2017-12-02
1434 
【关键词】合约解释、前景、缔结
在之前有关合约解释的系列文章，多次提到并入合同形成对当事人有约束力条文的重要性；所有谈判的内容，只有并入合同才具有法律效力。而在缔结有约束力的合同之前，当事方可以以任何理由，任何时候终止谈判而退出合同。当然，判断一合同是否已经缔结，不能简单在某个特定的时刻，而应该纵观谈判的前前后后的沟通往来。这些谈判的方式，除了正式书面的东西，很多时候仅仅以口头的方式进行，那么这些口头方式或简单电邮询问的是否也具有法律效力呢？
本文将通过对Globalv. Aabar一案的介绍来补充说明这一问题。
上诉人（Aabar）对Walker法官于2016年2月18日作出的判决提出上诉，法官驳回了Aabar他们的简易判决申请。
Global声称，2015年5月6日，Aabar同意以2.5亿欧元向其出售一系列权利和其他债务利息。
Aabar认为，Global声称已经确定一个具有法律约束力和可执行的合同并没有真正的前景，法官的判决是错误的。
Factual and Procedural Background
法官在第13至34段判决中列出的事实背景及判决第36至44段的程序背景。为了这个判断而采取的详细的总结，双方都没有提出问题。
大致情况如下：
（1）Aabar Block是一家位于卢森堡的公司，是Aabar Investments PJS的间接子公司；
（2）Aabar Investments PJS是驻阿布扎比的公司；
（3）第三被告Robert Tchenguiz（“Tchenguiz先生”）是一个商业和企业家，谁拥有和控制一个名为Edgeworth资本（Edgeworth）的公司。
（4）Global是一家在特拉华州注册成立的公司；
（5）第二被告Glenn Maud先生（以下简称“Maud先生”）是一家在一组公司中拥有权益的物业投资者，被称为Marme集团。
2008年9月，Maud先生和DerekQuinlan先生（“Quinlan先生”）通过Marme集团收购了桑坦德银行集团西班牙总部的Ciudad Financiera。这次收购由苏格兰皇家银行部分资助，苏格兰皇家银行就此次收购授予以下贷款：
（1）向Marme提供高达15.75亿欧元的贷款（由RBS等安排）；
（2）向Maud先生和Quinlan先生个人提供7,500万欧元的个人贷款；和
（3）向Marme集团旗下的Ramblas Investments BV（“Ramblas”）提供2亿欧元的初级贷款。Maud先生和Quinlan先生为这笔贷款提供了高达4,000万欧元的个人担保。
2010年11月30日，Aabar Block和Edgeworth收购了RBS在向Maud先生和Ramblas先生贷款方面的利益（以下简称“Aabar权利”）。 莫德和兰布拉斯先生拖欠款项，之后Aabar Block和Edgeworth得到了对他们的判决：
（1）除了2011年6月17日的同意令外，Maud先生同意支付Aabar和Edgeworth5,250万欧元的利息，Ramblas同意支付Aafar和Edgeworth 2.165亿欧元；
（2）根据2015年1月30日（根据上诉法院的不同）的命令，Ramblas被命令向Aabar和Edgeworth支付超过9100万欧元，根据上行费用安排支付； 和
（3）于2015年11月30日，Aabar Block及Edgeworth就Raudlas的负债个人担保4,000万欧元取得Maud先生的判决。
于2014年6月5日，Aabar及Edgeworth向Maud先生提供法定要求，Maud先生申请把它搁置一旁。本申请书将于2015年5月12日开庭审理。因此，在所称合同签署时即将举行听证会。Maud先生的申请在2015年6月8日的判决中被Rose法官驳回。
Maud先生声称，在2011年6月至2015年5月期间，他努力解决他与Aabar和Edgeworth的债务，但这一直受到Tchenguiz的阻挠。鉴于Tenguiz的反对，Maud先生说他决定直接向Aabar购买Aabar权利。
Global宣称，Maud先生于2015年4月23日向Aabar发出了一封标明“Without Prejudice-Subject to Contract”的信函，Global和Maud先生建议支付2.5亿欧元的Aabar权利（“要约函”）。
Global宣称，2015年5月5日，Aabar Investments PJS首席执行官Al-Husseiny先生告知Maud先生，董事会将于2015年5月6日举行会议，并将考虑要约函。
2015年5月6日，Al-Husseiny先生打电话给Maud先生。Global的情况是，在这次电话交谈过程中，所谓的合同是根据两个前提条件完成的，即Maud先生（1）“以公开和有约束力的形式重新发送要约函”和（2）“为他提供资金交易的能力提供了令人满意的证据”。
(1) "resend the Offer Letter in 'open and binding form'" and (2) "provide satisfactory evidence of hisability to fund the transaction".
2015年5月6日晚些时候，Maud先生给Al-Husseiny先生发了一封电子邮件，内容如下：“正如我们的电话中所讨论的那样，请附上我们先前发给Aabar的信函的副本，我将很快另外发送信函。”
As discussed on our call please find attacheda copy of our letter of offer previously sent to Aabar. I will send fundingletter under separate cover shortly.
2015年5月7日，Maud先生发短信给Al-Husseiny先生，他表示：“完全承诺有约束力的条款和资金承诺将在今天晚些时候或明天晚些时候进行。”
Fully committed binding terms and funding commitment will follow eitherlater today or tomorrow.
Maud先生当天晚些时候给Al-Husseiny先生发了一封电子邮件，声称：“正如我们电话中交谈的那样，我们希望不迟于明天为您提供具有约束力的条款和承诺，以便您接受”。
As discussed on our call we expect to providebinding terms and commitments to you no later than tomorrow for youracceptance.
