本文分为上、下两期，此为上期，欢迎阅读~
编者按
Editor's Note
近年来，国际商业合同因疫情、地缘政治冲突与制裁等非常规事件而提前终止的情况时有发生，其中适用英国法的合同不在少数。这就引出一个关键问题：在英国法下，如果合同提前终止被认定为违约，在确定损害赔偿金额时，如何考量假设合同未终止情形（反事实的假设情形）下合同双方或第三方在合同后续履行过程中有关行为的不确定性？本文作者将结合相关国际仲裁案件的代理经验与研究，尝试对这一问题进行梳理与探讨。
In recent years, international commercial contracts have been terminated early with increasing frequency due to extraordinary events such as pandemics, geopolitical conflicts, and sanctions. Many of these contracts are governed by English law. It raises a critical issue: under English law, if early contract termination constitutes a breach, how to assess the actions that the contracting parties or relevant third parties would have subsequently taken where the contract had not been terminated (a counterfactual scenario) when determining the amount of damages? Drawing on her experience in handling relevant international arbitration cases and related research, the author will examine and discuss this issue in the following articles.
1.背景 Background
The Golden Victory [2007] 2 AC 353（“The Golden Victory案”）阐明了英国法的一项基本原则：在合同违约责任成立时，索赔方（守约方）可获的赔偿金额“应当准确反映其因违约行为所丧失的合同利益的实际价值——既不应不足，亦不应过高”；并且“若存在某种现实可能性，即某一事件将导致合同终止或以其他方式减损索赔方可在合同正常履行情况下本应享有的合同利益，则损害赔偿金额可能需按比例减少，以反映该等可能性实际发生的概率程度”（The Golden Victory案第36段）。
A foundational principle in English law, as articulated in The Golden Victory [2007] 2 AC 353 (“The Golden Victory”), is that, where liability for breach of contract is established, a claimant’s recoverable damages “should represent the true value of the contractual benefits of which the claimant has been deprived by the breach of contract, not less but also no more”, and “[i]f there were a real possibility that an event would happen terminating the contract, or in some way reducing the contractual benefit to which the damages claimant would, if the contract had remained on foot, have become entitled, then the quantum of damages might need, in order to reflect the extent of the chance that that possibility might materialise, to be reduced proportionately” (The Golden Victory, at [36]).
当或然事件涉及未来的事件或反事实的假设情形时，法院或仲裁庭在评估损害赔偿时需 “评估或然事件发生的可能性”（The Golden Victory案第64段）以确定其影响。这要求对可能减少或消除所主张的损失的各种或然情况予以考量。
Where the contingency relates to a future event or involves counterfactual scenarios, the court or tribunal assessing damages needs to determine its impact “by valuing the chance that the contingency would occur” (The Golden Victory, at [64]). This requires consideration of contingencies that might have mitigated or eliminated the alleged loss.
例如，在买方拒绝履行销售合同（通过放弃或否认合同）的情况下，就卖方提出的损害赔偿主张，必须考量可能影响合同履行并从而减少或消除损失的潜在或然事件。这类或然事件可能包括：在后续交货期届满时卖方无法交付部分或全部货物，买方在后续发生满足条件的免责事件时有效援引不可抗力条款，第三方未能提供合同双方或任何一方履行合同所必需的服务。就这些在合同若持续有效本将发生的或然事件，在评估损害赔偿金额时须予以考虑。
For instance, in cases of a buyer’s repudiatory breach of a sales contract (through renunciation or repudiation of the contract), the seller’s claim for damages must take into account potential contingencies that could have affected performance and thereby reduced or extinguished the loss. Such contingencies may include the seller’s inability to deliver part or all of the goods when the delivery time subsequently becomes due, the buyer's valid invocation of a force majeure clause following a subsequent qualifying event, or a third party’s failure to provide services necessary for the performance of the contract by either or both parties. These contingencies - which would have taken effect had the contract remained in force - must be considered when assessing the quantum of damages.
