证的对价/约因。而即使是，也已经是过去了的对价/约因。这与一
般的履约保证都不是太一样，对价是受益人没有这一个保证是不肯去订立买卖
合约。但看来这一个在国际货物买卖的习惯性做法已经被法院接受了是有效与有
约束性（指银行与受益人之间），即使是没有对价/约因的存在，好像信用证是
一份“盖章合约”（contract under seal），不需要对价/约因。这方面在 Hamzeh
Malas & Sons v British Imex Industries Ltd (1958) 2 QB 127 先例中，Jenkins 大法
官说到他不愿意去干预信用证的对价/约因问题，因为这已经是“一个十分精密
的商业制度，被普遍接受是信用证有约束力”(an elaborate commercial system …
built up on the footing that bankers’ confirmed credits are of that [binding] character. )

继续会去讲关于怎么样才算开出信用证，这可去介绍 Bunge v Vegetable

Vitamin (1985) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 613 先例，案情涉及了“CIF Bombay”的棕榈油买
卖。买卖合约要求是 3 月 16 日开出信用证，但信用证是晚了 4 天卖方才收到保
兑银行的确认。但买方否认有延误开出信用证，这就涉及了怎么样才算是开出信
用证的一天，买方认为只需要开证银行作出通知，因为接下来的事情都是机械
性的一步步走。但英国法院的 Neill 大法官不同意说：

“The opening of a confirmed letter of credit involves three contracts: (a) a

contract between the buyer and the issuing bank; (b) a contract between the issuing
bank and the seller beneficiary; and (c) a contract between the confirming bank and
the seller beneficiary. If the argument on behalf of the buyers were correct it would
mean that a letter of credit is opened as soon as the first of those contracts has been
concluded. It seems to me that that cannot be right and that a letter of credit cannot be
regarded as having been opened until the second and third contracts have come into
existence and the credit or something equivalent to it has been communicated to the
seller or to his agent. This approach seems to me to be in conformity with the
speeches of Lord Wilberforce and Lord Brandon in Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl Und
Stadhlwarenhandelsgesellschaft m.b.H., (1982) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 217. That was a case
which was concerned with offer and acceptance, but I can find nothing in those
speeches to throw doubt on the proposition that it is not until the contract between the
banks and the seller come into existence and communication has been made that the
letter of credit can be said to be opened. That approach also seems to me to be in
accord with the principle that a letter of credit does not become irrevocable until it has
been communicated to the beneficiary.”

1.4.5 开出信用证的时间

1.4.5.1 明示时间

在买卖合约中，不少会是去约定明确的开出信用证时间。对卖方而言，显然
他是希望越早开出信用证越好，即使离开货物付运日期还是有一段时间。这可以
保证在期间市场价格暴跌，如果开出了信用证就会令买方无法去脱身。但如果允
许稍后时间才去开出信用证，就会有危险买方会去扯皮或违约。还有一个重要的
情况是有关的货物需要很快去生产或制造，令卖方要承担各种花费例如购买材
料。这一来，卖方希望在开始生产或制造前就已经有了信用证在手，可以保证买
方无法去脱身。在这种合约，笔者见过明示条文规定在买卖合约订立后的 15 天
内就必须去开出信用证，虽然离开真正付运的日期还有好几个月。另也见过在一
个 1998 年的 ICC 仲裁案件（Case 9532），案情涉及了 5 万吨化肥的 CIF 买卖，
合约条文中要求在收到签署的买卖合约后 4 天内开出信用证，说：“The buyer
shall issue a confirmed, transferable, irrevocable, divisible, assignable, and
unrestricted commercial letter of credit within four working days from the date of the
receipt of a hard copy of this signed contract.”

对买方而言，显然是希望越晚去开出信用证越好，这对买方比较省钱，不
需要太长时间把资金绑死与需要向开证银行提供担保的时间也可以相应缩短。

反正是通过双方的谈判与让步，最后会去同意一个明示时间。这一个时间要
去重复强调是属于条件条文，特别是贵族院在 Bunge v Tradax (1981) 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 1 先例说明的大原则，就是涉及了买卖合约，所有有关时间的规定都会视为
是重要或作为条件条文对待：“broadly speaking, time will be considered of the
essence in mercantile contracts”。所以，买方在市场价格上升的时候必须要小心去
及时开出信用证，否则会面临好像 Bunge v Vegetable Vitamin (1985) 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 613 先例的困境。

此外，涉及了明示约定时间，就要避免文字/措辞并不明确而导致争议。在
Ets Chainbaux SARL v Harbormaster Ltd (1955) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 303 先例，有关的明
示条文要求买方在“几个星期内”（within a few weeks）开出信用证，这等于
是给买方在订立买卖合约后一段合理的时间去开出信用证。

另在 Sohio Supply Co v Gatoil (USA) Inc (1989) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 588 先例，该
原油的 FOB 买卖涉及开出信用证日期是明示为“估计装货一天前的 10 天”
（ten days prior to the estimated loading date）。根据买卖合约，卖方需要在 3 月 6
日之下午 5 点前作出 3 天的装货时间的选择，而第一天的装货时间必须是在 15
天以后（估计需要这一个时段让 FOB 买方去租船与开去装货地点）。反正卖方
就在 3 月 6 日宣告了装货时间为 3 月 22-24 日，为期 3 天。买卖双方之间就有了
争议，卖方认为在装货时间的第一天也就是 3 月 22 日前的 10 天，买方就必须
开出信用证。但由于买方没有在 3 月 12 日开出信用证，卖方在第二天的 3 月 13
日就终断买卖合约。而买方认为估计装货一天应该是以 3 天装货时间内的最后一
天为准，也就是 3 月 24 日。这表示最后开出信用证的一天是 3 月 14 日，卖方在
3 月 13 日终断买卖合约并不合法，是属于违约/毁约。反正在该先例倒也不是去
判谁最后胜诉，但英国法院显示了他的初步看法是卖方的说法是强而有力。

1.4.5.2 默示时间

如果买卖合约中没有明示条文针对买方必须在什么时间内去开出信用证，
就必须去了解法律的默示地位。这可以去把 CIF/CFR 买卖与 FOB 买卖分别探讨，
因为它们之间有本质上的不同。在 CIF/CFR 买卖，是由卖方选择准确付运日期。
但在 FOB 买卖，是由买方选择准确付运日期。而理论上，卖方对信用证的要求
只是在作出实际付运的时候，买方没有必要提早花钱去把信用证一早就开出与
备妥。

1.4.5.2.1 CIF/CFR 买卖

首先在 CIF/CFR 买卖，第一个介绍的先例是上诉庭的 Pavia & Co SPA v

Thurmann- Nielsen (1952) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 153 ，案情涉及了 3000 吨巴西花生的
“CFR Genoa”买卖。其中 1500 吨的付运日期是 1949 年 2 月至 4 月，另 1500 吨
是 3 月到 5 月。支付货款的办法是以信用证，有关条文是：

“Payment: By opening of a confirmed, irrevocable, divisible, transmissible and

transferable credit, opened in favour of the sellers and utilizable by them against
delivery of the following documents.”

卖方在 2 月 9 日通知买方说巴西的出口许可证已经取得并要求买方开出信
用证，但由于买方是在 3 月 4 日才取得意大利的进口许可证，所以卖方直到 4
月 22 日才取得信用证。这导致了部分货物没有去作出付运，卖方蒙受损失并提
出索赔。

在第一审，McNair 大法官判是第一批货物的 1500 吨是必须在 2 月 9 日开出

（注意这不是 2 月 1 日，也就是付运日期的第一天，因为卖方在该天才取得出
口许可证），而第二批货物是在 3 月 1 日开出（这是付运日期的第一天）。在上
诉庭，认为是买方必须在整个付运日期内备妥与开出信用证，其中 Somervell 大
法官是说：“I think when a seller is given a right to ship over a period and there is
machinery for payment, that machinery must be available over the whole of that
period. If the buyer is anxious, as he might be if the period of shipment is a long one,
not to have to put the credit machinery in motion until shortly before the seller is
likely to want to ship, then the credit shall be provision by which the credit shall be
provided 14 days after a cable is received from the seller, or some provision of that
kind.”（必须在整个付运日期内提供给卖方这支付货款保证的信用证。如果付运
日期约定的很长，买方不想去太早开出信用证直到卖方真正想去作出付运，大
可以在买卖合约中规定买方在收到卖方作出付运通知后的 14 天或不等时间内去
开出信用证）

而 Denning 大法官也说：“The sale of goods across the world is now usually

arranged by means of confirmed credits. The buyer requests his banker to open a
credit in favour of the seller, and, in pursuance of that request, the banker or his
foreign agent issues a confirmed credit in favour of the seller. This credit is a promise
by the banker to pay money to the seller in return for the shipping documents. Then
the seller, when he presents the documents, gets paid the contract price. The
conditions of the credit must be strictly fulfilled; otherwise the seller would not be
entitled to draw on it.