2015年5月9日，Maud先生给Al-Husseiny先生发了一封电子邮件，其中指出：
“如果有要求的话，请附上有约束力的，有承诺的财务和报价函。如果可能的话，我希望在星期天的时候收到您接受我们报价的确认函，然后我们可以在阿布扎比或伦敦见面，如何尽快完成的机制“。
As requested please find attached binding andcommitted letters of finance and offer. If possible, I look forward toreceiving your confirmation of acceptance of our offer during the course ofSunday. Thereafter we can meet in either Abu Dhabior London tosuit to agree the mechanics of how to progress to completion as soon aspossible.
所附函件重复要约函的“主要商业条款”，但亦包括各种额外及不同的条款（“5月9日函件”）。所附的财务信件是Madison International Realty LLC（“Madison”）董事总经理的一封信，该公司提供了其有能力为交易提供资金的必要证据（“5月9日融资函”）。这是Global的情况，条件从而得到满足。
2015年5月10日，Al-Husseiny先生回应说，Maud先生的提议没有被接受，双方之间也没有进行谈判。
2015年6月8日，Global向Aabar发出强制执行指称合约的索偿。Global公司要求声明该协议是有效和有约束力的，并且要求具体履行合同条款。Global还要求对Tchenguiz先生发出禁制令，禁止他采购Aabar违反所谓的合同的行为。
2015年6月27日，Aabar根据CPR第二十四和/或三十四条申请立即解雇及或罢免Global对其的索赔，理由是Global的索赔并无真正成功的可能性。
2015年6月30日，Tchenguiz先生亦提出即决解雇及或罢免Global之申请（不包括上诉）。2015年11月11日至12日，两申请均被法官审理了一个半天以上。
法官在2016年2月18日作出的判决中驳回了这两项申请。Christopher Clarke勋爵于2016年4月26日，同意Aabar上诉。
The evidence
Aabar的申请得到Robinson先生的律师Freshfields Bruckhaus DeringerLLP的证词支持。这里列出了Aabar案的背景，性质和主要论点。
Maud先生提供了一个支持Global的案件的证人声明。这证实了修订后的索赔详情中所列的情况。就所称合同而言，其规定如下：
"The Agreement
12. In light ofMr Tchenguiz's conduct, Mr Maud together with GAC made an offer to Aabar forthe acquisition of Aabar's interests alone, without Edgeworth's interests inthe Junior Loan, but including Aabar's interests against Edgeworth. That offerwas set out in an undated letter to Aabar, marked without prejudice and subjectto contract, signed by Mr Maud and on behalf of GAC and sent to Aabar and AabarPJS on or around 23 April 2015 (the "Offer Letter"). The OfferLetter, a copy of which is annexed hereto, contained the following material,express terms (described in the Offer Letter as "Key commercialterms"):
(1) The offerwas to purchase all rights and benefits of Aabar and their affiliates ' in relation to or in connection with' Marmeand its holding companies (the "Aabar Rights"), specified at Clause 1as including: (i) all rights and benefits under the Finance Documents asdefined in the Junior Facility Agreement; (ii) all rights and benefits underthe Finance Documents as defined in the Personal Loan Agreement; (iii) allright and benefits under any and all arrangements with Mr Quinlan in relationto the Marme Group or otherwise; (iv) any and all rights against third partiesin connection with the acquisition of the Junior Loan from RBS; (v) all rightsand benefits against Edgeworth and/or any of its affiliates or related parties,including any and all rights and benefits under any loans that Aabar or theiraffiliates had made to Edgeworth and/or any of its affiliates or relatedparties; and (vi) the right to purchase the shares in the Aabar entity orentities that hold the aforesaid rights for an additional purchase price of €1.
(2) Clause 2provided that the purchase price for the Aabar Rights would be €250 million.
13. On 5 May2015 at or around 18:00 London time, the Chief Executive Officer of both AabarBlock and Aabar PJS, Mohamed Al-Husseiny, telephoned Mr Maud and informed himthat Aabar PJS' board would be meeting the following day and would consider theOffer Letter.
14. On 6 May2015 at or around 15:37 London time,Mr Al-Husseiny again telephoned Mr Maud. Mr Al-Husseiny stated that he wastelephoning Mr Maud with some of his colleagues from Aabar PJS board, to tellhim that the board had met, chaired by Suhail Al-Mazrouei, and that they hadaccepted Mr Maud 's offer on behalf of Aabar Block and Aabar PJS. Mr Maudthanked Mr Al-Husseiny and asked, "What do we need to do now to progressit?" Mr Al-Husseiny responded that Mr Maud needed (i) to resend the OfferLetter in "open and binding form" and (ii) to provide satisfactoryevidence of his ability to fund the transaction (the "Conditions").Mr Maud said that he would do so. Mr Al-Husseiny expressed no other conditionor caveat on Aabar's acceptance of the Offer Letter.
15. By theOffer Letter and these telephone communications, the Claimants and Aabarconcluded a contract for the purchase by the Claimants of the Aabar Rights fromAabar, on the terms set out in the Offer Letter and subject to the satisfactionby the Claimants of the Conditions (the "Agreement" as definedabove)."
