2017-11-20
1024 
【摘要】当文本主义和语境主义存在冲突的情况下，如何恰当地解释合约呢？本文通过权威案例，Woodv. Capita一案的介绍来说明这个问题。
【关键词】合约解释、语境主义、保险、文本主义
在之前介绍的几篇与合约的解释相关文章，本文将通过Wood ( Respondent，以下简称 “Wood”) )v. CapitaInsurance Services Limited (Appellant, 以下简称 “Capita”)一案（以下简称“本案”）的介绍继续来说明英国最高法官在合约解释方面的趋势。
本案中所涉及的争议主要是关于股份买卖协议中补偿条款的解释的问题。在2010年4月13日，Wood的公司 Sureterm Direct Limited(以下简称“该公司”)与Capita（作为买家）签订了一份全部已发行股本的买卖协议。该公司是一家专业的保险经纪人，主要为老爷车提供汽车保险。
Wood拥有该公司94％的股权，Christopher Kightley先生及Howard Collinge先生分别拥有1％及5％的股权。他们都是公司的董事，Wood是董事总经理。Wood现任本公司董事总经理，直至2010年底为止。他因提出终止雇用而提起诉讼，并根据保赔协议弥偿条文向其提出反诉。Kightley先生和Collinge先生是，但不再是诉讼的当事人。
最高法院的Hodge勋爵认为，不需要详细列出Capita来赔偿的情况，总结以下Capita的索赔就已足够。
在2008年8月左右，该公司开始通过Confused.com等在线聚合网站出售汽车保险。但销售并未在网上完成：潜在客户在汇总网站上获得该公司的报价，然后该公司直接联系潜在客户以确认其风险细节，然后向其出售适当的保险单。
在Capita购买该公司股本后不久，公司员工对公司的销售流程表示担忧，导致部分客户支付的费用远高于网上报价。员工声称公司向客户提供了更高的报价，但并未通知他们为什么报价有所增加。因此，当承保溢价或风险状况均无显着变化时，该公司已自行增加安排费用。该公司回应有关指控，于2009年1月至2011年1月期间对其销售进行检讨。该检讨显示，在多数情况下，本公司的电话营运商误导客户认为承销商要求较高溢价或其风险概况比以前更糟，或者给客户施加压力，以确保销售能成功。
Capita及该公司须于2011年12月16日通知金融服务管理局（Financial Services Authority,以下简称“FSA”），他们也按要求这么做了。FSA告知其客户遭受不公平待遇，并遭受损害，应该予以纠正补偿。FSA于2012年11月对该公司进行风险评估调查后，Capita及该公司同意FSA的要求进行补救计划，以向被识别为可能受该公司销售错误影响的客户支付赔偿。Capita称，该公司及Capita的其他附属公司因在销售完成前的期间内误售或涉嫌误售保险产品而蒙受损失。 Capita的索赔是2432.883.10英镑，包括对135万英镑的赔偿估计，约40万英镑的利息和补救计划的费用。
Hodge勋爵认为记录显示Capita的指控是有争议的，包括错误销售的程度和对客户的任何损害是适当的。也许除了上面所叙述的事实（这些事实似乎没有争议）之外，它们并不是解释SPA的参考事实。但是，由于Wood主张不属于作为此项行为主体的赔偿条款的范围，因此，要求Capita和该公司制定整治方案的情况具有一定的重要性。特别是，赔偿的要求不是一个或多个公司客户的索赔或这些客户对FSA或其他公共机构的投诉的结果。正如刚才所说，由于有关Capita及该公司向FSA作出内部检讨的资料，以及FSA要求向客户支付赔偿的资料。
一、Contractualinterpretation
在Capita的书面案件中，Capita的辩护律师认为，上诉法院已经犯了错误，因为受到Wood先生律师的陈述的影响，这个法院在Arnold v Britton [2015] AC 1619案中的裁决是一种“倒退”。该法院在Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank [2011] 1 WLR 2900中给出的合同解释指导原则。他指出，这使得上诉法院过分强调了SPA的措词，而对事情情况给予的份量并不足够。他没有机会表达这个论点，因为法庭表示不接受Arnold案的观点改变了Rainy sky案的指导。 法院邀请他提交他的案子，而不必提及熟知的合同性解释的知名权威。
In his written case counsel for Capita argued that the Court of Appeal had fallen into error because it had been influenced by a submission by Mr Wood’s counsel that the decision of this court in Arnold v Britton [2015] AC 1619 had “rowed back” from the guidance on contractual interpretation which this court gave in RainySky SA v Kookmin Bank [2011] 1 WLR 2900. This, he submitted, had caused the Court of Appeal to place too much emphasis on the words of the SPA and to give insufficient weight to the factual matrix. He did not have the opportunity to develop this argument as the court stated that it did not accept the proposition that Arnoldhad altered the guidance given in Rainy Sky. The court invited him to presenthis case without having to refer to the well-known authorities on contractual interpretation, with which it was and is familiar.