The question in this case is this: In a contract which provides for payment by
confirmed credit, when must the buyer open the credit? In the absence of express
stipulation, I think the credit must be made available to the seller at the beginning of
the shipment period. The reason is because the seller is entitled, before he ships the
goods, to be assured that, on shipment, he will get paid. The seller is not bound to tell
the buyer the precise date when he is going to ship; and whenever he does ship the
goods, he must be able to draw on the credit. He may ship on the very first day of the
shipment period. If the buyer is to fulfil his obligations, he must therefore makes the
credit available to the seller at the very first date when the goods may be lawfully
shipped in compliance with the contract.”

第二个要介绍的先例是 A.E. Lindsay & Co Ltd v Cook (1953) 1 Lloyd’s Rep

328。案情涉及了 500 箱冻鸡从澳大利亚运去英国的 CIF 买卖，运输的船舶是
“Strathnaver”轮，计划是在 9 月 28 日从悉尼开航。信用证的开出有了延误而导
致这批冻鸡最后是没有作出付运。英国法院判是开出信用证既然是付运的先决条
件，开出的时间就必须在付运之前。

接 下 去 是 上 诉 庭 的 Sinason - Teicher Grain Corpn v Oilcakes & Oilseeds

Trading Co (1954) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 327 先例，案情是涉及了 9500 吨加拿大大麦的
“CIF Antwerp/Hamburg”买卖，付运日期是 1952 年 10 月至 11 月。支付办法的条
文是说：

“PAYMENT: Net cash against documents on first presentation in London. The

buyers give the sellers through their London bank the guarantee that the documents
will be taken up on first presentation.”
 但没有条文规定该支付的履约担保是在哪一天作出。有关的买卖合约是在 8
月 11 日订立，美国卖方就开始追索这一个英国银行的担保，并去对买方定下了
一连串的限期必须在 9 月 1 日，9 月 3 日与 9 月 9 日前作出。由于没有这样做，
卖方就在 9 月 10 日终断合约。显然在该天还离开第一天的付运日期有 21 天，看
来时间上是太早。英国上诉庭认为该卖方错误理解合约的地位，以为他有权可以
马上取得支付履约担保并有权去单方面定下限期。上诉庭同意一审的判决，认为
支付的履约担保与信用证是同一码事，买方只需要在付运日期的第一天 10 月 1
日前的合理时间内开出，而在 9 月 10 日是太早。

1.4.5.2.2 FOB 买卖

已经提到过，FOB 买卖是通常由买方控制付运日期内哪一天去作出付运，
所以没有必要去在一个较长的付运日期内要求买方在第一天直到最后一天都有
去备妥与开出信用证。大可以在买方有了决定去付运并作出预先通知给卖方后才
去开出信用证，这应该是有足够时间在真正付运一天前已经备妥。也的确会有这
种 明 示 条 文 的 规 定 ， 例 如 在 SSCMO (London) Ltd v Societe Generale de
Compensation (1956) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 290 先例，条文是规定：“letter of credit to be
opened not later than 10 days before expected ready to load”。

固然，如果在一个较长的付运日期内都有信用证在手，卖方就会更加安心，
不必害怕在期间的市场价格波动会导致买方不履行合约。但英国法律并不针对这
方面的问题，也不要求合约一方去给另外一方足够的保证会去履行合约。卖方如
果觉得需要这一个安心，他可以以明示条文在买卖合约中要求在整个付运日期
甚至更早的日期有信用证在手。

看来，FOB 买卖与 CIF 买卖在这方面的法律地位是差不多。第一个先例是

Ian Stach Ltd v Baker Bosly Ltd (1958) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 127，案情涉及了 500 吨船舶
钢板的 FOB 买卖，付运日期是 1956 年 8 月至 9 月，而支付货款条文是:“By
confirmed irrevocable letter of credit divisible and transferable, and assignable to our
nominees in Western Germany.”在 8 月 5 日，卖方催促买方去马上开出信用证，
但买方没有回复。到了 8 月 14 日，卖方由于供应商的压力告诉买方说由于他持
续性的违约不开出信用证，他会把这一个案件交给他的律师处理。买方是在 8 月
15 日 回 复 说 他 还 在 等 分 买 方 开 出 给 他 的 信 用 证 ， 作 为 去 “ 转 让 ”
（transferable）。Diplock 大法官认为是买方需要最晚在付运第一天开出信用证，
所以买方晚了就是违约/毁约，说：“that it is the duty of the defendants under the
contract to open their letter of credit by Aug 1, 1956, at the latest; that defendants’
failure to open a credit was a breach of condition which went to the root of the
contract and plaintiffs (having waived their rights temporarily by their letter of Aug 8)
were entitled, on Aug 14, to accept that breach as a repudiation of the contract.”

但这一个先例是涉及了一连串的买卖合约以及可转让信用证，在这种情况
下显然 Diplock 大法官的判法有一定道理，就是为了大家的肯定。针对买方的争
辩说是不需要开出信用证直到卖方真正备妥去作出付运，Diplock 大法官是这样
说：

“It seems to me that Mr. Lawson（买方代表大律师）, too, has argued that the
obligation that arises upon the buyer does not arise upon the buyer until a date which
he could not possibly know because it is a date which must depend on circumstances,
and it must depend upon circumstances which would not normally be known to him.
He does not know, and would not normally know, how long a chain there was
between him and the actual manufacturer or stockist. He would not know how long it
would take to bring the goods from the place where they were and transport them to
the port. He would not know in a case of this kind, and did not know, whether or not
the goods had to be rolled to order or whether they were stock or whether they were
partly rolled. It seems to me that, in a case of this kind and in the case of an ordinary
f.o.b. contract financed by a confirmed banker’s credit, the prima facie rule is that the
credit must be opened at latest (and that is as far as I need to go for the purpose of this
case) by the earliest shipping date. In that way, one gets certainty into what is a very
common commercial contract and in any other way one can, I think, only get a
positioning which neither buyer nor seller knows what his rights are until all the facts
have been ascertained, and one, and possibly two or three, Courts have directed their
minds to the question whether in all the circumstances that was a reasonable time.”

Ian Stach Ltd v Baker Bosly Ltd 先例的判法看来受到支持，这包括了 State

Trading v Cie Francaise (1983) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 679 和 Glencore Grain Rotterdam BV
v Lebanese Organization for International Commerce (1997) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 578。在后
一个先例中，Longmore 大法官涉及了这一个方面去简单说：“A contractual
letter of credit did here by then to be in place strictly before the first day for shipment,
on the board’s findings in this case, Apr.1; see Ian Stach Ltd v Baker Bosley Ltd.”

但这一个合理性在一般的 FOB 买卖还是有质疑，毕竟默示地位时要讲合理。

例如在 Michael Bridge 教授的《The International Sale of Goods》（2nd edn, 2007
年）一书之 6.46 段说：“It is submitted that, in the general case, where it is the
FOB buyer who controls the shipping timetable, the buyer, if the contract does not
stipulate an opening date, should be required to open it a reasonable time before
shipment. This date, presumptively, may for the sake of convenience be the same date
on which the buyer gives notice of readiness to load. A seller wanting greater certainty
and assurance should stipulate for a precise and earlier date.”