Aabar对Global的事件进行了争辩，但是为了申请的目的，他们并不追求Global的陈述。在考虑这种情况下，主要文件是要约函，5月9日的信和5月9日的融资函。这些文件的全文载于本判决附录。
The Issues
在上诉中，争议的主要焦点问题是 ：
（1）法官是否错误地断定在2015年5月6日的电话会议之后，他不应当立即考虑双方的来文，以考虑是否在当天达成了所谓的合同。
（2）法官是否错误地得出结论，认为Global有确实的前景可以确定所谓的合同于2015年5月6日已缔结。
（3）法官是否错误地断定，Global案件条件满足的情况有成功的真实前景。
(1) Whether the judge was wrong to conclude that he should not take account of the parties' communications immediately following the 6 May 2015 telephone call when considering whether the Alleged Contract had been made on that date.
(2) Whether the judge was wrong to conclude that Global have real prospects of establishing their case that the AllegedContract was concluded on 6 May 2015.
(3) Whether the judge was wrong to conclude that Global's case that the Conditions were satisfied had real prospects of success.
Striking out/summary judgment
Hamblen勋爵认为，对于本案而言，适用的原则可以便利地总结如下：
（1）法院必须考虑被申请人的案件是否具有现实意义，而不是具有幻想成功的前景 - 在这种情况下，现实主张是具有某种程度的信念，而不仅仅是“仅仅是可争论的”。
(1)The court must consider whether the case of the respondent to the applicationhas a realistic as opposed to fanciful prospect of success – in this context, are alistic claim is one that carries some degree of conviction and is more than"merely arguable".
（2）法院不得进行“微型审判”，避免试图解决审判过程中通常解决的事实冲突。
(2)The court must not conduct a "mini-trial" and should avoid beingdrawn into an attempt to resolve conflicts of fact which are normally resolved by the trial process.
（3）如果申请引起简短的法律或解释问题，那么如果法院确信它有面前的所有必要的证据来确定问题的正确性，并且当事人有足够的机会在争论中解决它，应该把握荨麻并作出判决。
(3) If the application gives rise to a short point of law or construction then, if the court is satisfied that it has before it all the evidence necessary for the proper determination of the question and that the parties have had an adequate opportunity to address it in argument, it should "grasp the nettle and decide it".
以上观点可参 Easy Air Limited v OpalTelecom Limited [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch)案第15段判决；
Arcadia Group Brands Ltd & Ors v Visa Inc [2014] EWHC 3561案第19段判决；
及Tesco StoresLtd v Mastercard Incorporated [2015] EWHC 1145 (Ch)案第9到10段判决。
Issue (1): Whether the judge was wrong toconclude that he should not take account of the parties' communicationsimmediately following the 6 May 2015 telephone call when considering whetherthe Alleged Contract had been made on that date.
Hamblen勋爵认为，在谈判过程中判断合同是否签订时，法院将审视这些谈判的整个过程，参见Hussey v Horne-Payne（1878）4 App Cas 311。
It is well established that when deciding whether a contract has been made during the course of negotiations the court will look at the whole course of those negotiations – see Hussey v Horne-Payne (1878) 4 App Cas 311.
正如Cairns勋爵所说：“你不可以在某个特定的时间划一条线，说：我们将查看这些信件，找到合同与否，但我们不会看到任何东西“。为了公平地估算一下已安排和同意的内容，如果双方之间就任何事达成了一致的话，你必须看看他们之间发生和交流往来的全部内容。”
You must not at one particular time draw a line and say, "We will look at the letters up to this point and find in them a contract or not, but we will lookat nothing beyond". In order fairly to estimate what was arranged and agreed, if anything was agreed between the parties, you must look at the whole of that which took place and passed between them”.
这种做法的基本原理是，单独关注当事方的一部分信息，而不考虑整个交易过程，会给人一种误解，认为双方达成了协议，而事实上他们没有。参Selborne勋爵在 Hussey案中所说：
The rationale of this approach is that focusing on one part of the parties' communications in isolation, without regard to the whole course of dealing, cangive a misleading impression that the parties had reached agreement when infact they had not..
Hamblen勋爵认为，在原则上，无论谈判是以书面形式，口头形式还是通过行为或通过这些通信手段的组合进行，Hussey案中的方法和理由都适用。
In principle, the approach in Hussey and its rationale apply regardless of whether the negotiations are conducted in writing, orally or by conduct or by acombination of those means of communication.
Hamblen勋爵认为，权威已经证实，例如在RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Muller Gmbh &Company KG (UK Production) [2010] UKSC 14 (10 March 2010) 案中，最高法院的Clarke勋爵的判决中引用了Lloyd勋爵在Pagnan SpA v Feed Products Ltd [1987]案中的判决，为了确定是否在通信过程中合同已缔结，首先要看整个通信。
(1) In order to determine whether a contract has been concluded in the course of correspondence, one must first look to the correspondence as a whole….
Clarke勋爵在第49段判决中评论道：正如在这里，同样的原则适用于正在考虑合同是否以信函方式以及以口头方式交换的情况。
The same principles apply where, as here, oneis considering whether a contract was concluded in correspondence as well as by oral communications.