上述原则也在Bunge SA v Nidera BV [2015] Bus LR 987 (UKSC)（“Bunge诉Nidera案”）中得到重申，该原则强调评估反事实的假设情形的重要性，以确定若违约未发生索赔方本应处于的合同地位——具体而言，即原告本可获得的合同利益，这构成其可赔偿的损失。
在评估反事实的假设情形下的损害赔偿时，法院及仲裁庭通常面临以下两个关键问题：
· 如何确定合同当事人在反事实的假设情形下可能采取的行动？
· 如何评估第三方在反事实的假设情形下可能采取的行动？
This principle, reaffirmed in Bunge SA v Nidera BV [2015] Bus LR 987 (UKSC) (“Bunge v Nidera”), underscores the importance of assessing counterfactual scenarios to establish the claimant’s position had the breach not occurred - specifically, the contractual benefits the claimant would have obtained, which constitute its recoverable loss.
In assessing contingent damages in counterfactual scenarios, courts and tribunals often face the following two key questions:
·How should they determine what the contracting parties themselves would have done in a counterfactual scenario?
·How should they assess the actions of third parties in a counterfactual scenario?
本文通过研究英国判例法以及结合笔者近期参与的一起适用英国法的仲裁案件，对以上两个关键问题的不同处理路径进行探讨。在笔者参与的该仲裁案中，仲裁庭评估了在合同若未提前终止这一反事实的假设情形下双方当事人的预期行为及第三方船东和银行可能采取的行动，以确定损害赔偿金额。本文旨在审视当前使用的关于反事实的假设情形下或有损害赔偿的评估方法，并从实务角度提供供商事主体参考的关于提出或抗辩类似索赔的实操建议。
This paper examines divergent approaches to these two key questions, drawing on English case law and the author’s recent experience in an English-law arbitration. In the said arbitration, the tribunal assessed both the parties’ anticipated conduct and the hypothetical actions of third-party shipowners and banks in a counterfactual scenario where the contract had not been prematurely terminated, in order to quantify recoverable damages. The analysis herein aims to review existing methodologies for evaluating contingent damages in counterfactual contexts and, from a practitioner’s perspective, provides actionable recommendations to commercial parties for advancing or defending similar claims.
2. 对反事实的假设情形下合同当事人行为的评估方法
The Approach to Assessing Contracting Parties’ Actions in a Counterfactual Scenario
根据英国判例法，当涉及合同一方当事人（无论是索赔方本人或者其代理人，或者被索赔方本人或其代理人）在或然事件下可能采取的行为时，法院将依据 盖然性权衡（可能性之平衡）原则 对该方可能的行为进行评估。此原则要求索赔方必须证明，其主张的成立至少达到51%的可能性，即须证明相关方更有可能（至少51%）采取支持其损害赔偿主张的行为。
The English case law establishes that, where the contingency concerns how a contracting party (whether the claimant/its agents, or the defendant/its agents) would have acted, courts will evaluate the party's probable conduct on the balance of probabilities standard. This requires the claimant to prove its case by showing it is more likely than not (i.e., at least 51% probability) that the relevant party would have behaved in a manner substantiating its damages claim.
盖然性权衡原则的应用
在Aercap Partners v Avia Asset Management [2010] 2 CLC 578 (“Aercap Partners诉Avia Asset Management案”)中，法院认为，“对于此类事件的结果取决于原告、被告或被告应负责之人员的行为的情形，原告必须以盖然性权衡原则证明其自身或被告本会采取产生对其有利结果的行动。”（Aercap Partners诉Avia Asset Management案第76段（iii））
Application of the Balance of Probabilities
In Aercap Partners v Avia Asset Management [2010] 2 CLC 578 (“Aercap Partners v Avia Asset Management”), the court held that, “[w]here the outcome of such an event depends on what the claimant, the defendant or someone for whom the defendant is responsible would have done, the claimant must prove on a balance of probabilities that he or the defendant would have acted so as to produce a favourable outcome. ” (Aercap Partners v Avia Asset Management, at [76(iii)]).
同样，在Wellesley Partners LLP v Withers LLP [2016] Ch 529 (上诉法院) (“Wellesley Partners LLP诉Withers LLP案”)中，法院依据盖然性权衡原则评估了原告在反事实的假设情形下的行为。原告主张，若非被告涉嫌的过失，其本应开设一家美国办事处（这是一个因果关系问题，取决于原告在不存在违约行为的情况下会采取何种行动），从而有机会从野村银行获得盈利性业务委托（未设立美国办事处则无法获得该委托）。法官依据盖然性权衡原则认定，（如被告未违约）原告本会开设美国办事处。
Similarly, in Wellesley Partners LLP v Withers LLP [2016] Ch 529 (Court of Appeal) (“Wellesley Partners LLP v Withers LLP”), the court assessed the action of the claimant in a counterfactual on the balance of probabilities. The claimant argued that, but for the defendant’s alleged negligence, it would have opened a US office (a question of causation depending on what the claimant would have done in the absence of a breach of duty), and thereby stood a chance of obtaining profitable mandates from the Nomura bank (which it would not have obtained without a US office). The judge concluded on the balance of probabilities that the claimant would have opened a US office (Wellesley Partners LLP v Withers LLP, at [46], [100]).