Hodge勋爵认为，在这种情况下，重构Rainy Sky和Arnold的指导是不合适的。法律界有足够的这种性质的司法陈述。但是，如果他简单地解释为什么他不接受Arnold对Rainy Sky中总结的方法进行重新校准的提议，这可能会有所帮助。
Hodge勋爵认为，法院的任务是确定当事方选择用来表达其协议的语言的客观含义。长久以来，人们已经认识到，这不是一个纯粹以解释特定条款的措辞为目的的字面意义上的练习，而是法院必须将合同视为一个整体，并根据合同起草的性质，形式和质量或多或少地重视更广泛的内容，以达到其客观意义。Wilberforce勋爵肯定了在解释当事人意见的过程中可能存在的相关问题，例如在Prennv Simmonds [1971] 1 WLR 1381（1383H-1385D）案和Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Yngvar Hansen-Tangen [1976] 1 WLR 989（997）案。在合同签订之日或之前，双方已知的事实背景的合同，不包括事先谈判的证据。当他在Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896 案中，Hoffmann勋爵的著名判决书中重新阐述了合同解释原则时，有些人看到了他的第二个原则，即考虑到整个相关事实在合同签订时可以向各方提供的背景信息，表明与过去有所分离。但是，Bingham勋爵在一个非司法的文字中，A newthing under the sun? 合同的解释和ICS的判决Edin LR Vol12，374-390，有说服力地表明，法院把自己当成缔约方的一方的想法有一个悠久的血统。
The court’s task is to ascertain the objective meaning of the language which the parties have chosen to express their agreement. It has long been accepted that this is not a literalist exercise focused solely on a parsing of the wording of the particular clause but that the court must consider the contract as a whole and, depending on the nature,formality and quality of drafting of the contract, give more or less weight to elements of the wider context in reaching its view as to that objective meaning. In Prenn vSimmonds [1971] 1 WLR 1381 (1383H-1385D) and in Reardon Smith Line Ltd v YngvarHansen-Tangen [1976] 1 WLR 989 (997), Lord Wilberforce affirmed the potential relevance to the task of interpreting the parties’ contract of the factual background known to the parties at or before the date of the contract, excluding evidenceof the prior negotiations. When in his celebrated judgment in InvestorsCompensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896 LordHoffmann (pp 912-913) reformulated the principles of contractual interpretation, some saw his second principle, which allowed consideration of the whole relevant factual background available to the parties at the time ofthe contract, as signalling a break with the past. But Lord Bingham in anextra-judicial writing, A new thing under the sun? The interpretation of contracts and the ICS decision Edin LR Vol 12, 374-390, persuasively demonstrated that the idea of the court putting itself in the shoes of the contracting parties had a long pedigree.
Clarke勋爵在第21f段高雅地总结了Rainysky案的解释方法。在Arnold案中，所有的判决（Neuberger勋爵13-14段；Hodge 勋爵在76UAN；Carnwath 勋爵在108段）都证实了在Rainy sky案的做法。正如Clarke勋爵在Rainy sky第21段中所说的那样，解释是一种单一的演习，如果存在对立的含义，法院就可以通过对哪种解释更符合商业合理性的观点来加重竞争对手解释的影响。但是，为了在语言表达和相互竞争的解释的影响之间取得平衡，法院必须考虑起草该条款的质量（Rainy Sky第26段，援引Gan Insurance Co Ltd v Tai Ping Insurance Co Ltd (No 2) [2001] 2 All ER (Comm)299 案，Mance勋爵在第13和16段的判决）；而且也肯定还有一个可能性，那就是一方可能会同意一个事后看来不符合他利益的事情：Arnold案第20和77段。同样，法院也不能忽视这样一种可能性，即条款可能是谈判达成的妥协，或者谈判人员不能同意更精确的条款。
Lord Clarkeelegantly summarised the approach to construction in Rainy Sky at para 21f. In Arnold all of the judgments confirmed the approach in Rainy Sky (Lord Neuberger paras 13-14; Lord Hodge para 76; and LordCarnwath para 108). Interpretation is, as Lord Clarke stated in Rainy Sky (para21), a unitary exercise; where there are rival meanings, the court can give weight to the implications of rival constructions by reaching a view as to which construction is more consistent with business common sense. But, in striking a balance between the indications given by the language and the implications of the competing constructions the court must consider the quality of drafting of the clause(Rainy Sky para 26, citing Mance LJ in Gan Insurance Co Ltd v Tai PingInsurance Co Ltd (No 2) [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 299 paras 13 and 16); and itmust also be alive to the possibility that one side may have agreed tosomething which with hindsight did not serve his interest: Arnold (paras 20 and77). Similarly, the court must not lose sight of the possibility that a provision may be a negotiated compromise or that the negotiators were not able to agree more precise terms.