Hamblen勋爵认为，Pagnan案所涉及的是口头和书面通信过程中所涉及的合同，Hussey涉及通信和会议的交易。
尽管有这种明确的权威，但法官得出结论认为，Global有一个现实的可能性，不能在2015年5月6日之后提出关于合同是否在当天提出的问题，因此他不应该考虑这样的事件。他给出了四个理由来得出这样的结论，即（1）Hussey中的方法只适用于以书面形式签订的合同；（2）不能“参照以后发生的事情来解释合同中使用的词语的含义”的原则；（3）Perry v Suffields案[1916]第187章，上诉法院的Cozens-Hardy勋爵认为，“once it is shownthat there is a complete contract, further negotiations between the partiescannot, without the consent of both, get rid of the contract already arrived at”即一旦证明有完整的合同，双方之间的进一步谈判就不能在未经双方同意的情况下摆脱已经缔结的合同；（4）Aabar无权依靠通信来质疑Maud先生5月6日的电话沟通。
Despite this clear line of authority, thejudge concluded that Global had a realistic prospect of establishing thatreference cannot be made to events after 6 May 2015 in relation to the question of whether a contractwas made on that day and that he should not therefore have regard to suchevents. He gave four reasons for so concluding, namely (1) it was arguable thatthe approach in Hussey only applies to contracts concluded in writing; (2) theprinciple that one cannot "interpret the meaning of words used in acontract by reference to what happened later"; (3) the case of Perry vSuffields [1916] 2 Ch 187 inwhich the Court of Appeal held that "once it is shown that there is acomplete contract, further negotiations between the parties cannot, without theconsent of both, get rid of the contract already arrived at" – per LordCozens-Hardy MR at 192; and (4) Aabar were not entitled to rely on thecommunications to cast doubt on Mr Maud 's account of the 6 May telephone call.
Hamblen勋爵认为，至于（1），基于基本原则和先前权威的原因，这已经是错误的。至于（2），在考虑解释合同中使用的词语时，这当然是正确的，但问题在于合同是否是合同，而不是合同意味着什么。至于（3），一旦确定合同已经结束，这一点也是正确的。但是，Hamblen勋爵认为这并不适用于之前是否签订合同的问题。至于（4），Aabar不依靠电话沟通来挑战Maud先生的帐户。为了其上诉申请的目的，他们接受该帐户。这些来文是为了支持他们的案件，客观地说，2015年5月6日，双方当事人不是为了出售Aabar权利而形成具有约束力和可执行的合同。
基于所有这些理由，Hamblen勋爵认为在2015年5月6日的电话会议结束后，当还在考虑当天是否已经达成所谓的合同时，法官不应当立即考虑双方的沟通交流。事实上，在Global听证会上，Global不再寻求维护他在这个问题上的判决。
For all these reasons I consider that the judge was wrong to conclude that he should not take account of the parties' communications immediately following the 6 May 2015 telephone call when considering whether the Alleged Contract had been made on that date. Indeed at the hearing Global no longer sought to uphold his decision on this issue.
Issue (2): Whether the judge was wrong to conclude that Global have real prospects of establishing their case that the Alleged Contract was concluded on 6 May 2015.
Hamblen勋爵认为，要约函是以“Subject tocontract”的形式，公认的是，以这种方式是在否定契约意图。
The Offer Letter was "subject to contract". It is well established that dealing on such a basis negates contractual intention.
参London & Regional Investments Ltd. v TBI Plc& Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 355 (22nd March, 2002) 案，最高法院的Mummery勋爵在第38段判决中说到，合同索赔没有真正的成功前景，在合资公司的协议中，“Subject to contract”这一表述的明确效果是，当事人在这个阶段否定了就该合资企业订立具约束力的合约的任何意图，它仍然以准备正式的合同为准。
The contract claims have no real prospects of success. The clear effect of the expression “subject to contract” in the agreed note of joint venture is that the parties negatived any intention at that stage to conclude a binding contract in respect of the joint venture; it remained subject to and dependent upon the preparation of a formal contract: Winn v.Bull(1887) 7 Ch D 29 at p. 32.
Hamblen勋爵他同意Aabar的说法，Global的诉状是根据要约书提出的，这个要约是在2015年5月6日电话中Al-Husseiny先生代表Aabar接受的要约函中提出的。经修订的索赔详情第12段指出，要约已于要约函件中列明。第14段说，Al-Husseiny先生说“他们已经接受了Maud先生的要约”，并说除了“条件”之外，没有任何告诫要求“Aabar接受要约书”。第15段指出，通过要约函和这些电话通信，合同是“按要约函中规定的条件”提出的。
Hamblen勋爵认为由于要约函是“Subject tocontract”的，所以接受它并不能达成一合同。
Sincethe Offer Letter was "subject to contract" acceptance of it could not make a contract.
正如Christopher ClarkeLJ在批准上诉时所说：“有人要求说，Al-Husseiny先生在电话中说，董事会已经接受了Maud先生的提议，然而，Maud先生的要约并没有接受，或者至少在接受的情况下，只不过是一个同意的协议，接受这个要约不会把这个主题变成合同条件”。
What is pleaded is that Mr Al-Husseiny saidin the telephone conversation that the Board had accepted Mr Maud 's offer. Mr Maud's offer, being subject to contract, was not, however, open for acceptance or,at best, would, if accepted, amount to no more than an agreement to agree. Acceptance of that offer would not remove the subject to contract condition.