1.4.5.3 卖方对不准时开出信用证的弃权与恢复权利

即使知道了买方在明示或默示的地位下不去在最后期限开出信用证是违反
条件条文并可以让卖方去索赔损失与选择终断合约，笔者还要去针对一种经常
见到的情况去进一步解释。这就是在买方不准时开出信用证会是市场价格上升，
可去让卖方抓紧这一个机会去终断买卖合约，但这种情况还是比较罕见，因为
稍微有警觉性的买方在这样的市场情况下都会尽量尽早开出信用证。在大部分的
情况下，买方不准时开出信用证还是会在市场价格下跌的时候，这导致了买方
迟疑不决，能拖就拖。但也在这种情况下，卖方为了完成这一个赚钱的买卖合约
（因为货物价格约定的比市场高），也往往不会去马上选择终断合约。相反，卖
方会去想尽办法哀求或威胁买方去开出信用证以履行买卖合约。这哀求或威胁的
结果会导致双方达成一个补充协议，例如去押后开出信用证半个月，并同时去
延长付运日期或甚至把合约价格稍微调整。这一来，去押后开出信用证的时间就
变了是新的最后限期。

但更加会出现的情况是双方没有达成什么补充协议，反正就是拖拖拉拉。如
果过一段时间市场价格回升，买方也就回心转意去开出信用证就令整个事情过
去，这倒也是好事。但怕就是拖拖拉拉的后果就是市场价格进一步下跌，而卖方
也会到了一个地步感觉到没有希望而想去终断买卖合约并向买方索赔损失。这一
来，就涉及了卖方会否对他终断合约的权利已经弃权或构成禁止翻供，因为买
方没有准时开出信用证的违约可去让卖方在合理时间内终断合约早已经过去。如
果后来买方回心转意去开出信用证，卖方也就必须履行买卖合约并去作出货物
的付运，因为合约从来没有终断过。至于卖方可能有损失需要向买方索赔，例如
在延误开出信用证的期间导致了 CIF 卖方对他所租用的船舶要多付出租金或滞
期费，这索赔的权利并没有失去或放弃，放弃的只是终断合约的权利。

但如果买方一直不开出信用证，卖方在感觉无望或另有计划去处置货物，
想去终断合约，他就要小心了。卖方对终断合约的选择权弃权，只能被视为是暂
时性，毕竟买方还是持续没有开出信用证。所以卖方是可以恢复他的权利去终断
买卖合约，在做法上就是去向买方作出一个通知，给他一段合理的时间去开出
信用证，否则就会终断买卖合约。

这可先去节录《Chitty on Contract》(30th edn, 2008 年) 22-042 段所说：

 “Effect on party forbearing. The party who forbears will be bound by the
waiver and cannot set up the original terms of the agreement. If, by words or conduct,
he has agreed or led the other party to believe that he will accept performance at a
later date than or in a different manner from that provided in the contract, he will not
be able to refuse that performance when tendered. However, in cases of postponement
of performance, if the period of postponement is specified in the waiver, then, if the
time was originally of the essence, it will remain so in respect of the new date: Luck v
White (1973) 26 P. & C.R.89; Nichimen Corp v Gatoil Overseas Inc (1987) 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 46. If the period of postponement is not specified in the waiver, the party
forbearing is entitled, upon reasonable notice, to impose a new time-limit, which may
then become of the essence of the contract: Hartley v Hymans (1920) 2 KB 475; State
Trading v Cie Francaise (1983) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 679. Similarly, in other cases of
forbearance, he may be entitled, upon reasonable notice, to require the other party to
comply with the original mode of performance, unless in the meantime circumstances
have so changed as to render it impossible or inequitable so to do: Toepfer v Warinco
AG (1978) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 569. He cannot treat the waiver as entirely without
effect.”（无辜方如果容忍对方的违约会受到弃权的影响而无法主张他在合约中
原有的权利。如果无辜方以文字或行动导致了违约方相信他会接受在较后时间履
行合约或者与合约要求不同的履行办法，无辜方就不能去拒绝违约方不按照原
来合约要求所作出的履行。但如果是涉及了延误去履行，而无辜方的弃权是明确
说明延误多久[举例说是卖方对买方说明我允许你多一个星期开出信用证]，这
一来过了弃权说明的时间，无辜方还是拥有他原来的权利在新的最后期限。这方
面的先例有 Luck v White 与 Nichimen Corp v Gatoil Overseas Inc。但如果无辜方
的弃权是没有规定延误多久，他有权去作出一个合理通知并定下明确的履约期
限，让他去恢复他的权利可以把这一个新的最后期限作为条件条文，并在违约
方没有去履约的情况下有权去终断合约。这方面先例有 Hartley v Hymans 与 State
Trading v Cie Francaise。但如果在无辜方在弃权的期间直到作出合理通知，情况
有所改变导致违约方不可能再去履行或是不公平，无辜方就无法去恢复他的权
利了。反正是无辜方必须了解他不能把弃权视为是毫无影响。）

这方面第一个要介绍的先例是 Panoutsos v Raymond Hadley Corporation of

New York (1917) 2 KB 473。案情涉及 4000 吨面粉的买卖，买卖合约约定货物在
11 月 7 日前分批付运去希腊，支付办法是“by confirmed bankers’ credit”。但买方
开出不是保兑的信用证，这是不符合买卖合约的要求。卖方虽然注意到信用证没
有保兑，但还是作出了部分货物的付运，并且通过该有不符点的信用证结了汇。
同时，卖方也取得了买方同意将余下的面粉的付运日期从 11 月 7 日延长至 11
月 30 日。但在 11 月 25 日，卖方在没有作出任何通知或警告的情况下终断买卖
合约，理由是买方违约没有去开出买卖合约所要求的信用证。至于卖方为什么会
突然改变态度也不必去细究，反正很多时候是涉及了市场价格的变化而导致了
卖方想去找理由从合约中脱身。法院判是对于买方违反开出保兑信用证的条件条
文，卖方有权去选择终断买卖合约，也不必履行任何货物的付运。但卖方在弃权
后在没有作出合理通知给买方（让买方有一个机会去开出符合买卖合约的信用
证）的情况下终断买卖合约，这是不能接受，所以违约/毁约是在卖方。在上诉
庭，Viscount Reading 首席大法官是这样说：

“I cannot find any authority to support the proposition that, when one party has
led another to believe that he may continue in a certain course of conduct without any
risk of the contract being cancelled, the first-mentioned party can cancel the contract
without giving any notice to the other so as to enable the latter to comply with the
requirements of the contracts. It seems to me to follow from the observations of Lord
Justice Bowen in Bentsen v Taylor, Sons & Co (1893) 2 QB 274, that there must be
reasonable notice given to the buyer before the sellers can take advantage of the
failure to provide a confirmed bankers’ credit. That is the decision of Mr. Justice
Bailhache.”

比较近期的同样判法是贵族院的 A/S Tankexpress v Compagnie Financiere

Belge de Petroles SA (1948) 83 Ll L Rep 43 先例。

去总结这一个非常重要的法律地位，就是无辜方如果曾经作出容忍，之后
决定去终断合约以利把这一个违约来一个了结，就必须记得先去作出一个合理
通知给违约方再去采取终断合约的行动，否则无辜方反而会变了是违约方。在本
段所讲的情况就是卖方去向买方作出一个通知说：“卖方已经给了买方许多机
会去作出买卖合约所要求的信用证，但已经是过了半个月，买方还是没有行动，
甚至没有作出任何回应。卖方在这种没有希望与无助的情况下，决定再给你 5 天
工作天的通知，要求你必须在期间内作出符合买卖合约的信用证，否则卖方被
迫行使有关的权利，包括去终断合约与索赔损失。”

1.4.6 信用证必须准确与符合买卖合约的要求

信用证除了准时开出，买方也要小心信用证必须准确，这代表信用证必须
完全符合买卖合约的要求。例如在 Panoutsos v Raymond Hadley Corporation of
New York (1917) 2 KB 473 先例，买卖合约要求的是保兑的信用证，而买方开出
不是保兑的信用证就是典型的不符合买卖合约要求。

这种情况经常会出现，在卖方提出不符点之后买方可以去作出补救，通常
就是由开证银行去作出“修改信函”（amending letter）给受益人的卖方：
Tamari & Sons Ltd and Another v “Colprogeca” (1969) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 18。而如果买
卖合约涉及了货物的分批付运，也可以在后来付运的货物去作出准确的信用证，
正如在 Bunge v Vegetable Vitamin (1985) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 613 先例，涉及了 4 次付
运的棕榈油，Neill 大法官说：“it is also accepted that any defects there may have
been in the letter of credit which was opened in March could have been corrected in
letters of credit opened in April and May for the purposes of shipments in May and
June respectively.”