Hodge勋爵认为这种单一的演习涉及到一个迭代的过程，根据合同的规定对每一个建议的解释进行检查，并对其商业后果进行调查：Arnold案第77段援引了Mance勋爵In re Sigma Finance Corpn [2010] 1 All ER 571案第10段。在Hodge勋爵认为看来，一旦阅读了有争议的语言和提供其背景的合同的相关部分，无论更详细的分析是从事实背景开始，竞争对手的解释的意义还是仔细检查合同中的相关语言，只要法院平衡每个当事人的指示。
This unitaryexercise involves an iterative process by which each suggested interpretationis checked against the provisions of the contract and its commercialconsequences are investigated: Arnold para 77 citing In re Sigma Finance Corpn[2010] 1 All ER 571, para 10 per Lord Mance. To my mind once one has read the language in dispute andthe relevant parts of the contract that provide its context, it does not matter whether the more detailed analysis commences with the factual background and the implications of rival constructions or a close examination of the relevant language in the contract, so long as the court balances the indications given by each.
Hodge勋爵认为，文本主义和语境主义并不是在专属占领合同解释领域的斗争中的矛盾模式。相反，律师和法官在解释任何合同时，都可以用它们作为工具来确定当事人选择用来表达其约定的语言的客观含义。每个工具将在多大程度上协助法院执行其任务，将根据具体协议的情况而有所不同。一些协议主要可以通过文本分析来成功解释，例如由于它们的复杂性和复杂性，以及它们是在熟练的专业人员的协助下进行谈判和准备的。其他合同的正确解释可以通过更加强调事实语境来实现，例如由于其非正式性，简洁性或缺乏熟练的专业协助。但是，复杂的正式合同的谈判者往往不能达到合理和一致的文本，例如，由于各方的冲突目的，沟通失误，不同的起草做法或截止日期等因素，要求双方妥协以达成协议。因此，在一份详细的专业合同中往往可以有不明确的条款，而且在解释这些条款时，律师或法官可以通过考虑相同类型合同中的事实语境和类似条款的目的来特别提供帮助。 Mance勋爵在Sigma Finance Corpn（上文）中所说的迭代过程，协助律师或法官确定争议条款的客观含义。
Textualism and contextualism are not conflicting paradigms in a battle for exclusive occupation of the field of contractual interpretation. Rather, the lawyer and the judge, when interpreting any contract, can use them as tools to ascertain the objective meaning of the language which the parties have chosen to express their agreement. The extent to which each tool willassist the court in its task will vary according to the circumstances of theparticular agreement or agreements. Some agreements may be successfullyinterpreted principally by textual analysis, for example because of theirsophistication and complexity and because they have been negotiated andprepared with the assistance of skilled professionals. The correct interpretation of other contracts maybe achieved by a greater emphasis on the factual matrix, for examplebecause of their informality, brevity or the absence of skilled professionalassistance. But negotiators of complex formal contracts may often not achieve alogical and coherent text because of, for example, the conflicting aims of theparties, failures of communication, differing drafting practices, or deadlineswhich require the parties to compromise in order to reach agreement. There mayoften therefore be provisions in a detailed professionally drawn contract whichlack clarity and the lawyer or judge in interpreting such provisions may beparticularly helped by considering the factual matrix and the purpose of similarprovisions in contracts of the same type. The iterative process, of which LordMance spoke in Sigma Finance Corpn (above), assists the lawyer or judge toascertain the objective meaning of disputed provisions.
在合同解释的方法上，Hodge勋爵认为Rainy Sky案和Arnold案说了同样的话。英国普通法下，关于合同解释的历史从最近几年看是连续性而不是变化。英国法律作为商事法律选择的一个吸引力是其稳定性和连续性，特别是在合同解释方面。
On the approach to contractual interpretation,Rainy Sky and Arnold were saying the same thing.
The recent history of the common law of contractual interpretation is one of continuity rather than change. One of the attractions of English law as a legal system of choice in commercial matters is its stability and continuity, particularly in contractual interpretation.