毫无疑问，鉴于这一困难，在听证会上Global主张，经过适当的分析，他们的案件是，Aabar提出要约，Maud先生接受了。Aabar的口头提议是，他们准备按照要约书中的条款出售Aabar权利，但条件是满意的，而且Maud先生口头接受了这个要约。 法官认为这是Global的诉状，而且它具有现实的成功前景。
如前所述，Hamblen勋爵不认为这是Global的诉状。 这个诉状是根据Aabar接受的Global提出的。即使提交的案件是Global所辩解的，法官和Global都没有确定电话交谈中涉嫌使用的词语是如何做的，或者可以等同于Aabar的提议和Global的接受。“Whatdo we need to do now to progress it”这句话并不代表接受。也不要求Global以公开和具有约束力的方式重新发送要约函，与Aabar提出的要约或已经被接受的要约相一致。
此外，Hamblen勋爵认为Global不仅需要在辩论的对话中确认Aabar提出的要约和Global的接受，而且还需要表明他们有确定双方同意放弃交易的合同状态的现实前景。这样的协议必须是明确的，法院不会轻易如此判。
Further, Global not only needs to identify inthe pleaded conversation an offer by Aabar and an acceptance by Global but theyalso need to show that they have a realistic prospect of establishing that the parties agreed to waive the subject to contract status of their dealings. Suchan agreement needs to be unequivocal and the court will not lightly so hold -see RTS Flexible Systems at [56] and [67]
同样，法官和Global都没有确定在辩诉交谈中使用的词语是怎么做的，或者可以构成这样一个明确的协议。此外，要求以公开和具有约束力的形式重新提出要约，这与已经达成的条款是开放和具有约束力的协议是不一致的。
在上诉听证会上，Global试图提出一个更进一步的论点，试图来解决这些困难。有人认为，根据Aabar的辩护而不是他们自己的说法，Al-Husseiny先生在谈话时可能没有收到要约函，这就是为什么他要求重新发出要约。尽管没有收到要约书，但Al-Husseiny先生同意按约定的价格向全球出售Aabar权利。 这些是协议的关键商业条款，只有在这个协议中需要达成一个具有约束力的协议才能达成一致。
Hamblen勋爵认为，对于有经验的商业双方来说，这是一个完全不可思议的方式，可以达成2.5亿欧元的交易。更应该记住的是，其中一方有违约和不支付重大债务的历史。无论如何，这不是Global的申诉案件。所提出的要约是要约函中列出的要约。2015年5月5日，Al-Husseiny先生告诉Maud先生，董事会将于次日举行会议，审议“要约函”。在2015年5月6日的谈话中，Al-Husseiny先生告诉Maud，董事会已经接受并接受了Maud先生的要约，除了条件之外，对Aabar接受要约函没有提出警告。所签订的合同是“按要约函中的条款”。所提出的唯一合约是根据要约函所载的条款。这些条款包括但不限于“关键商业条款”。也没有任何将讨论或协议限制于这些条款的承诺词。辩论的对话和协议是基于“要约书中列出的条款”。
基于所有这些原因，即使仅仅考虑到2015年5月6日的谈话，Hamblen勋爵也不认为Global具有确定所谓合同的真实前景。那次谈话的基石是契约提议的主题。Global的诉状和证据并没有指出一个现实的情况，就是如何同意放弃合同地位的主体，或者在被指控的谈话中，如何提出具有约束力的提议和接受。
For all these reasons, even if one has regard to the 6 May 2015 conversation alone, I do not consider that Global have realprospects of establishing that the Alleged Contract was concluded thereby. The foundation stone of that conversation was a subject to contract offer. Global's pleading and evidence do not identify a realistic case as to how that subjectto contract status was agreed to be waived or how a binding offer and acceptance was made during the alleged conversation.
Hamblen勋爵认为如果考虑到后来的交易，特别是5月9日的信函，2015年5月6日没有签订合同就变得更加清楚了。5月9日的信件是指建议的交易。 它要求Aabar同意它愿意继续进行建议交易。 因此，文档和排他性条款规定：
"Documentation Upon your agreement that you are willing to proceed with the ProposedTransaction we will provide market standard documentation for the transferof Aabar's Rights for your review.
Exclusivity Upon youragreement that you are willing to proceed with the Proposed Transaction each party agrees that it will not pursue or seek to pursue any alternativetransaction with respect to Aabar's Rights for 15 days from the date of this letter." (emphasis added)
Aabar不仅要求达成协议，除非他们在2015年5月11日下午6点之前接受了所提供的条款，否则报价即将到期。到期条款规定：
"ExpiryThis letter will expire at 6.00 pm London time on 11 May 2015unless accepted by you by that time".
因此，Hamblen勋爵认为5月9日的信是基于Aabar需要接受和同意其条款的基础上提出的，并且要及时这样做才能签订合同。这显然与2015年5月6日已经签订合同的各方不一致。
此外，Hamblen勋爵认为5月9日的信函对要约函提出了若干重大不同的条款，这与已经签订合同的条款又是不一致的。具体而言，（i）所要求的版本和豁免的范围是以更广泛的条款起草的；（ii）5月9日函件载有截止日期及时间，而要约函件则没有；（iii）5月9日的信中包含有关Edgeworth的条款，但是要约函没有；（iv）5月9日的信函中包含有关费用的条款，但是要约函没有；（v）5月9日函件载有要约函件的不同先决条件；及（vi）5月9日函件指出要约函件完成交易的日期不同。
Hamblen勋爵认为列入独家条款意义重大，因为它邀请Aabar在确定的专属期间进一步讨论“建议交易”的条款。这样提供的明显目的是使合同能够成立,这也与已经存在的合同不一致。
Yet further, the inclusion of the exclusivity provision is significant as it invited Aabar to engage in further discussions about the terms of the "Proposed Transaction" during a definedexclusivity period. The obvious purpose of so providing was to enable acontract to be made. That too is inconsistent with there already being acontract.