这种处理方法符合一个基本推定：合同当事人在反事实的假设情形中本会基于理性自利原则行事。它同时也体现了法院对评估合同当事人行为的信心，当事人的行为受合同义务、商业激励和既往行为的约束。
This approach aligns with the fundamental presumption that contracting parties would have acted in their rational self-interest in a counterfactual scenario. And it also reflects judicial confidence in assessing contracting parties’ conduct, as their actions are constrained by contractual obligations, commercial incentives and prior behaviour.
或有损害赔偿金额的认定
在依据盖然性权衡原则确定合同相关当事人在反事实的假设情形中的或有行为后，法院应当采用"全有或全无"原则来确定损害赔偿金额。即：
（1）若法院认定相关当事人采取支持索赔主张之行为的可能性超过51%，则判令全额赔偿原告主张的损害赔偿金额（假设被告无其他有效抗辩）；
（2）若法院认定相关当事人采取支持索赔主张之行为的可能性不足51%（如49%），则原告将不能获得任何赔偿。
法院不会依据（相关当事人采取支持索赔主张之行为的）概率程度作出按相应比例的部分损害赔偿判决。
例如，Wellesley Partners LLP诉Withers LLP案指出，当违约行为属于不作为，例如未提供安全设备，且需要认定若该违约行为未发生原告本会采取何种行动这一因果关系问题时，原告必须依据盖然性权衡原则举证；若原告的证明未能完全达到可能性的最低门槛标准，其不会获得按比例的部分损害赔偿判决，若其证明达到可能性的最低门槛标准，其赔偿金额也不会打折（注：指相关当事人采取支持索赔主张之行为的可能性超过51%但并非100%）（Wellesley Partners LLP诉Withers LLP案第98段）。
Determination of Contingent Damages
Following a determination of the contingent action of the relevant contracting party in a counterfactual scenario on the balance of probabilities, courts should determine damages by applying on an "all or nothing" basis. This means:
(i) if the court finds, with more than a 51% probability, that the relevant party would have acted in a way that justifies the claim, the claimant will be awarded full compensation for all alleged damages (assuming no other valid defense from the defendant); or
(ii) if the court concludes, with less than 51% probability (e.g., 49% probability), that the party's conduct would have substantiated the damages claim, the claimant will be awarded no compensation.
The court will not make any proportional award based on the degree of probability.
For example, in Wellesley Partners LLP v Withers LLP, it was noted that where the breach of duty consists of an omission, such as failing to provide safety equipment, and the question is what the claimant themselves would have done if the breach had not occurred - a question of causation - the claimant must prove the matter on the balance of probabilities. The claimant does not receive a percentage award if he falls just short of the threshold, and it does not suffer a discount if he passes it (Wellesley Partners LLP v Withers LLP, at [98]).
免责声明
本文仅供一般了解与学术用途，不构成法律意见，亦不建立律师与客户之间的关系。文中内容系作者在撰写时对相关判例与法律原则的理论性解读，该等解读可能因后续司法发展、立法修订或不同法域的适用差异而发生变化。
读者不应将本文作为专业法律意见的替代，亦不应依赖文中内容处理具体法律事务。对于因采信或未采信本文所载信息而导致的任何行为或不作为，本所和作者概不承担责任。对于具体法律问题，请务必咨询在相关司法辖区具有执业资格的专业律师。
Disclaimer
This paper is provided for general informational and academic purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship. The content reflects a theoretical interpretation of case law and legal principles at the time of writing, which may be subject to change due to subsequent judicial developments, legislative amendments, or jurisdictional variations.
Readers should not rely on this document as a substitute for tailored legal advice from a qualified professional. The author and the firm disclaim all liability for actions taken or not taken based on any information contained herein. Specific legal issues must be addressed by consulting licensed legal practitioners competent in the relevant jurisdiction.