二、The Sale and Purchase Agreement
该股份买卖协议是一个详细和专业起草的合同。它规定买卖本公司股本（第3条），在完成时支付7,681,661英镑（第4条），并规定了递延对价（附表8）。 第1条包含与争议赔偿的构成有关的以下定义：
“Authoritymeans any local, national, multinational, governmental or non-governmentalauthority, statutory undertaking, agency or public or regulatory body (whetherpresent or future) which has jurisdiction over the Business or any decision,consent or licence which is required to carry out the Business and Authoritiesshall be construed accordingly.
Companymeans Sureterm Direct Ltd …
CompletionDate means the date of this Agreement.
Employeeshas the meaning given to it at paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 [which refers to alist of all of the employees employed by the Company].
FSA meansthe Financial Services Authority and any body which supersedes it.
RegulatoryAuthority means any body by which any part of the Business is or was regulatedpursuant to any Applicable Financial Services Laws (including, but not limitedto, the FSA, the Personal Investments Authority Ltd, the General InsuranceStandards Council, the Insurance Brokers Registration Council and including theFinancial Services Ombudsman and any voluntary regulatory body with whose rulesthe Company has agreed to comply).
RelevantPerson means an Employee or a former employee of the Company and any dependantof an Employee or a former employee of the Company.
Shares meansall of the issued shares in the capital of the Company.
Warrantiesmeans the Tax Warranties and the warranties set out in Schedule 4.”
第7条涉及保证和赔偿。每个卖方在担保方面按比例分别向买方保证（条款7.1）；（第7.2条）公开信中披露的事项对保证进行了限定。并且如果“保证”通过卖方的实际知识等“卖方知道的”这样一个表达来确定，他们确认已经对公司的合规经理，IT总监和人力资源部门进行了认真详细的调查（第7.3条）。
有争议的是对第7.11条赔偿条款的解释。其描述如下：
“卖方承诺向买方支付相当于赔偿买方和买方集团每位成员所遭受的所有诉讼，程序，损失，索赔，损害，花费，费用，开支和债务所需的金额或所招致的所有罚金，赔偿或补救措施或付款，或由FSA，金融服务监察专员或任何其他机构向本公司，金融服务申诉专员或其他机构登记的索赔或投诉产生的所有罚款，或任何有关人士以及与完成日期有关的任何有关任何错误出售或涉嫌误售任何保险或保险相关产品或服务的期间。
“The Sellers undertake to pay to the Buyer an amount equal to the amount which would berequired to indemnify the Buyer and each member of the Buyer’s Group againstall actions, proceedings, losses, claims, damages, costs, charges, expenses andliabilities suffered or incurred, and all fines, compensation or remedialaction or payments imposed on or required to be made by the Company followingand arising out of claims or complaints registered with the FSA, the FinancialServices Ombudsman or any other Authority against the Company, the Sellers orany Relevant Person and which relate to the period prior to the Completion Datepertaining to any mis-selling or suspected mis-selling of any insurance or insurancerelated product or service.”
这一条款必须在合同的范围内看到，附表4载有30页详细的保证。在该附表的第12部分涉及诉讼，争端和调查，卖方保证不知道可能引起任何单位调查或调查的情况（第12.4段），而且没有违反合同，侵权行为，法定责任或法律已经承担公司可能或可能负责的责任（第12.5段）。涉及合规和监管事宜的第14部分包括下列段落：
14.1
（a）公司根据适用于业务的所有竞争法和适用的金融服务法律的要求开展并开展业务，并且因涉嫌违规或违反此类竞争行为而未被并未受到调查法律和适用的金融服务法律。
（c）公司没有理由相信，根据任何据称违反或违反任何竞争法和适用的金融服务法的行为，将会对其当前或过去的任何活动采取任何行动。
14.1
(a) The Company conducts, and has conducted the Business in accordance with therequirements of all Competition laws and Applicable Financial Services Laws applicable to the business and has not been and is not being investigated forany alleged non-compliance or infringement of such Competition Laws andApplicable Financial Services Laws. …
(c) The Company has no reason to believe that any action will be taken against it inrelation to any of its current or past activities based on any alleged non-compliance or infringement of any Competition Laws and Applicable FinancialServices Laws.