作为回应，Global重点关注了Maud先生的电子邮件，其中附有5月9日的信和5月9日的信。他们强调，这是对接受的“确认”，并提出召开会议，商定如何进行完成的“机制”。 他们认为这是正在寻求接受确认的关键商业条款。该确认正在寻求良好的秩序，条款已经被接受。信中的其他条款是机械性的，因此，Aabar同意或接受他们所声明的需要并不会破坏对关键商业条款的现有约束性协议。
Hamblen勋爵认为这个案件有很多困难。
首先，正如已经表明的那样，所提出的情况是，根据要约函的条款签订了合同。 那意味着那封信的所有条款。正如信中所述，它列出了要约的“关键条款”。 “关键商业条款”是这些关键条款的一部分，其他条款和条件也是如此。没有人认为合同仅限于要约函的关键商业条款，也没有提出任何可能的论点来推断这种恳求或证据可能导致这样一个有限的协议。
First, as already made clear, the pleadedcase is that a contract was made on the terms of the Offer Letter. That meansall the terms of that letter. As the letter states, it sets out "the keyterms" of the offer. The "key commercial terms" were part ofthose key terms, but so were the other terms and "conditions". Thereis no pleading that the contract was limited to the key commercial terms of theOffer Letter nor has any plausible argument been advanced as to how the pleading or evidence could result in such a limited agreement being made.
其次，合同不能简单地以关键商业条款为基础。举例来说，各方不在这里描述。当事人的身份显然是任何合同的关键条款。在本案中，双方的身份是一个潜在的重大问题，因为要约函和5月9日的信函都把Madison称为联合购买者，尽管5月9日的融资信明确表示，它还没有承诺资金。
Secondly, a contract could not be made simplyon the basis of the key commercial terms. The parties, for example, are notthere described. The identification of the parties is obviously a key term ofany contract. In the present case the identity of the parties was a potentially significant issue since both the Offer Letter and the 9 May Letter refer toMadison as a joint purchaser, even though, as the 9 May Funding Letter made clear, it had yet to commit to funding.
第三，5月9日的“其他条款”和“条件”的内容并不仅仅是机械的。这些是重要的实质性规定。事实上，整封信是受限于有效期限，尽管这不是一个关键的商业术语。
Thirdly, the content of the "Other terms" and the "Conditions" set out in the 9 May Letter do not reflect mere "mechanics". These are important substantive provisions.Indeed the whole letter was made subject to the Expiry term, even though this was not a key commercial term.
基于所有这些理由，Hamblen勋爵认为5月9日的信函确认，Global并没有真正意图确定2015年5月6日提出的所谓合同，他认为法官的结论是错误的。
For all these reasons the 9 May Letter confirms that Global have no real prospects of establishing that the Alleged Contract was made on 6 May 2015 andI consider that the judge was wrong to conclude otherwise.
Issue 3: Whether the judge was wrong toconclude that Global's case that the Conditions were satisfied had realprospects of success.
第一个条件要求Maud先生 “以公开和有约束力的形式重新发送要约函”。
Hamblen勋爵不认为Global有真正的前景来确定5月9日的信满足这个条件。 尤其是：
（1）“重新发送”信件意味着发送与已经发送的信件相同的信件。5月9日的信不是同一封信，这是在实质上不同的条款。
（2）该条件以发送信件为前提，不是一封要求同意和接受的信件。
（3）“条件”必然要求提供相同的条件，因为这是接受的要约。不同的条件不能满足要约。5月9日的信件是完全不同的，而且是一个新的提议。
（4）5月9日的信件继续使双方的协议受到约束，因为它是“最终形式文件”的“协议”。 根据要求，这不是“约束性的”。
Global认为，重新提供关键商业条款的要约就足够了。但条件是重新发送“要约函”，而不是要约函的主要商业条款。 =如前所述，要约函所提供的要约包括其中所列的所有条款和条件，而不仅仅是关键的商业条款。
第二个条件要求Maud先生提供“他有能力为交易提供资金的充分证据”。
Hamblen勋爵不认为Global有真正的前景，确定5月9日的融资函件符合这个条件。 尤其是：
（1）5月9日的资助函并没有规定Madison有义务提供资金。它表达了Madison的“意图”，为尽可能多的重要事项（如尽职调查）提供资金。它明确指出，“这封信不是，也不是要创造任何Madison，GAC，Glenn Maud先生或Aabar之间的任何合同关系或其他任何义务。
（2）因此，5月9日的资金信函是支持Madison交易的非约束性指标，但要注意一些注意事项。这并不是Maud先生能够为拟议交易提供资金的证据。充其量，证据是这样做的潜力。
（3）如果“令人满意的证据”意味着客观上令人满意，那么5月9日的融资信就不是这种证据。如果甚至没有能力为交易提供资金的证据，那么它就不能成为这种能力的“令人满意的”证据。
（4）如果“令人满意的证据”意味着主观上令人满意（即对Aabar满意），则不如Aabar在其2015年5月10日的电子邮件中所表明的那样令人满意，而且如果有必要，Aabar得出那种结论是合理的。
法官认为，对“条件”的正确解释是一个关于协议背景和谈话背景的证据可能是相关的问题。然而，Hamblen勋爵认为，条件的条款可以而且应该被赋予其自然和普通的含义。在任何情况下，都没有合情合理的事实语境。Maud先生的证词陈述也没有提出任何与条件含义有关的背景证据。
The judge suggested that the properinterpretation of the Conditions was an issue upon which evidence as to thebackground to the agreement and the context of the conversation might berelevant. In my judgment,however, the terms of the Conditions can and should be given their natural and ordinary meaning. In any event there was no pleaded factual matrix(asthe Commercial CourtGuide requires there to be – see C1.2(h)). Nor does Mr Maud 's witnessstatement put forward any background evidence that would have a bearing on themeaning of the Conditions.
