英国法下，“is”“was”明示条文排除法律对货物质量规定引起的纠纷

1979英国《货物销售法》第14条的规定，也就是法律对货物质量的默示要求，原文如下：

14 Implied terms about quality or fitness

(1)Except as provided by this section and section 15 below and subject to any other enactment, there is no implied about the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale.

(2)Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality.

(2A)For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.

(2B)For the purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods

(a)fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied,

(b)appearance and finish,

(c)freedom from minor defects,

(d)safety, and

(e)durability.

(2C)The term implied by subsection (2) above does not extend to any matter making the quality of goods unsatisfactory

(a)which is specifically drawn to the buyer’s attention before the contract is made,

(b)where the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, which that examination ought to reveal, or

(c)in the case of a contract for sale by sample, which would have been apparent on a reasonable examination of the sample  ...............   

上述条文主要的意思是，除了14、15条及其他约定，关于货物的质量问题再无其他要求。卖方卖给买方的货物需要满足买方的购买目的，满足满意质量标准。排除三种情况：1、在签署合约之前买方已经知晓货物情况；2、签署合约之前检查了相关货物知晓货或应该知晓其情况；3、凭样品买卖中，通过合理检查样品就可知晓的情况。

在国际货物买卖中，最经常的情况是用明示条文的方式排除适用第14条规定。一般有两种明示方式排除：特殊含义的术语；充分明确的明示条文。

特殊含义的术语，一般是指在国际贸易中形成的习惯，该习惯具有特别的含义，而该含义被广泛认可，特别是被法院或仲裁庭认可。

明示条文排除适用第14条失败的案例-Dalmare Spa v Union Maritime Ltd

案例简介：买卖双方签署协议（以Norwegian Saleform 1993 格式），买方购买一艘二手船，主要争议体现在第11条的约定，该条约定如下：

The Vessel shall be delivered and taken over as she was at the time of inspection ,fair wear and tear excepted.However,the Vessel shall be delivered with her class maintained extended to 30 September 2009 without condition/recommendation,free of average damage affecting the Vessels class.........

再到具体争议的问题，就是上述条款约定的“....as she was”是可以排除1979《货物销售法》第14条的适用。法官用了巨大的篇幅来论证“....as she was”没有排除第14条的适用，从Norwegian Saleform的起源，以及与之相似的“as she is”（As she is ，法官认为可以排除《货物销售法》第14条的适用，因为其在大量的案例中均被解释为是可以排除第14条，已经形成了习惯用法，有特殊的含义）,再到加拿大、英国的案例，层层递进，充分说理....,但是这不是我想说的，我只想说，预防远远大于纠纷解决，况且纠纷的解决结果不一定对己方有利。

就本文而言，有两种方式可以避免纠纷的出现。1、将“as she was”改为“as she is”同时进行相应条文调整。2、对“as she was”进行定义货解释，充分明确的说明是什么含义，排除第14条的适用。

综上，在国际贸易中，尤其是在适用英国法的情况下，需要明确的一点，如果想要避免纠纷，或者合约起草的对己方有利，条文一定要清楚、充分。因为在英国司法界(尤其是法院和仲裁庭）认为，在商业领域，高度的意思自治，只要约定充分、清楚，即使不合理，也一样合法有效。

欢迎订阅“国际贸易法律”（微信号ITLAW01或查找公众号“国际贸易法律”），如不能满足您的需要，请加入律师的朋友圈，微信wanglilvshi01或拨打电话13911167779