第14部分还包含了详细的保证，即公司已遵守其监管义务，公司与所有监管机构之间的通信已经披露，公司及其高管和员工没有受到任何监管处罚，也没有可能或未决的这样的处罚；而且公司没有受到监管调查，就卖方所知，没有任何情况可能引起监管机构的调查。
买卖协议第8条规定对附表5的卖方责任作出限制，第1款规定，根据买卖协议所有申索的最高赔偿责任总额（有一个例外情况）不会超过买价，而每个卖方不会超过其比例责任（即94％，5％和1％）。 该限制适用于第7.11款下的索赔以及保证。但附表5第3段规定保证的时限，提供：
3.1除了在此日期前以书面形式通知卖方的保证索赔或索赔之外，卖方将不再承担责任：
（a）在完成七周年期间根据税务保证或税收协定提出的任何索赔; 和
（b）在完成第二周年的任何其他质保索赔。
因此，与第7.11款规定的赔偿相比，有关（其中包括）符合规定的保证期限仅为两年。
3.1 Save inrespect of a Warranty Claim or a claim under the Tax Covenant notified in writing to the Sellers prior to such a date, the Sellers will cease to beliable:
(a) for any claim under the tax warranties or under the Tax Covenant on the seventh anniversary of Completion; and
(b) for anyother Warranty Claim on the second anniversary of Completion.”
Thus incontrast to the indemnity under clause 7.11, the warranties relating to, amongother things, regulatory compliance, had a lifespan of only two years.
在2014年10月14日的判决（[2014] EWHC 3240(Comm)）中，Popplewell 方裁决了解释赔偿条款的初步问题，并且实际上要求Wood先生赔偿Capita，即使没有索赔或客户投诉。上诉法院（Patten 勋爵，Gloster 勋爵和Christopher Clarke 勋爵）在Christopher Clarke LJ（[2015] EWCA Civ 839）主笔的判决书中表示不同意。在2015年7月30日的命令中，上诉法院宣布Wood先生根据SPA第7.11条的赔偿责任：
（i）针对公司，卖方或相关人员提出的索赔，或（ii）向FSA，金融服务监察员或其他机构注册的投诉，（a）涉及本公司，卖方或有关人士的任何其他授权，而在任何情况下，该申索或投诉（a）涉及完成日期前的期间，及（b）涉及任何出售或涉嫌误售任何保险或保险相关产品。
cannot arise unless the matter in respect of which indemnity is sought follows and arisesout of either (i) a claim made against the Company, a Seller or a Relevant Person or (ii) a complaint registered with the FSA, the Financial ServicesOmbudsman or any other Authority against the Company, a Seller or a RelevantPerson and, in either case, the claim or complaint (a) relates to the periodprior to the Completion Date and (b) pertains to any mis-selling or suspected mis-selling of any insurance or insurance related product.
Capita对该判决提出上诉，认为合同赔偿并不限于由索赔或投诉引起的损失。
在这种情况下，Popperwell勋爵和上诉法院都对争议条款7.11的语言和商业考虑因素进行了考虑和权衡。他们都是从检查语言开始的，但是得出了相反的结论。Hodge勋爵认为，这种不同意见并不是因为没有适用正确的原则而造成的，而是这是一个不透明的规定的结果，正如各方律师所承认的，合约可以起草得更清楚一样。
In this case bothPopplewell J and the Court of Appeal have considered and weighed both thelanguage of the disputed clause 7.11 and the commercial considerations. Theyhave both started by examining the language but have reached opposingconclusions. This disagreement is not caused by any failure to apply the correct principles but is, in my view, the result of an opaque provision which, as counsel for each party acknowledged, could have been drafted more clearly.
Hodge勋爵认为，上诉法院对这个难以处理的条款的含义提出了正确的看法。他在下面列出了他的理由，这些理由基本上与Christopher Calrke勋爵提出的理由相同。
三、Discussion
Hodge勋爵认为第7.11条起草的不精确，其含义本可避免不透明性。他看到该条款的初步意见与上诉法院赞成的观点一致，即赔偿包括（a）因为对公司的索赔或投诉而产生的损失和损害，卖方或任何相关人士，（b）与完成前期间有关，及（c）涉及保险产品或服务的误售或疑似误售。但是，有必要把这个条款放在整个合同的范围内，更详细地考察这个条款，并考虑更广泛的相关事实语境是否为它的含义提供了指导，以便考虑对手解释的含义。
Hodge勋爵认为在本案中，契约背景是重要的。第7.11条中的赔偿是对附表4中的详细保证的补充。关于附表4第14.1段（上文第18段和第19段）的保证条款也包括对第7.11条地址的违规销售。但附表4的保证责任由附表5限时。特别是该附表第3.1（b）段（上文第20段）要求本公司在买卖完成后两年内提出申索。第7.11款的保障范围，违反这一规定的责任在时间上是无限的，在有时限的保证范围内进行评估。
签订该买卖协议的所有参与方均具有商业复杂性，并具有保险经纪行业的经验。在购股前，Capita并未涉及该公司的管理。卖方是该公司的董事和唯一股东。他们是知道或应该知道公司经营业务的人，Capita很有可能没有这方面的知识，但该买卖协议的各方会知道这一点。知识不足解释了为何Capita须披露信息披露及附表4的详细保证；但它并不协助法庭确定赔偿条款的范围。法院不知道导致买卖协议的谈判。他们与解释该协议的任务无关，如Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] AC 1101。商业合理性表明，Capita有兴趣获得广泛的赔偿，弥补误销的不利后果获得。但卖方已作出保证，遵守监管要求，涵盖了这种销售错误，并受限于量和时间的约定。在完成日期后的两年内，卖方承担了这些担保的潜在责任，在此期间，Capita可以了解到该公司的销售行为。人们可以很容易推断，在这段时间过去之后，他们有兴趣尽量减少进一步的责任风险。商业合理性对于确定一个条款的目的以及它在实践中如何运作是有用的。但在商业谈判的拉锯战中，谈判结束的时候，商业合理性很难协助法庭确定拉锯战的中线标记在哪一边。因此，在回到商业背景之前，转而研究该条款。