Hamblen勋爵认为，Global并没有确定任何一个条件都满足的真实前景。
在他们的辩护中，Global提出了一个进一步的观点，即使条件不满足，所谓的合同仍然存在，因为条件的满足没有时间限制。在听证会上，这一点实际上没有受到压制。在合理的时间内满足这些条件是明显的和必要的。无论可能包含的时期早已过去，
Hamblen勋爵认为即使与他的主要结论相反，Global有真正的前景，确定所谓的合同；但是Hamblen勋爵认为，他们没有真正的前景，确定条件得到满足，我认为，法官是错误的结论除此以外。
It follows that even if, contrary to my primary conclusion, Globalhave real prospects of establishing that the Alleged Contract was made, in myjudgment they have no real prospects of establishing that the Conditions weresatisfied and I consider that the judge was wrong to conclude otherwise.
出于上述原因，Hamblen勋爵认为Aabar就这三个争议的上诉问题应该胜诉，最终作出对Aabar有利的判决。。
For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that Aabar shouldsucceed on the appeal on all three issues. In my judgment the appeal shouldaccordingly be allowed and judgment entered for Aabar.
在本案中，McFarlane勋爵也同意。
相关要约函及融资信如下：
ADDENDUM
THE OFFER LETTER
The Offer Letter was signed on behalf of Mr Maud先生 andGlobal and provided that:
"WITHOUT PREJUDICE – SUBJECT TO CONTRACT
Dear Sirs
Offer to purchase all rights and claims of Aabar in relation to Marme andEdgeworth
This letter sets forth the key terms of an all-cash offer (the"Offer") to Aabar Investments PJS, Aabar Block S.à r.l. and anyrelevant affiliates of Aabar Investments PJS or Aabar Block S.à r.l. (jointlyreferred to as "Aabar") to purchase all of Aabar's rights and claimsin relation to I) Marme Inversiones 2007 S.L. ("Marme") and itsholding companies (together the "Marme Group") and II) EdgeWorthCapital (Luxembourg) S.à r.l. and Edgeworth Capital Limited and any and all oftheir affiliates and/or related parties (jointly "Edgeworth") (the"Proposed Transaction").
Glenn Maud先生 together with Madison Realty International ("Madison") andGlobal Asset Capital ("GAC") or an entity designated by them will bejointly referred to as the "Purchaser".
We hope that the proposed terms are acceptable to you and are available atyour convenience for a meeting to further discuss the Proposed Transaction.
We look forward to hearing from you."
THE 9 MAY LETTER
The 9 May Letter was signed by Mr Maud先生 and another and provided that:
"Date: 9 May 2015
Dear Sirs
RE: Purchase of all rights and claims of Aabar in relation to Marme andEdgeworth
We refer to our prior discussions and negotiations, and our history ofseeking to work constructively together to resolve all matters that existbetween us. This letter sets forth the key terms of a financed agreement (the"Agreement") with Aabar Investments PJS, Aabar Block S.à r.l. and anyrelevant affiliates of Aabar Investments PJS or Aabar Block S.à r.l. (jointlyreferred to as "Aabar") to purchase all of Aabar's rights and claimsin relation to i) Marme Inversiones 2007 S.L. ("Marme") and itsholding companies (together the "Marme Group") and ii) EdgeworthCapital(Luxembourg) S.à r.l. and Edgeworth Capital Limited and any and all oftheir affiliates and/or related parties (jointly "Edgeworth") (the"Proposed Transaction").
Madison International Realty ("Madison"),Global Asset Capital ("GAC") and Glenn Maud ("GM") or anentity designated by them will be jointly referred to as the"Purchaser".
We enclose confirmation of the funding position from our financiers. Wewould be happy to provide any further information at your request. Ourfinanciers are available to meet, if required, at short notice.
We hope that the proposed terms are acceptable to you and are available atyour convenience for a meeting to further discuss the Proposed Transaction.
We look forward to hearing from you."
THE 9 MAY FUNDING LETTER
The 9 May Funding Letter provided that:
"We refer to the attached letter sent by Global Asset Capital Inc.("GAC"), Madison International Realty ("Madison"), and Mr.Glenn Maud先生 ("GM") to Aabar Block S.à r.l. (togetherwith any relevant affiliates, "Aabar") relating to a proposedpurchase (the "Acquisition") of all of Aabar's rights and claims inrelation to (i) Marme Inversiones 2007, S.L. and its holding companies(together, the "Marme Group"), and (ii) Edgeworth Capital(Luxembourg) S.à r.l. and Edgeworth Capital Limited.
Madison is currently investing on behalf of its fifth fully discretionaryprivate equity vehicle, Madison International Real Estate Liquidity Fund V, LP,which has $825 million of aggregate commitments. Madison was founded in 2002 and managesapproximately $1.8 billion of equity.
As you have requested, we are writing to confirm the intention of Madison, on behalf ofcertain funds managed by its affiliates, to provide the funding needed tocomplete the Acquisition. This funding is subject to the satisfactorycompletion of Madison's due diligence and toother customary conditions precedent, including the completion of alldocumentation to the satisfaction of Madison.
It should be understood that this letter does not, and is not intended to,create (under the laws of any jurisdiction) any contractual relationship orother obligation of any kind between any of Madison, GAC, GM and Aabar.