当然这一个补救只可以在买卖合约下明示或者默示的最后期限内去作出。

1.4.7 卖方接受不准确信用证的后果

这可先去节录《Benjamin’s Sale of Goods》（8th edn, 2010 年）一书的 23-062

段如下：

“Credit at variance with the terms of the contract. Where the terms of the
credit as opened differ from the terms as specified expressly or impliedly in the
underlying contract, the deficiency can be rectified by the opening of a compliant
credit before the time at which the credit is required under the underlying contract. If
the defect is so cured, the seller has no cause for complaint. If, however, the defect is
not cured but the seller does not object, two analyses are possible. First, the seller may
be considered to have assented to a proposal to vary the underlying contract with
respect to the terms of the credit. Such a variation is binding on both parties.
Secondly, the seller may conduct itself so as to waive the right to insist on the opening
of a credit compliant with the underlying contract as a condition precedent to the
seller’s shipment obligations. However, the grant of fixed extensions of time to
comply with the underlying contract is not a waiver of the right to treat non-
compliance as a repudiatory breach; such extensions are ‘mere indulgences to the
extent that they are granted and have no other effect’. Moreover, even in cases where
waiver is established, the seller can re-assert the right to a compliant credit by giving
the buyer reasonable notice of its insistence on compliance with the underlying
contract, but the seller is not entitled to treat the buyer as in repudiatory breach of
contract pending service of such notice and expiry of the reasonable time. If, on the
facts, reasonable notice cannot be given because, for example, the credit has already
been realized so that it is too late to insist on the originally agreed terms, the waiver
becomes irrevocable and equivalent in effect to an agreed variation. Where, however,
a contract involves a number of shipments, loss through waiver of the right to object
to a non-compliant credit with respect to one shipment does not prejudice the right to
give reasonable notice insisting on strict compliance as regards the remaining
shipments. The requirement for reasonable notice is, however, dispensed with where
on the facts, whether or not known to the seller, it would serve no useful purpose
because the buyer either would not or could not provide a compliant credit within
whatever would amount on the facts to a reasonable time.”

以上的节录可去作出进一步的解释。首先就是卖方如果不反对信用证的不准
确或不符合买卖合约，或是买方过了最后期限还是不去作出修改，卖方也不接
受这一个违约/毁约去终断买卖合约的情况。而这种情况会出现在卖方认为这一
个不准确信用证并不会影响或严重影响他的议付，特别是加上在当时有关货物
的市场价格下跌，卖方希望完成这一个交易。反正这种情况的出现，法律上就可
以有两个解释。第一个就是把卖方这一个反应视为是同意“变更”（variation）
买卖合约对支付货款的条文。第二个解释就是把卖方视为是“弃权”
（waiver），这是针对买卖合约要求准确信用证权利的放弃。

1.4.7.1 后果之一：同意变更

针 对 变 更 的 说 法 ， 可 去 节 录 Goff 大 法 官 在 Ficom SA v Sociedad Cadex

Limitada (1980) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 118 先例中所说如下：

“I approach the matter in this way. It is plain on the authorities that parties to a
contract of sale, under which payment is to be made by means of a letter of credit,
can, by subsequently agreeing to terms of the letter of credit which differ from those
specified in the sale contract, thereby vary their contractual obligation under the sale
contract: see W.J. Alan & Co Ltd v El Nasr Export and Import Co (1972) 2 QB 189;
(1972) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 313. A somewhat similar case may arise where the parties do
not, in their sale contract, define the terms of the proposed letter of credit. Where that
occurs the letter of credit, as subsequently agreed between the parties, may fill the
contractual gap and so supplement the terms of the sale contract; if that is not done,
for example, where the parties are unable to agree on the terms of a letter of credit to
be issued under a contract of sale, then the dispute may have to be resolved by
defining where possible, by means of implication or by resort to any approved custom
of the trade, the terms upon which the parties must be taken to have agreed that the
letter of credit should in due course be issued.

Now, whether there has, in any particular case, been a binding agreement
between the parties either to vary the terms of the original sale contract, or to
supplement its express terms, is to be ascertained by asking the question whether the
parties intended so to do – their intention to be ascertained objectively in the usual
way from their words and actions at the relevant time.”

换言之，变更就是双方同意对原来的合约作出改变，例如买卖合约本来是
要求保兑信用证，但在变更后就不再要求保兑。买卖合约既然是双方约定，双方
也可以同意去把它取消或是某些地方作出改变，而双方同意作出的改变也就有
约束力。但一个有效的变更也必须具备成立合约的所有法律要求，例如必须双方
有订约的意图，这也是较早节录 Goff 大法官所讲的最后一段话。此外一个有效
的 变 更 也 需 要 对 价 / 约 因 ， 虽 然 近 年 来 对 这 方 面 的 要 求 已 经 放 宽 ： Simon
Container Machinery Ltd v Emba Machinery AB (1998) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429。因为有
这种法律的要求，所以卖方不反对或接受一个不准确信用证通常不会是与买方
同意去作出买卖合约的变更，而是涉及了“弃权”（waiver）。而变更与弃权主
要的分别就是变更是永久性，也就是代表了双方的协议，不存在卖方可以反悔，
例如要求买方在接下去的付运必须是保兑信用证。要恢复到买卖合约原来要求的
保兑信用证，是需要另一个变更去超越，而另一个变更也是需要买卖双方同意。
但弃权可以是暂时性，卖方可以在作出合理通知后，恢复到原来的买卖合约地
位。

1.4.7.2 后果之二：弃权

许多这种“容忍”（forbearance）或“让步”（concession）都会是属于弃
权。例如买卖合约要求订立后的 10 天内必须开出信用证，但买方没有做到或开
出不准确的信用证。卖方并没有去选择终断合约，而是要求买方去尽快开出信用
证或对不准确的信用证作出修改。这是一种弃权的行动，卖方不能在之后不声不
响突然去终断合约，毕竟买方可能在那个时候已经即将开出信用证或对不准确
的信用证作出修改。而买方在晚了 5 天或 10 天不等的时间才开出信用证，卖方
也不能指这是违反了买卖合约的最后期限才开出，可让他去终断买卖合约。这是
因为卖方较早时提出的要求买方履约，已经是构成了对违反买卖合约的有关信
用证条件条文所带来的终断合约权利已经被放弃。卖方是必须作出通知再给一段
合理的时间才能恢复他在买卖合约的权利，也就是在新的限期届满，如果买方
还是没有去开出准确信用证，他才可以终断买卖合约。

弃权不像变更，不需要双方订约的意图，也不需要对价/约因。这可以去节
录《 Chitty on Contract 》(30th edn, 2008 年) 之 22-035 段所说如下：“ A mere
forbearance or concession afforded by one party to the other for the latter’s
convenience and at his request does not constitute a variation, although it may be
effective as a waiver or in equity. Such a forbearance or concession need not be
supported by consideration, and can be made orally even when the contract is one
which is required to be made or evidenced in writing.”

在较早节录的《Benjamin’s Sale of Goods》（8th edn, 2010 年）一书的 23-062

段部分所讲是卖方可以去作出通知，要求买方必须在一个合理时间内（也就是
一个新的期限）去开出一个准确的信用证，才可以恢复他在买卖合约中的权利。

1.4.8 付运单证必须严格按照信用证的要求

这可以先去节录 Equitable Trust Co of New York v Dawson Partners Ltd (1927)

27 Ll LR 49 先例中，Sumner 勋爵说：“There is no room for documents which are
almost the same, or which will do just as well. Business could not proceed securely on
any other lines.”

对付运单证严格性的背后原因是由于信用证的操作完全依赖文件，加上银
行通常不会了解有关的业务，所以没有办法去作出判断到底文件的偏差是否是
没有太大的影响或是可以接受。此外，银行也没有时间去作出进一步的澄清或调
查，他必须在检查文件后很快就作出决定是否支付给受益人。这可节录 Diplock
勋爵在 Commercial Banking Co of Sydney Ltd v Jalsard Pty Ltd (1973) AC 279 先
例中所说：“The banker is not concerned as to whether the documents for which the
buyer has stipulated serve any useful commercial purpose or as to why the customer
called for tender of a document of a particular description. Both the issuing banker
and his correspondent bank have to make quick decisions as to whether a document
which has been tendered by the seller complies with the requirements of a credit…”

所以不明确或需要进一步澄清或调查的文件是不被接受在 The “Galatia”

(1980) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 453 先例，Donaldson 大法官说：“A tender of documents
which properly read and understood calls for further inquiry or are such as to invite
litigation are a bad tender.”

