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B-B1上）
B1 Rules of construction（解释规则）
Lord Hoffman’s principles signalled a move away from a literal non-contextual approach and from ascertaining intention out of the natural and ordinary meaning of the language, towards a more commercial and common sense (purposive) approach to interpretation. Indeed, his summary has been read as enabling the courts to look at the surrounding circumstances more often than was previously the case.
霍夫曼勋爵的原则标志着从非上下文的字面解释方法，以及从语言的自然和普通含义中确定意图的方法，转向更商业化和常识性（目的性）的解释方法。事实上，他的总结被解读为使法院能够比以前更经常地审视周围环境。
In Dornoch v. Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance (2005), the Court of Appeal recognised the ‘dangers in judges deciding what the parties must have meant when they have not said what they meant for themselves’, especially in a situation where the parties selected for themselves an unsuitable standard clause. In other words, the difference appears to be that the courts will now respond more readily to evidence that the parties intended something different to what they had expressed. Further, if a reasonable person in the position of the relevant party to a contract would be expected to understand a term in a particular way, they will be bound by that understanding even if it does not quite correspond to the normal or literal meaning.
在 Dornoch 诉 Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance (2005) 一案中，上诉法院认识到 “当双方当事人没有说出他们自己的意思时，法官在决定他们一定是什么意思时会有危险”，特别是在双方当事人为自己选择了一个不合适的标准条款的情况下。换句话说，不同之处似乎在于，法院现在会更容易回应当事人的意图与他们所表达的不同的证据。此外，如果一个处于合同相关方地位的合理的人预期会以某种特定的方式理解某个条款，那么他们将受到这种理解的约束，即使这种理解与正常含义或字面含义并不完全一致。
In Rainy Sky v. Kookmin Bank (2011), the Supreme Court held that where a term of a contract is open to more than one interpretation, it is generally appropriate to adopt the interpretation which is most consistent with business common sense.
在 Rainy Sky 诉 Kookmin Bank（2011 年）一案中，最高法院认为，如果合同条款可有多种解释，通常宜采用最符合商业常识的解释。
B2 Historical rules（历史规则）
Notwithstanding the entrenched purposive approach, the courts continue use the long established rules of construction as guidelines. These include:
• the parol evidence rule;
• contra proferentem;
• standard printed terms v. specifically agreed terms;
• ejusdem generis; and
• implied terms.
尽管采用了根深蒂固的目的性方法，但法院仍将长期确立的解释规则作为指导方针。这些规则包括：
• 口头证据规则；
• 反对推定；
• 标准印刷条款与特别约定条款；
• 同类条款；以及
• 默示条款。
The parol evidence rule（口头证据规则）
The parol evidence rule, aimed primarily at promoting certainty, prevents evidence from being admitted to add to, vary or contradict a document that is presumed to be the whole of the parties’ contract. In practice, this presumption is reinforced by including an entire agreement clause.
主要旨在促进确定性的口头证据规则，可防止（口头）证据被采纳以补充、更改或反驳被推定为双方合同全部内容的文件。在实践中，这种推定通过包含一个完整协议条款而得到加强。
This rule operates to exclude oral evidence of the pre-contractual negotiations, draft agreements or slips.
该规则的作用是排除有关合同前谈判、协议草案或便条的口头证据。
In New Hampshire Insurance v. MGN (1997), Staughton, LJ, identified the Superhull case as authority for the proposition that: the policy will…be conclusive evidence of the contract unless and until it is rectified; the slip cannot be used to add to, explain or contradict the meaning of the policy.
在 New Hampshire Insurance 诉 MGN (1997) 案中，Staughton, LJ 认为 Superhull 案是以下论点的权威：保单将……是合同的确凿证据，除非并直到它得到纠正；单子不能用来补充、解释或反驳保单的含义。
There are, however, numerous exceptions to the rule and it does not preclude extrinsic evidence to clarify meaning, for example:
• factual background material to show the commercial purpose of the contract; or
• expert evidence to show, for example, what meaning would have been understood by a reasonable professional in the market at the time and what, therefore, could reasonably be presumed to have been intended by the parties when they entered into the contract.
不过，该规则也有许多例外情况，它并不排除为澄清含义而提供外在证据，例如：
• 显示合同商业目的的事实背景材料；或
• 专家证据，以显示当时市场上合理的专业人士会理解的含义，以及因此可以合理推定的当事人签订合同时的意图。
In recent times, parties have sought to exploit these exceptions to make use of the change in emphasis as to the construction of documents.
近来，当事人试图利用这些例外情况来改变对文件解释的重视程度。
Contra proferentem（反对推定）
The rule of contra proferentem is used by the courts to resolve ambiguity. It does this by construing an ambiguous clause against the party that drafted it. In a reinsurance context, the draftsman is usually the broker who acts on behalf of the reinsured.
法院使用 “反对推定 “规则来解决含糊不清的问题。它通过对模棱两可的条款进行不利于起草方的解释来实现这一目的。在再保险中，起草人通常是代表分保人行事的经纪人。
At other times, it may be the reinsurer who prepares the wording, which is then negotiated with each party proposing amendments. It is the origin of the ambiguity that determines which party the court may apply the rule against. It has been suggested that the rule should not be applied to standard clauses in reinsurance contracts (Gan Insurance v. Tai Ping Insurance (No.2) (2001)).
在其他时候，可能由再保险人准备措辞，然后与提出修正的各方进行谈判。 模糊性的根源决定了法院可以针对哪一方适用该规则。 有人建议该规则不应适用于再保险合同中的标准条款（甘安保险 诉 太平保险（第2号）（2001））。
Standard printed terms v. specifically agreed terms（标准印刷条款与特别约定条款）
Standard printed terms are overridden by terms specifically agreed by the parties. These may, for example, have been written, stamped or typed.
标准印刷条款被双方特别同意的条款所取代。 例如，这些内容可能是手写的、盖章的或打印的。
Ejusdem generis（同类规则）
The rule of ejusdem generis provides that, in a string of words, general words that follow two or more specific words are restricted to the same type as the preceding specific words. However, in practice, the operation of this rule is often avoided by the use of phrases such as ‘whether or not similar to the foregoing’ or ‘without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing’. The rule does not apply when specific words follow general words.
同类规则规定，在一串词语中，两个或两个以上特定词语之后的一般词语仅限于与前面的特定词语属于同一类型。然而，在实践中，使用诸如 “无论是否与前述内容相似 “或 “在不妨碍前述内容的一般性的前提下 “等短语往往可以避免该规则的实施。该规则不适用于一般词语之后的具体词语。
Implied terms（默示条款）
Another way in which the courts occasionally resolve issues of ambiguity is to imply certain terms.
法院偶尔解决模棱两可问题的另一种方法是默示某些条款。
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！