Business common sensesuggests that Capita had an interest in obtaining as broad an indemnity againstthe adverse consequences of mis-selling as it could obtain. But the sellers hadgiven warranties of compliance with regulatory requirements, which covered suchmis-selling, subject to the agreed limits of quantum and time. The sellers wereexposed to a potential liability under those warranties for the two years afterthe Completion Date, during which Capita could learn of the Company’s salespractices. One may readily infer that they had an interest in minimising theirfurther exposure to liability after that time had elapsed. Business commonsense is useful to ascertain the purpose of a provision and how it mightoperate in practice. But in the tug o’ war of commercial negotiation, business common sense can rarely assist the court in ascertaining on which side of the line the centre line marking on the tug o’ war rope lay, when the negotiations ended. Itherefore turn to examining the clause in more detail before returning to thecommercial context.
为了说明当事人的竞争性争论，Popplewell 法官很有帮助地将第7.11条划分为几个组成部分。为了便于注释，Hodge勋爵将标志为（B）小标题（i）和（ii）中的附加内容，如此划分7.11条款，其规定：
“卖方承诺向买方支付相当于赔偿买方和买方集团每个成员所需的金额
（1）遭受或招致的所有诉讼，诉讼，损失，索赔，损害赔偿，花费，费用，开支和债务，以及
（2）本公司施加或要求的所有罚款，补偿或补救措施或付款
（A）由于在FSA，金融服务监察专员或任何其他机构向本公司，卖方或任何相关人员登记的索赔或投诉
（B）（i）所述之有关交易，且涉及完成日期前（ii）有关任何错误出售或涉嫌误售任何保险或保险相关产品或服务的交易。
Clause 7.11 thus divided provides:
“The Sellers undertake to pay to the Buyer an amount equal to the amount which would be required to indemnify the Buyer and each member of the Buyer’s Group against
(1) allactions, proceedings, losses, claims, damages, costs, charges, expenses and liabilities suffered or incurred, and
(2) allfines, compensation or remedial action or payments imposed on or required to bemade by the Company
(A)following and arising out of claims or complaints registered with the FSA, theFinancial Services Ombudsman or any other authority against the Company, the Sellers or any Relevant Person
(B) (i) andwhich relate to the period prior to the Completion Date (ii) pertaining to anymis-selling or suspected mis-selling of any insurance or insurance relatedproduct or service.”
Capita的代表律师认为，该条款应通过将（2）和（A）视为复合词组来解读，以便卖方必须对（1）和（2 + A）两者进行赔偿，每一个都受（B）中的两个条件。这意味着（2）中的罚款等仅仅是（A）中规定的，由FSA或其他主管部门向公司等提出的索赔或投诉产生的。因此，提交的赔偿包括（1）中的所有负债，只是（i）它们涉及到完成日期之前的期间，以及（ii）涉及任何错误销售或涉嫌销售保险产品等。
Wood的代表律师认为，该条款通过将（1）和（2）同时对待三个条件即（A），B（i）和（B）（ii）来解释。他认为（A）应理解为在“索赔”之后有一个逗号，以便作为触发（1）或（2）项下赔偿的条件，规定客户必须提出索赔，或向监管部门提出的投诉，在每种情况下都是针对公司，卖方或任何相关人员的。因此，根据他的方法，无论是客户对本公司，卖方或本公司雇员或前雇员提出的索赔，还是向本公司的监管机构，本公司的卖方或雇员或前雇员（B）中的两个条件都会触发赔偿。
两位律师均认为，由于（1）中所用术语的宽泛性，（1）中的损失和损害类型涵盖了（2）中的所有类型的损失和损害。因此有人建议，（2）一定是为了避免疑义而被包括在内。这意味着根据伍德先生的方法（2），在Capita方法中不合适的情况下，复合（2 + A）是不合适的。
但Hodge勋爵觉得后面的提议非常不可能有两个原因。
首先，在他看来，最重要的是，（A）仅限于（2），因此（1）不受限制，通过限制损失和损害的来源来达到目的。（A）不会以任何方式限制赔偿的范围。对于Wood的解释，（A）中的词有一个目的，因为它们限制了（1）和（2）的范围。
First, andto my mind most significantly, (A) would serve no purpose by restricting thesource of loss and damage if (A) governed only (2) and therefore (1) was unrestricted. (A) would not restrict the scope of the indemnity in any way. OnMr Wood’s construction the words in (A) have a purpose as they limit the scope of both (1) and the otiose (2).