This letter is to be treated as strictly confidential and is delivered toyou with the understanding that neither it nor its contents may be disclosed,directly or indirectly, to any other person other than:
(a) to your directors, officers, employees, agents and advisors, who aredirectly involved in the consideration of the Acquisition and who are madeaware of these confidentiality obligations;
(b) upon the order or request of any court or administrative agency or asotherwise required by law or regulation; or
(c) with our prior written consent
This letter and any non-contractual obligations arising out of or inconnection with it shall be governed by and construed in accordance withEnglish law."
总结：
本案中，Maud先生提出的要约函以“Subject to contract”抬头，Hamblen勋爵认为基于原则，这是对合约意图的否定“The OfferLetter was "subject to contract". It is well established that dealingon such a basis negates contractual intention. ”；同时认为接受它并不能达成一合同“Since the OfferLetter was "subject to contract" acceptance of it could not make acontract.”。而且Maud并未如电话交谈中的那样满足Al-Husseiny先生提出的两个前提条件。基于这些理由，Hamblen勋爵最终判Aabar在上诉中的三个争议问题全部胜诉。
与本案类似的，也可以参Glencore Energy UK Ltd v Cirrus Oil Services Ltd [2014]EWHC 87 (Comm) (24 January 2014)案，Cooke法官在其第57段判决中，重申了在判断双方合同是否签订时所采用的原则是不存在争议的，同时再次引援了最高法院Clarke勋爵在RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei AloisMüller GmbH & Co [2010] 1 WLR 753案所做的权威表述：
The generalprinciples are not in doubt. Whether there is a binding contract between theparties and, if so, upon what terms depends upon what they have agreed. Itdepends not upon their subjective state of mind, but upon a consideration ofwhat was communicated between them by words or conduct, and whether that leadsobjectively to a conclusion that they intended to create legal relations andhad agreed upon all the terms which they regarded or the law requires asessential for the formation of legally binding relations. Even if certain termsof economic or other significance to the parties have not been finalised, anobjective appraisal of their words and conduct may lead to the conclusion thatthey did not intend agreement of such terms to be a pre-condition to a concluded and legally binding agreement.
一般原则是毫无疑问的，双方是否有约束力的合同，如果有的话，取决于他们所同意的条款。这不取决于他们的主观心态，而是要考虑他们之间通过文字或行为交流的内容，以及这是否客观地得出他们打算建立法律关系，并同意他们所认为的所有条款的结论或者法律对于形成具有法律约束力的关系是必不可少的。即使对当事人的经济或其他重要性的某些条款还没有最终确定，客观评估其言词和行为也可能导致这样的结论，即他们不打算同意这些条款作为一项已达成和具有法律约束力的协议的先决条件。
关于本案中Hamblen勋爵所提到的前景问题，法院必须考虑索赔人是否有“现实”而不是“虚构”的成功前景，该点可以参最高法院Woolf勋爵在Terence Paul Swain v. T Hillman (male) and TC Gay 案中第7段判决：“真实的”一词区分了幻想成功的前景，或者像Bidder先生所指出的那样，他们指示法院需要确定是否存在“现实的”，而不是“幻想的”成功的前景。
The word "real" distinguishes fanciful prospects of success or,as Mr Bidder submits, they direct the court to the need to see whetherthere is a "realistic" as opposed to a "fanciful" prospectof success.
而这个现实的成功的前景必须是一个有一定程度的信念，而不是一个只是可争论的。可参Potter勋爵在ED& F Man Liquid Products v. Patel [2003] EWCA Civ 472案中第8段判决。
I regard the distinction between a realisticand fanciful prospect of success as appropriately reflecting the observation inthe Saudi Eagle that thedefence sought to be argued must carry some degree of conviction. Both approaches require the defendant to have a case which is better than merely arguable, as was formerly the case under R.S.C. Order 14.
法院在判决过冲中，应该避免陷入解决通常通过审判程序解决的事实冲突的企图，应该谨小慎微。可参Mummery勋爵在Doncaster Pharmaceuticals Group Ltd v. Bolton Pharmaceutical Co 100Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 661案中第17段判决：
It is well settled by the authorities that the court should exercise caution in granting summary judgment in certain kinds of case. The classic instance is where there are conflicts of fact on relevant issues, which have to be resolved before a judgment can be given (see Civil Procedure Vol 1 24.2.5). A mini-trialon the facts conducted under CPR Part 24 without having gone through normal pre-trial procedures must be avoided, as it runs a real risk of producing summary injustice.
在作出结论时，法院不仅要考虑实际提交给判决申请的证据，还要考虑到在审判时可以合理预期的证据。一些关于法律纠纷或者文件建设的争议适用于简易判决，因为（如果法律不好）越早认定越好，如果事实可能决定这些法律问题将如何表明自己的决心和/或法律问题是在一个需要详细的论证和成熟的考虑的领域，那么在中间的申请上确定难以确定的法律问题可能是不恰当的。
有关合约解释的相关文章暂告一段落，对于合约的解释可简单归纳如下三点：
一、看一合约是否缔结，不可以简单粗暴地划时间点，而应该看前前后后整体的沟通往来。合约的解释，不应该孤立地看某个措辞或某个条款，而应该结合上下文，将合约当一个整体来看待。
二、如果合约的措辞，有多于一种解释，那么法官将很大可能采纳较符合商业合理性的解释；在解释合约的时候，不可过分依赖背景环境而低估具体措辞的份量。
三、如果合约的措辞足够清晰明确的话，那么不管结果是否荒谬，当事人将不得不接受。
注：封面图片选自 赵斌船长的 船长的视界（50）
海运圈聚焦专栏作者 Alex （微信公众号 航运佬）