这种不幸的情况需要进一步澄清或调查的文件通常出现在一套付运单证的
不同文件之间，而不是在单独的一份文件。简单的例子可以说是提单的货物品种
被称为“machine-shelled groundnut kernels C.R.S.”（C.R.S.是 Coromandels 的简
称），但信用证要求的货物品种是“Coromandel groundnuts”。这也可以出现在
一套付运单证中其他的文件，例如是出口许可证与检验报告之间出现不一致的
名称。在懂有关贸易的人士而言，他们是同一品种的货物，但去涉及银行就表示
需要去做进一步的澄清或调查。所以在 Rayner (JH) & Co Ltd v Hambro’s Bank
Ltd (1943) 1 KB 37 先例，银行被支持可以不在信用证去做出支付。
 有关不同文件之间必须去串的起来是针对同一批货物， Parker 大法官在
Banque v Rayner (1982) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 479 先例中说：“I have no doubt that so
long as the documents can be plainly seen to be linked with each other, are not
inconsistent with each other or with the terms of the credit, do not call for inquiry and
between them state all that is required in the credit, the beneficiary is entitled to be
paid.”

以上这些重要的因素导致了法律对付运单证的要求是非常严格，这会是比
实质货物的交付更严格，导致会有情况买方不可以拒绝接收货物但可以拒绝付
运单证：The “Hansa Nord” (1975) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 445; Ficom SA v Sociedad Cadex
Limitada (1980) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 118。

以下可去举几个先例来说明它的严格性：

例子一：Skandinaviska Kreditaktie Bolaget v Barclays Bank

在 Skandinaviska Kreditaktie Bolaget v Barclays Bank (1925) 22 Lloyd’s Rep

523 先 例 ， 涉 及 了 付 运 单 证 最 重 要 的 装 船 提 单 漏 了 去 填 上 “ 发 货 人 ”
（ shipper ） 一 栏 ， 而 “ 收 货 人 ” （ consignee ） 一 栏 是 写 上 了 “ 指 令 ” （ to
order）。这一来，就导致了这份提单不清楚谁有权去指示船长在卸港放货给谁，
被判是银行可以拒绝支付货款。Greer 大法官是这样说：

“In looking at the documents which were delivered I find that the bill of lading is
a bill of lading which does not name the shipper; it is a document ‘to order’, and it is a
document as to which, from the document itself, no one could ascertain who was the
person entitled to endorse the document; and it would have been a document of very
little value in the hands of the bank if they had had to realize the security they
obtained by means of it. It is not in my judgment what is called for by the letter of
instructions from Mr. Nellist（买方）. It is not a blank endorsed bill of lading.”

例子二：Bank Melli Iran v Barclays Bank (Dominion, Colonial & Overseas)

在 Bank Melli Iran v Barclays Bank (Dominion, Colonial & Overseas) (1951) 2
Lloyd’s Rep 367 先例，涉及了“100 辆新卡车”（100 new Chevrolet trucks）的
买卖。但在卖方交出的付运单证中，发票是写作卡车是“新的状况”（ in new
condition），而产品来源地证明是写作卡车是“新、良好”（new good）。这被
法院判是这种不同的写法会带来一定程度的含糊，因为这种写法可以是与“新
卡车”是同义，但也可以不是。McNair 大法官是这样说：
 “I feel no doubt at all that the phrase ‘in new condition’ is not or may not be
synonymous with the term ‘new.’ It is, of course, true that the term ‘new’ is capable of
different meanings in relation to different subject-matters. For example, the term
‘new’ when applied to wine, as in the phrase ‘putting new wine into old bottles,’ has
clearly a different meaning from what it bears when applied to a motor car; but ‘in
new condition’ in relation to a motor vehicle seems to me to be essentially different
from ‘new’.”

例子三：Soproma SpA v Marine & Animal By-Products Corp

在 Soproma SpA v Marine & Animal By-Products Corp (1966) 1 Lloyd’s Rep
367 先例，涉及了 500 吨的智利鱼粉的“C&F Savona”买卖。信用证所要求的文
件是发票、卫生证书（说明有关货物是没有沙门氏菌）、质量与检验证书等。而
针 对有关的货物是“ 500 CHILEAN FISH FULLMEAL 70% Protein, 10% Max.
Fat, 2% Max. Salt, 2% Max, Sand, 10% Max. Moisture.”

但在卖方交出的付运单证，其中质 量证书在针对蛋白质是写作“ 67%

minimum”，而质量证书是写作“69.7%”，这是与信用证对货物的要求是 70%不
符。而在卫生证书就没有说明货物没有沙门氏菌。这被法院判是银行可以不接受

例子四：Banque v Rayner

在 Banque v Rayner (1982) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 476 先例，付运单证涉及了几个不

同的不符点，在这里笔者只去挑两个方面。第一个不符点是银行认为信用证要求
付 运 的 船 舶 是 属 于 班 轮 公 会 （ Shipment to be effected on vessel belonging to
Shipping Company that member of an International Shipping Conference. ），但没
有要求这是针对什么文件。银行认为他有权要求承运人或船公司作出一份证明，
明确有关的船舶是属于班轮公会。但卖方没有提供，而卖方其中的一个争议就是
提单有船公司的抬头与一条印本条文说：“The shipment is subject to the terms
and conditions of the relevant Conference/Rates Agreement Tariff so far as they are
not inconsistent with the terms and conditions of this Bill of Lading.” 但法院认为提
单只是显示了该船舶会是属于班轮公会但不能作为是明确的证明。反正是，法院
认为银行有权去拒绝作出支付，其中 Parker 大法官是这样说：

“No specific documentary proof was called for by the credit but, since parties to
documentary credits deal only in documents, the bank were in my judgment entitled
to insist upon, and the defendants were obliged to provide, reasonable documentary
proof. The requirement for a certificate was, in my view, a reasonable requirement
and accordingly the bank was entitled to regard its absence as a valid ground for
refusing payment even if, as was in fact the case, the vessel was a Conference Line
vessel.”

第二个不符点是说产地来源证明与其他针对货物的证明（EUR 1 证书）与
付运单证的其他文件以及信用证串不起来，这一点也被 Parker 大法官接受，说：

“In the present case the tender was, in my judgment, bad, both as to individual
documents and as a set. The document clearly called for inquiry. It may well be that
the use of the words ‘sucre blanc de betterave a letat solide non denature’ to the
description of the goods in the credit, which appear in two of the three EUR 1
certificates, made no difference but those words do not appear in the credit nor do
they appear in the certificate of origin which is said to relate to the same parcel. The
three EUR certificates cannot be seen on their face to cover 2000 tonnes net. The third
one gives the gross weight only and does not state what number of bags is covered.
The two quality certificates refer to two apparently different voyages and one of them
introduces an entirely new company on the scene. The only thing to connect it with
the certificate of origin to which it is supposed to relate is the destination. There are
other matters in addition. I do not consider that the documents are on their face
consistent with each other. It is accepted that they are in any event not on their face
linked with each other and they do not show EUR certificates as to the required
quantity.”

例子五：Seaconsar v Bank Markazi

另在 Seaconsar v Bank Markazi (1993) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 236 先例，涉及了信用

证有要求所有的付运单证必须注明信用证的号码与买方的名字，说：“ Our LC
No. and our principal’s name should appear on all documents and packages…”为什么
信用证有这个要求并不清楚，可能是希望把付运单证的所有不同文件都串的起
来针对同一票货物。但卖方交出的付运单证中有其中一份名为“ Proces verbal of
goods”没有去加上信用证号码与买方名字。照理说，卖方还有时间去对这一个不
符点作出修改并再次交出给银行，但不知道为什么卖方没有这样做，导致了最
后银行没有做出支付。卖方作为原告向开证银行索赔，理由是尽管付运单证必须
严格，但还是需要一定程度的宽容。毕竟“Proces verbal of goods”这份文件应是
明确针对同一票货物。但这被上诉庭所拒绝，原因是信用证有明确的明示要求，
就不能去漠视这一个要求。Lloyd 大法官是这样说：
 “Here, by contrast, there is an express requirement that the documents should be
linked in the sense that each of them should contain the letter of credit number and the
name of Bank Markazi’s principal. Whatever the reason for this, the requirement is
clear. I do not see how Bank Melli could ignore that requirement. It may be that the
proces verbal in fact related to the same goods, and that one can see this by inference
from the other document. But the absence of the letter of credit number and the name
of Bank Markazi’s principal on the proces verbal called for some explanation. The
bank was therefore entitled to reject.