其次，如果一个人把（2+ A）排除在外，那么该条款并没有具体说明（1）中的行为，程序和要求是针对谁的。该条款如下：“卖方承诺向买方支付相当于赔偿买方和买方集团每位成员所遭受的所有诉讼，程序，损失，索赔，损害，费用，费用，开支和债务所需的金额或涉及于完成日期前有关任何错误出售或涉嫌误售任何保险或保险相关产品或服务的期间。
Secondly, ifone airbrushes out (2+A) as otiose, the clause does not specify against whom the actions, proceedings and claims in (1) are directed. The clause would read:
“The Sellers undertake to pay to the Buyer an amount equal to the amount which would berequired to indemnify the Buyer and each member of the Buyer’s Group against all actions, proceedings, losses, claims, damages, costs, charges, expenses and liabilities suffered or incurred, and which relate to the period prior to theCompletion Date pertaining to any mis-selling or suspected mis-selling of any insurance or insurance related product or service.”
为了触发卖方的赔偿，被告人的身份可以根据Capita的方法被暗示。该等人士的人数必须是有限的，因为Capita在完成日期前向卖方索赔由于其本身的错误销售而引起的赔偿是荒谬的。但是，即使假设目标是由公司或代表公司出售，被界定人员将是“公司，卖方或任何相关人员”也是显而易见的。
Capita对Wood的解释又提了三点。首先，（1）中的“权利要求”在（A）中被说成是遵循并由“权利要求”引出的，这是一个重言式的因素。但正如克里斯托弗·克拉克·LJ所观察到的那样，商业合同中的重言式不是未知的，（1）的语言繁荣（或滔滔不绝）使得重言式难以避免。
其次，Capita指出，在（1）结束时“incurred”后有一个逗号，而在（2）结尾的“公司”之后没有逗号。这可以支持（1）与（2）的分离以及（2）与（A）的连接。同样，Wood的解释将涉及在（A）“索赔”之后加上逗号，并在“任何其他授权”之后插入，以便将索赔和监管投诉限制为针对“公司，卖方或任何相关人员”。Hodge勋爵再次同意Christopher Clarke勋爵的意见，认为在这个条款中使用逗号不是一个有利于Capita的解释的强有力的争辩点，这既是因为没有使用逗号的规则，在任何情况下，合约起草者在这个条款使用逗号是不稳定的。
Secondly,Capita pointed out that there is a comma after “incurred” at the end of (1) and no comma after “Company” at the end of (2). This could support the separationof (1) from (2) and the conjunction of (2) and (A). Similarly, Mr Wood’sinterpretation would involve inserting in (A) a comma after “claims” and alsoafter “any other Authority” so as to limit both the claims and the regulatory complaints to those against “the Company, the Sellers or any Relevant Person”.Again in agreement with Christopher Clarke LJ I do not think that the use ofcommas in this clause is a strong pointer in favour of Capita’s interpretation,both because there are no set rules for the use of commas and in any event the draftsman’s use of commas in this clause is erratic.
第三，起草者在（A）开始时使用了一个形容词分词在“B”后面使用了一个变化的语气的关系代词“and which”。 （2）因为在（B）中，主语分词（“pertainingto”）毫无疑问地适用于（1）和（2）两者。这些风格和语法的细节在解释一个公认的不透明的条款方面帮助不大。
Thirdly, the draftsman used an adjectival participle at the start of (A) (“following andarising out of”) and “changed tone” by using a relative pronoun (“and which”)at the start of (B). But the use of the adjectival participle does not tie (A)exclusively into (2) because in (B) the adjectival participle (“pertaining to”)unquestionably applies to both (1) and (2). These detailed points of style and syntax are of little assistance in construing an admittedly opaque clause.
