Reinsurance - M97（Dip级30学分，选修）-《再保险》
往期精选：
（前述章节【Dip系列课程】M97-第八章-再保险相关的法律问题A2A下-A2C）
B Interpreting contractual documents – key issues and case law（解释合同文件 – 关键问题和判例法）
It is of vital importance for the effective and efficient operation of reinsurance contracts and for the avoidance of disputes, that the rights and obligations of the parties under the contract accurately reflect their intention. This will not always be the case and it is, therefore, necessary to have an understanding of how the courts will interpret a wording, if asked to do so.
合同当事人的权利和义务准确反映其意愿，对于再保险合同的有效、高效运作以及避免纠纷至关重要。情况并非总是如此，因此，有必要了解法院在被要求时将如何解释措辞。
Construction and interpretation are used interchangeably in this section.
构造和解释一词在本节中可以互换使用。
B1 Rules of construction（解释规则）
By way of introduction to this section and to the rules of construction and how terms are interpreted, consider the following quote from Lord Steyn in Sirius International Ins. v. FAI (2004): The aim of the inquiry is not to probe the real intentions of the parties but to ascertain the contextual meaning of the relevant contractual language. The inquiry is objective: the question is what a reasonable person, circumstanced as the actual parties were, would have understood the parties to have meant by the use of specific language. The answer to that question is to be gathered from the text under consideration and its relevant contextual scene.
在介绍本节以及解释规则和如何解释条款时，请考虑以下引用自 Steyn 勋爵在 Sirius International Ins.诉 FAI 案（2004 年）中的一段话：调查的目的不是探究当事人的真实意图，而是确定相关合同语言的上下文含义。调查是客观的：问题是一个通情达理的人，在实际当事人的情况下，会如何理解当事人使用特定语言的含义。这个问题的答案应从所审议的文本及其相关上下文场景中收集。
As commercial contracts, reinsurance contracts are subject to the ordinary principles of construction and we set these out, in brief, in this section.
作为商业合同，再保险合同遵循一般的解释原则，我们在本节中简要阐述了这些原则。
The primary rule of construction of the contract is that the court must give effect to the intention of the parties. ‘Intention is determined by reference to expressed rather than actual intention’ (Deutsche Genossenschaftsbank v. Burnhope (1996)).
解释合同的首要规则是法院必须使当事人的意图生效。“意图是根据所表达的意图而非实际意图来确定的”（Deutsche Genossenschaftsbank 诉 Burnhope (1996)）。
The starting point is that words should be given their ordinary and natural meaning. However, if the meaning of the word(s) has been settled by the court, or if a word has a technical meaning, it is presumed that such meanings were intended. ‘The ordinary meaning of words is the meaning when read, not in isolation, but in context’ (source: The Law of Insurance Contracts by Malcolm Clarke et al). Context may come from either within, or exceptionally, outside the terms and conditions of the reinsurance contract.
出发点是词语应该被赋予其普通和自然的含义。然而，如果该词的含义已由法院确定，或者该词具有技术含义，则可以推定该含义是有意的。“单词的普通含义是在阅读时的含义，不是孤立的，而是在上下文中的含义”（来源：Malcolm Clarke等人的《保险合同法》）。上下文可能来自再保险合同条款和条件的内部，也可能例外地来自再保险合同条款和条件的外部。
Extrinsic (or outside) evidence may be sought to elucidate technical meaning, to resolve ambiguity or absurdity or, as envisaged by Lord Hoffmann in Investors Compensation Scheme v. West Bromwich BS (1998) in which he summarised the modern principles for the construction of contractual documents.
外部（或外界的）证据可用于阐明技术含义、解决含糊不清或荒谬之处，或如霍夫曼勋爵在投资者赔偿计划 诉 西布朗维奇公司案（1998 年）中所设想的那样，他在该案中总结了解释合同文件的现代原则。
His principles included:
• Interpretation is the ascertainment of the meaning which the document would convey to a reasonable person having all the background knowledge which would reasonably have been available to the parties in the situation in which they were in at the time of the contract.
• The background … referred to by Lord Wilberforce as the ‘matrix of fact’ … includes absolutely anything which would have affected the way in which the language of the document would have been understood by a reasonable man…
• The meaning which a document (or any other utterance) would convey to a reasonable man is not the same thing as the meaning of its words. The meaning of words is a matter of dictionaries and grammars; the meaning of the document is what the parties using those words against the relevant background would reasonably have been understood to mean. The background may not merely enable the reasonable man to choose between the possible meaning of words which are ambiguous but even (as occasionally happens in ordinary life) to conclude that the parties must, for whatever reason, have used the wrong words or syntax.
• The ‘rule’ that words should be given their ‘natural and ordinary meaning’ reflects the common sense proposition that we do not easily accept that people have made linguistic mistakes, particularly in formal documents. On the other hand, if one would nevertheless conclude from the background that something must have gone wrong with the language, the law does not require judges to attribute to the parties and an intention which plainly could not have had.
他的原则包括：
• 解释是确定文件将传达给一个合理的人的含义，而这个合理的人拥有所有的背景知识，在订立合同时双方当事人所处的情况下，他们可以合理地获得这些知识。
• 背景知识……被威尔伯福斯勋爵称为 “事实矩阵”……绝对包括任何会影响合理的人理解文件语言的方式……。
• 一份文件（或任何其他语言）传达给一个通情达理的人的含义与它的文字含义是两码事。词语的含义是字典和语法的问题；文件的含义则是在相关背景下使用这些词语的当事人本应合理理解的含义。背景可能不仅使理性人能够在模棱两可的词语的可能含义中做出选择，甚至（就像在普通生活中偶尔发生的那样）使理性人得出结论，当事人一定是出于某种原因使用了错误的词语或句法。
• 词语应具有 “自然和普通含义 “的 “规则 “反映了这样一个常识性命题，即我们不轻易承认人们犯了语言错误，尤其是在正式文件中。另一方面，如果人们根据背景得出结论认为语言肯定出了问题，那么法律并不要求法官将明显不可能有的意图归于当事人。
感谢阅读，欢迎打赏。
记得分享朋友圈打卡哦！
关注本sir，向更优秀的自己前进！