It is an odd feature of the case that the proces verbal was never amended, as
other documents were, and as it could have been at any time up to the expiry of the
credit on Mar.17, 1988. But the fact is that it never was. To hold that it is even
arguable that the documents as presented were a valid tender under the credit would, I
suspect, cause surprise among bankers, and risk upsetting the ordinary course of
business. In my judgment the tender was clearly bad.”

例子六：Kredietbank Antwerp v Midland Bank plc

在 Kredietbank Antwerp v Midland Bank plc (1999) CLC 1108 先例，涉及了一

份付运单证的文件是由“Griffith Inspectorate”作出的“吃水检验报告”（draft
survey report），但卖方交出的文件是由“Daniel C. Griffith (Holland) BV”作出，
证书上也有“Inspectorate”的标志。显然这一个看来不同的名字是属于一些国际
性的检验公司，他们在不同国家的分公司会有不同的名字，但串的起来是属于
同一个集团。所以在该先例，英国高院与上诉庭判文件是银行应该接受，其中高
院是这样说：“any banker used to examining documents tendered under letters of
credit would know that there are a number of groups which carry out surveys…on a
world-wide basis, and that individual companies or partnerships at different ports are
members of or loosely affiliated with those organizations.”

1.4.9 总结付运单证必须严格按照信用证

即使对信用证下的付运单证必须是严格，没有“极轻微”（de minimis）的
说法，但还是有说法是可以接受一些偏差。只是银行去这样做就会有一定的风险
正如 Parker 大法官在 Banque v Rayner 先例中说：“ I also accept … that Lord
Sumner’s statement cannot be taken as requiring rigid meticulous fulfillment of
precise wording in all cases. Some margin must and can be allowed, but it is slight,
and banks will be at risk in most cases where there is less than strict compliance.”
 例如在 Bankers Trust Co v State Bank of India (1991) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 443 先例
中，买方的电传号码应该是 981310，而被写成 931310，法院判是可被接受。但
注意是这一个非常微小的错误并不涉及有关货物。可以说是很难去作出判断什么
是可以被接受或不可以被接受，在大部分的情况下，银行还是会小心去严格按
照信用证的要求去审查受益人交出的付运单证。

但在现实中是经常会有情况一套付运单证中能去挑出很多不符点，特别是
信用证要求的文件太多。随便去举一个例子，在 Bankers Trust Co v State Bank of
India 先例中，买方在卖方交出的付运单证中挑出了 46 项不符点，而银行挑出
23 个不符点。

在这种情况下，银行会有几种做法。一种就是去尽快通知受益人有关的不符
点，并退还付运单证说明受益人可以随时去银行取回这一套单证。受益人的卖方
就会可能有机会在信用证限期届满之前作出修改并去作出第二次的交出付运单
证。

第二种的办法，情况会是银行认为某一份或多份文件有不符点（特别是小
不符点），但受益人认为银行是判断错误，而该受益人是该银行的一个有信用
与重要的客户，所以双方希望能够息事宁人，就是让开证银行与最终的买方会
接受这一套付运单证，不去挑毛病。这一来，银行会去作出有保留的支付货款给
受益人（payment under reserve）。这种支付只是暂时性，如果将来开证银行提
出合法理由去拒绝文件，银行是可以要求受益人退还这笔钱。在 Banque v
Rayner 先例中，Parker 大法官是对这一个保留的解释为：

“A more natural and, as I think, commercially sensible meaning to give to the

words is that the bank if it was not at the date of payment contractually payable.

Such a meaning is, moreover, one which accords with the realities of the
situation. At the time of the payment under reserve the beneficiary either is or is not
entitled to payment. If he is entitled to payment the bank should have paid him
without reserve and he should in justice be entitled to retain that which was from the
start due to him. I find it impossible to suppose that either he or the bank intended by
the use of the words to put him under an obligation to repay and then claim against
the bank. On the other hand there is every reason to protect the bank from being
unable to reclaim even if at least one of the discrepancies was valid. It is this
protection only which in my judgment the bank obtains when a payment is made and
accepted under reserve.”
 第三种办法也是通过开证银行去问买方是否接受这一套有不符点的付运单
证，与第二种办法的不同之处就是受益人并非是有关银行认为是一个有信用与
重要的客户，或是不符点可能有关银行认为是比较严重，所以银行不会去作出
任何支付给受益人。这种解决的办法也经常会是成功，就是买方通过发证银行确
认可以接受这一套付运单证。至于买方为什么接受的背后原因可能是有多种，例
如是不符点事实上是无关痛痒，或是有关货物的市场价格当时暴涨，或是买方
很需要有关的货物，或是买方与卖方另外去达成协议对合约价格作出扣减（但
不必去在信用证作出修改）或其他的好处，等等。

1.4.10 卖方如果因为付运单证的不符点不能从信用证获得支付可否向买方要求
支付？

这一个问题可先节录《Benjamin’s Sale of Goods》（8th edn, 2010 年）之 23-

216 段所说如下：

“As between beneficiary and applicant. Failure to make a complying

presentation constitutes a repudiatory breach of the underlying sale contract. Where a
contract provides for payment by documentary credit, the opening of the required
credit almost invariably constitutes only conditional payment but the condition relates
to the operation of the credit according to its terms, not to the receipt by the seller of
payment despite a failure to comply with the credit’s terms and conditions. A seller
that fails to make a complying presentation has no right to require payment instead
from the buyer: Ficom SA v Sociedad Cadex Limitada (1980) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 118;
Shamser Jute Mills Ltd v Sethia (London) Ltd (1987) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 388. The
consequence is to characterize every instance of non-compliance under a documentary
credit as a repudiatory breach of the underlying contract, irrespective of whether the
tender of such documents to the buyer would constitute a repudiatory breach in the
absence of any documentary credit.

A seller that fails to make a complying presentation may, as already seen,

endeavour to obtain the buyer’s acceptance of non-conforming documents through the
credit. Alternatively, the seller may elect to approach the buyer directly, in which case
a buyer that subsequently accepts the documents, or the goods, must be considered as
waiving the non-complying nature of the presentation and must pay seller, either by
informing the issuing bank of the waiver and requesting the bank to pay under the
credit or by paying the seller outside the credit.”

以上的节录可以带来接下去进一步的分析。
 1.4.10.1 信用证是买方绝对或只是有条件的支付?

这一个分析涉及了信用证如果是一个“绝对”（absolute）的支付，就表示
买方在开出信用证之后已经是尽了支付货款的责任，卖方将来不论是什么原因
造成不能从信用证获得支付，与买方都没有关系。但如果信用证只是一个“有条
件”（conditional）的支付，就表示卖方不能通过信用证从银行获得支付，会有
情况可以去找买方要求做出支付。

应该是法律把信用证视为是相等于本土买卖的以支票作出货款的支付，如
果该支票不被银行接受，卖方还是可以去要求买方支付货款。换言之，信用证并
非是绝对，而只是有条件的支付，有关的先例有 Newman Industries Ltd v Indo-
British Industries Ltd (1956) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 219; Alan (WJ) & Co Ltd v El Nasr
Export and Import Co Ltd (1972) 2 QB 189; Man (ED&F) Ltd v Nigerian Sweet &
Confectionary Co Ltd (1977) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 50; Shamser Jute Mills Ltd v Sethia
(London) Ltd (1987) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 388。

这表示如果开证银行违约或倒闭，买方需要去对货款做出支付的责任就会
出现，卖方也可以去向买方要求支付。这是与信用卡不一样，接受信用卡做出支
付的商店是不能在银行没有做出支付再去向顾客要求支付。这方面可去节录
Michael Bridge 教授的《The International Sale of Goods》（2nd edn, 2007 年）之
6.75 段说：

“Nevertheless, if the bank defaults, the buyer’s duty to pay is reactivated and the
seller is entitled to pursue the buyer for payment. Putting it another way, the buyer
warrants that the bank will honour a letter of credit if the seller complies with the
terms of the letter. Letters of credit are therefore to be distinguished from bank credit
card, where it is settled that the use of the card discharges the buyer’s payment
obligation, so that there is no recourse against the buyer if the bank later defaults in
paying the seller. Since the rule of conditional payment is a presumptive one, it is
open to the buyer to argue that on its true construction the contract of sale provides for
absolute payment by the buyer in this way.”