回到商业背景和对手解释的实际后果，Hodge勋爵认为，根据Wood的解释，要求客户或客户向本公司，卖方或相关人士提出索偿或投诉至监管机构，以触发赔偿。因此，如果举报人向监管部门通报了涉嫌或实际的出售错误，或者（事实上）管理层遵守其监管义务，向FSA下达了赔偿责任，赔偿金不会被触发。然而，在每一种情况下，在完成日期之前出现的错误销售都会导致公司亏损。
I return to the commercial context and the practical consequences of the rival interpretations. On Mr Wood’s interpretation it requires a customer or customers to make a claim, or complaint to the regulatory authorities, against theCompany, the sellers or a Relevant Person in order to trigger the indemnity.Thus if a whistle-blower alerted the regulatory authorities of suspected oractual mis-selling, or if (as in fact occurred) management, complying withtheir regulatory obligations, reported such mis-selling to the FSA, whichordered the payment of compensation, the indemnity would not be triggered. Yetin each case, the mis-selling before the date of completion causes the Companyloss.
Hodge勋爵认为第7.11条的总体目的是为了弥补Capita及其集团因误销而造成的损失。如果条款7.11是独立的，那么客户的要求或投诉的要求以及排除因其他原因而引起的监管行为造成的损失可能会出现异常。不过，第7.11条是附表4第14部分的广泛保证（上文第18及19段）的补充，可能涵盖所有情况。在完成购买后，Capita已经有两年的时间来检查公司雇员的销售行为，因此发现任何监管违规行为，以便根据附表4赔偿提出索赔。表明上看不是一个不合理的时间尺度。事实上，Capita于完成日期后20个月内将其结果发送至FSA。双方同意有限期的广泛担保并不违背商业常识，除了同意进一步的赔偿之外，这种补偿不受任何限制，只在有限的情况下触发。
The general purpose of clause 7.11, to indemnify Capita and its group against losses occasioned by mis-selling is clear. Had clause 7.11 stood on its own, the requirementof a claim or complaint by a customer and the exclusion of loss caused byregulatory action which was otherwise prompted might have appeared anomalous.But clause 7.11 is in addition to the wide-ranging warranties in Part 14 of Schedule 4 (paras 18 and 19 above) which probably covered the circumstanceswhich eventuated. Capita had two years after completing the purchase to examinethe sales practices of the Company’s employees and so uncover any regulatorybreaches in order to make a claim under the Schedule 4 indemnities. Prima faciethat was not an unreasonable time scale. Indeed, Capita was able to send its findings to the FSA within 20 months of the Completion Date. It is not contraryto business common sense for the parties to agree wide-ranging warranties,which are subject to a time limit, and in addition to agree a further indemnity, which is not subject to any such limit but is triggered only inlimited circumstances.
Hodge勋爵认为从Capita的角度来看，该买卖协议可能已经变成一笔可怜的交易，因为看起来它并没有在完成的两年内通知卖家保修索赔。但是法院的职能并不是为了改善他们的讨价还价。在这种情况下，触发这种赔偿的情况主要是在仔细审查各方使用的语言的情况下找到的。最终，Hodge勋爵驳回上诉。
From Capita’s standpoint the SPA may have become a poor bargain, as it appears that it did not notify the sellers of a warranty claim within two years of Completion. But it is not the function of the court to improve their bargain.
In thiscase, the circumstances which trigger that indemnity are to be found principally in a careful examination of the language which the parties haveused.
I would therefore dismiss the appeal.
在本案中，Neuberger勋爵，Mance勋爵，Clarke勋爵，Sumption勋爵一致同意Hodge勋爵观点，Capita的上诉被驳回。
总结：
诚如Hodge勋爵在第14段判决所说的，在合约解释的方法上，Rainy Sky 案和Arnold案说的是同样的事情，殊途同归。本案关于股份买卖协议中补偿条款的解释的问题，针对其特定措辞，最高法院对该条款措辞的进行了仔细审查和深入分析，从文本和语境不同的角度对出发，但得出了相同的结论。认为律师和法官在解释任何合同时，都可以用它们作为工具来确定当事人选择用来表达其约定的措辞的客观含义。每个工具将在多大程度上协助法院执行其任务，将根据具体协议的情况而有所不同。
合约的解释，无外乎看合同具体措辞的含义。当事人作为专业的商业人士，应当清楚知道条款的本意。而一旦当事方的意图并入条款形成有约束力的条文时，与合同前的谈判决然相反的是，当事人将不得从租约中逃脱。如果条文措辞带来了多种解释，法官将会采纳更具商业合理性的解释；而用错一个逗号，如早前提到的The “Captain Stefanos”案，因为一个小小的逗号问题，导致了租家在海盗劫持期间有权停租。因此在洽谈合约的时候，务必注重每一个措辞，哪怕是一个标点符号。
海运圈聚焦专栏作者 Alex （微信公众号 航运佬）