除了开证银行违约或倒闭外，另一种情况卖方可以去找买方要求支付货款
是在付运单证有不符点是由买方所造成：Saffron v Societe Miniere Cafrika (1958)
100 CLR 231。举例说，信用证要求的其中一份文件是必须有买方的合作才能取
得，例如是买方检查人的检验报告，但由于市场下跌造成买方不合作。也会有情
况 是 这 一 份 文 件 只 需 要 签 字 确 认 ， 例 如 在 The “Messiniaki Tolmi” (1981) 2
Lloyd’s Rep 595 先例，涉及了买方拒绝去签署一份准备就绪通知书，信用证要
求该份证明必须由买方签署。英国法院指令去让法院“聆案官”（master）代台
湾买方签署。

最后去提到的一种情况是卖方的货物已经被买方在卸港提走，显然是无单
放货，但事后买方以不符点拒绝接收付运单证，导致卖方无法从信用证取得货
款的支付。这种危险在 FOB 买卖特别大，因为是买方租用与控制有关的船舶。这
种情况在 Huyton SA v Peter Cremer & Co GmbH (1999) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 620 先例中
出现，有关的案情在本书第三章 10.4.2 段有详细介绍，不重复。只说卖方的救济
是可以多方面采取法律行动，包括向船东索赔无单放货，向买方索赔货款的损
失或/与侵占货物（因为买方拒绝接受单证所以财产/货物所有权没有转移），向
实际占有货物的分买方主张卖方对该批货物的主权并要求退还，等等。

1.4.10.2 付运单证有不符点卖方可否去向买方要求支付

这里先去节录《Benjamin’s Sale of Goods》（8th edn, 2010 年）一书的 23-061

段如下：

“Seller cannot by-pass compliant credit. Once the buyer has produced the
opening of a documentary credit in accordance with the terms of the underlying
contract, the seller is not entitled to by-pass the credit and seek payment directly from
the buyer. A documentary credit affords the seller the reassurance of being able to
look to one or more banks as, it assumes, reliable and solvent paymasters. In return,
the buyer is relieved from having to stand ready to pay the seller upon tender of
documents and instead can agree reimbursement arrangements with the issuing bank
suitable to the seller’s financial position. The seller’s right to look to the banks is not,
therefore, a mere option: an alternative right to elect to present documents directly to,
and call for payment from, the buyer would deny the buyer its correlative right to
organize its financial affairs with the issuing bank to its own convenience.”

另在同一本书的 23-216 段的下部分（已经在较早前节录）也说明卖方如果

是自己没有办法去交出准确的付运单证给银行，是不能去要求买方做出支付 :
Ficom SA v Sociedad Cadex Limitada (1980) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 118; Shamser Jute Mills
Ltd v Sethia (London) Ltd (1987) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 388。以下可去进一步介绍后一个
先例的案情，它是一个 200 吨黄麻纱的 FOB 买卖，在 1984 年 10 月至 1985 年 1
月的期间每一个月去付运 50 吨。

有关支付涉及了双方在买卖合约约定通过一个“不可撤销与保兑的即期信
用证”（irrevocable and confirmed letter of credit at sight）。而合约中另有一条有
关的条文（第 13 条）说：“Irrespective of the method of payment, the buyer shall
remain responsible for payment of the full value of all goods shipped in accordance
with this contract and shall guarantee payment…”（无论是什么样的支付货款办法，
买方必须对全额货款的支付负责并担保付款。）卖方在 11 月和 12 月份的付运都
没有问题，顺利议付并收到货款。到了 12 月 20 日，买方开出了一个信用证为下
一次的付运，但没有保兑，而买方也没有抗议。在作出付运后，卖方把付运单证
去交出给他当地的银行要求议付。而议付银行同意做出支付但鉴于付运单证中发
现 一 些 不 符 点 ， 所 以 说 明 是 有 保 留 的 支 付 “ under reserve for the …
discrepancies”。议付银行把这套付运单证送去给开证银行并要求偿还，而开证银
行把付运单证中一些文件的不符点告诉买方，而买方回复是不接受这套付运单
证。这导致了卖方最后要去向买方在这一个先例中索赔货款或损失。

在英国高院，Bingham 大法官针对有关的信用证没有保兑，认为是不重要。
卖方不去抗议可以把它视为是同意变更或弃权，说：

“If I am correct that Oriental’s Credit （ 开 证 银 行 的 信 用 证 ） was never

confirmed, it was a credit which did not conform with the requirement of the contract.
But the sellers were content to accept the credit at the time as meeting the buyer’s
contractual obligation, and cannot now be heard to object, which indeed they have not
tried to do. So the credit must be treated as if it did conform.

There were other inconsistencies between the terms of the contract and the terms
of Oriental Credit’s letter of credit. But by accepting the credit terms the sellers must
be taken to have varied the contract in accordance with the terms of the credit they
have accepted, or at least to have waived any right to rely on the earlier contract
terms. This, again, is something the sellers have not tried to do.”

至于是卖方无法从信用证取得货款的支付，转而去向买方要求支付，这也
是被 Bingham 大法官所否定，说：

“If the seller fails to obtain payment because he does not and cannot present the
documents which the terms of the credit, supplementing the terms of the contract,
require, the buyer is discharged: that was the Ficom SA v Sociedad Cadex Limitada
(1980) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 118 case. In the ordinary case, therefore, of which the present is
an example, the due establishment of the letter of credit fulfils the buyer’s payment
obligation unless the bank which opens the credit fails for any reason to make
payment in accordance with the credit terms against documents duly presented. I
know of no case where a seller who has failed to obtain payment under a credit
because of failure on his part to comply with its terms has succeeded in recovering
against a buyer personally. If this were an available road to recovery, many of the
familiar arguments about discrepancies in documents would be unnecessary. Bearing
in mind the likelihood that buyers will (as here) sell on to sub-buyers, such a result
would, I think, throw the course of international trade into some confusion. It must in
my view follow that the sellers here, not having complied with the credit terms,
cannot recover against the buyers personally.”

至于第 13 条文，Bingham 大法官不觉得这改变了什么，它只是去重复英国

法律的地位就是信用证只是一个有条件的支付办法，买方会有情况需要负责货
款的支付，说：

“The buyer is under that clause to remain responsible for payment of the full
value of all goods shipped in accordance with the contract. But this cannot be read
quite literally, since plainly a seller who had shipped goods in accordance with the
contract but never made documents available to the buyer to enable the buyer to get
possession of the goods could not recover the price. So ‘this contract’ in the clause
must mean the whole contract, as varied or supplemented by the agreed terms of the
letter of credit. The clause than makes plain, as may before the Alan (WJ) & Co Ltd v
El Nasr Export and Import Co (CA) (1972) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 313 decision have been
doubtful, that the establishment of the credit is not absolute payment; and the clause is
in line with the law as I understand it, that a seller who has duly performed all the
contract terms, including the presentation of all the documents required by the credit,
but who has not obtained payment, may continue to look to the buyers. That is not this
case.”

§2 适用法律与管辖权

国际货物买卖合约是一份国际性的合约，涉及多国法律与管辖都可能会适
用。为求稳定，例如对合约条文的解释，之后的履行，索赔的时效，等等方面有
了争议去判谁是谁非等等，买卖双方都应该一早去约定“适用法”（governing
law 或 law of the contract），而不是去依赖虚无空泛的最密切关系法律去事后追
认什么是适用法。毕竟在国际性的合约，有最密切关系的国家也会有好几个。

同样在“管辖权”（jurisdiction），也应一早在国际货物买卖合约约定。今
天国际货物买卖一般都会去约定一条仲裁条文，例如是北京贸仲仲裁。这确也是
好方法，因为有 140 个国家/地区承认与加入了 1958 年的《纽约公约》。所以仲
裁能获得世界上绝大多数的外国法院承认，不准任何合约方取巧去“择地行
诉”（forum shopping）与裁决书能去成功执行的机会也比国家法院的判决高多
了。而在避开美国法院的“无事不管”(long arm of American jurisdiction)，判决
起来会是天文数字赔偿，任意加上倍数的惩罚性赔偿，更是依赖一条文书的仲
裁条文最为有效。美国不信任任何其他国家的司法制度，所以没有与任何国家有
互相承认国家法院判决的双边协议，但美国却加入了 1958 年的《纽约公约》。这
变了美国不会理睬一个中国最高院或其他中国法院作出的判决，但就会去承认
与执行一个北京贸仲管理下作出的裁决书，因为美国也必须去履行国际公约的
责任。

本书所介绍的是 1979 年的英国《货物销售法》（Sale of Goods Act 1979）,

有关法律在前殖民地, 例如是香港（或新加坡），也大致上适用。但这是假设销售
合约适用英国法 (或香港法) 而有关争议是由英国或香港熟识当地法律的法院或
仲裁庭管辖。如果合约没有有效的管辖权/仲裁及适用法律条文, 在争议发生时
（这在金额庞大的与复杂的国际商品买卖，可以说是无可避免而且频频会发
生），这会带来严重问题, 主要包括:-

(i) 特别在国际货物买卖的情况, 会被一些在外国的合约方在他们当地起诉,

可以他们当地是中方不熟悉的法律与法庭程序占尽便宜。买卖合约原本拟
定的条文会按当地法律与理解去作出解释而导致不肯定或效力大减, 甚至
无效, 或当地法院对审理国际货物买卖的案件缺乏经验, 结果难以判断最
后结果。这都会逼迫中方去大幅度作出让步，谋求达成和解，甚至放弃向
外国公司索赔/抗辩。

(ii) 亦可能双方需要针对管辖权或适用法律先去作争议, 还未到审理案件实质

内容前已经花费大量律师费争议管辖权或适用法律这些程序上的问题。
当事人不可小看处理这些程序问题，它是可以消耗大量的时间与金钱 , 这
些问题的复杂性往往可超越实质争议（就是谁对谁不对）, 所以花费的时
间和金钱也会相对的增加。

(iii) 若没有有效的管辖权/仲裁或适用法律条文, 双方在国际货物买卖的情况

下往往一开始的时候不能确定最终会由哪个国家的法院与法律审理争议。
这情况对合约双方（特别是针对想提起诉讼的一方）不利, 因为在不知道
哪个国家的法律适用或哪个法院审理案件的情况下, 无法采取有关保护措
施, 例如保护“时效” (limitation period)。反正是，要提起诉讼连第一步
也做不出来。
(iv) 就算合约内有管辖权/仲裁或适用法律条文, 也需要考虑条文是否拟定的
好, 没有瑕疵。笔者碰过不少拟定的不好而因此变为无效的条文。也有碰
过不少操作起来举步维艰与花费昂贵的条文, 例如最近见到不少管辖权/
仲裁或适用法律不一致的条文 (包括香港仲裁适用印尼法律, 新加坡仲裁
适用中国法律等)。 因为“外国法律” (foreign law) 都必须当作是事实来
证明而不能只由法院/仲裁庭自己做出裁决。这都代表在开庭程序中需要
提供外国法律专家证人, 而因此提高诉讼费用而且带来结果不稳定 (因为
法院/仲裁庭对于外国法律很难用自己的理解与经验作出判断, 只能依靠
专家证人在庭上的说法与表现来做出选择)。

笔者在以上对于在国际货物买卖（以及一些相关的其他合约，例如是信用
证）会面对关于管辖权或适用法律常见的问题做了简单解释, 但无法对这广泛议
题作详尽介绍。若需要进一步研究, 读者可参阅有关权威著作, 包括《Dicey and
Morris, The Conflict of Laws》。由于国际货物买卖合约通常有仲裁条文，涉及了
这一个行业的读者更加需要去了解这一方面的问题，因为在国际货物买卖是经
常会面对仲裁，避无可避。这方面可去参阅笔者与杨良宜先生/莫世杰先生合著
的《仲裁法——从 1996 年英国仲裁法到国际商务仲裁》与《仲裁法——从开庭审
理到裁决书的作出与执行》。

最后只去介绍一个杨良宜先生很早期处理的案件，希望去带出了解这方面
课题的重要性。案情涉及了香港买方向泰国卖方在 2 月份左右订立了一个 FOB
买卖合约，货物是泰国玉米，总货量涉及了 12 万吨，分别以 2 万吨一次付运，
而付运是每一个月要去作出，从 8 月份开始。买卖合约也有其他的要求包括是卖
方在每一个航次的付运前 10 天开出信用证，并为了保证双方会在这一个较长时
间的合约中去履约，大家要相互提供金额达 25 万美元的履约担保，并要银行加
签。

但在订立了买卖合约后不久，玉米市场急转直下，到了 7 月中旬，市场价
格已经比合约价格低了很多。在这种情况下，买方自然不去开出信用证，也不去
租用船舶，虽然这明显是违约。泰国卖方不断督促买方开出信用证，反正大家就
拖拖拉拉再过了大半个月，而期间市场价格进一步下跌而且看来是没有希望扭
转。这导致了买方到了 8 月上旬或 8 月中感觉无望，去向卖方发出了一份电文，
说是市场价格这样在下跌是不可抗力，买方决定不去开出信用证与派遣船舶去
曼谷，请卖方去提取 25 万美元的担保后把这一次交易结案，并希望以后再做生
意。

买方这样做显然是违约，而且违约得很难看与把自己放在一个很不利的地
位。第一是以文字说明了他拒绝履行合约的原因就是市场下跌，第二是错解了
25 万美元的履约担保就是责任限制，这显然是不对，违约的后果是要去赔偿卖
方的损失让他恢复到一个合约被履行的地位。反正是，卖方很快就接受买方的违
约终断买卖合约，并很快把 25 万美元的担保从买方的银行取得，之后委任了驻
在香港的伦敦律师所，并向买方作出一封要求支付的信函（letter of demand），
要求买方在 14 天内支付约 150 万美元的损失（这是根据违约一天的市场价格与
合约价格的差价，减去 25 万美元），否则将会在香港法院提出索赔。这律师信
导致了买方的恐惧并马上约见杨良宜先生（他们两位是认识的朋友），要求想
办法例如去向卖方代表律师哀求一定程度的扣减后分期赔付。但杨良宜先生觉得
很难，也觉得很难去抗辩，可以说如果是去香港法院，会是由于没有一个合理
的抗辩而被法院认为适合去作出一个简易判决，不给买方一个机会去开庭抗辩
或拖延时间。但杨良宜先生在看了有关的买卖合约后，虽然觉得是订得不错与看
来全面，总共有 24 条文针对各方面的问题，但偏偏少了一条仲裁条文或管辖权
条文。难怪，卖方委任香港律师准备在香港法院去提出诉讼，因为香港是被告的
所在地显然是有管辖权。但杨良宜先生就灵机一动，想起了泰国法院的延误，马
上在买方面前打了一个电话去给一个泰国律师问上一个案件是否会被拖延 8 年
至 10 年之久，他的回应是还不止 10 年。接下去杨良宜先生问有关这一个案件能
否让香港买方去泰国法院起诉，要求卖方归还这 25 万美元，因为是合约受阻。
泰国律师同意这是可行，结果就在卖方律师要求信函的 14 天限期届满之前，买
方的泰国律师已经在泰国法院起诉。这导致了卖方律师跳起来，威胁要在香港法
院开始诉讼，而买方的回应是会在香港法院要求“终止”（stay），因为有关
的案件已经在一个友好国家的法院受理。反正到了后来该案件是在泰国法院审理
而且一拖就拖了十几年，结果索赔被拖死，最终不了了之。

显然在该 FOB 买卖合约中，如果是加上了一条仲裁条文，就不至于卖方会

面对这种厄运。要去强调的是仲裁条文也必须拟定的好，如果是约定去莫名其妙
的仲裁地点例如是乌干达，恐怕作为原告的卖方命运也好不了多少。