泰和泰研析丨《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》中的“履约障碍”条款，如何适用？
The following article is from 商法CBLJ Author 廖鸣
简 介
《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》（CISG）被认为是普通法系与大陆法系相关法律理念、规范范式的融合。比如，源于大陆法系的“不可抗力”条款反映在CISG第79条“履约障碍”（Impediment）中，该条第（1）款、第（2）款规定了当事方不履行合同但可免责的条件，即适用“履约障碍”的构成要件。
CISG没有官方解释，为尽量统一各成员方的适用，联合国国际贸易法委员会鼓励各成员方报送各自域内诉讼、仲裁适用CISG的案例，并在官网上予以公布。从公布涉及CISG第79条实体规则内容的案例看，该条适用成功率不高，从1995年至2018年，共有39起案件涉及卖方主张适用的情形，其中卖方主张成功的有六起；共有20起买方主张适用的情形，其中买方主张成功的有五起。
报告案例叙述及不构成“履约障碍”的主要理由包括：
不存在履行合同的“障碍”
CISG第79条（1）款规定当事方可因存在履行合同的“障碍”主张履约豁免，“障碍”是否存在是判断该条是否适用的前提。从以往案例看，裁判机构不认为下列事件构成履约“障碍”：卖方所在国市场价格变化但卖方仍然具有购买约定货物并交付的能力；买方已付至国外银行账户的款项被盗；卖方未满足买方关于进口食品辐射的要求；卖方所在国不利天气导致约定货物原料价格上涨；缔约后合同约定货物市场价格大幅下跌；缔约后约定货物的国际市场价格大幅上涨使合同双方履约利益失衡，但并未致使卖方履约不可能。
总体看，涉及买卖任何一方的财政能力、缔约后买卖货物的市场价格变化，通常不被认为构成CISG第79条项下的履约“障碍”。
履约“障碍”对主张适用方不存在不可预见性
如存在第79条第（1）款中“障碍”，则需进一步判断该“障碍”是否于当事方在缔结合同时不能合理预见。以下案情被认为不构成不可预见：卖方因所在国禁止出口合同货物构成履约“障碍”，但其缔约前已知悉所在国出口政策可能的变化，可以合理预见相关出口限制措施；销售的食品调料含有苏丹红，销售方在食品安全性方面应具备较高预见标准，不能以食品安全性方面的欠缺作为不可预见“障碍”的理由。
例如，买方与其合作社其他成员的问题是在买方可控范围内，不能以合作社问题主张履约免责；卖方拟销售货物失窃，卖方对失窃存在过失，不成立“无法控制”的履行“障碍”。
无法履行合同方可以控制“障碍”的发生
相反，近年来成员方报告的CISG第79条得到支持的案件主要包括：卖方国家限制约定交付货物出口；卖方厂房遭受火灾，无法继续加工处理买方交付的食品原料；交货港因遭遇极端恶劣寒冬而关闭，卖方无法交货；政府招标拍卖延期；卖方以外第三方（生产商）对生产标的货物所用原料的控制；卖方以外第三方（承运方）到港迟延导致买方收货迟延；关于销售尾款的法律争议在法院未决；战争爆发导致无法继续履约；因收到的货物铅盐含量过高，买方无法获得食品合格证；因卖方交付的鞋存在与合同不符的质量问题，买方免于支付剩余货款。
从以上案例看，成功适用CISG第79条的情形可以分为天灾、政府突发行为、第三方原因三种类型；而2000年之前早期的案件适用第79条的构成要件并不清晰，存在适用第79条与CISG其他违约条款关系重叠的情况。
报告案例叙述及不构成“履约障碍”的主要理由包括：
成员方裁判机构适用CISG总体上倾向于不豁免未履行合约义务当事方的责任。CISG关于类似于“不可抗力”的“履约障碍”适用成功率不高；同时，买方主张的成功率客观上高于卖方主张的成功率，虽然卖方主张适用的情形在数量上高于买。
02在报告的案例中，并未有直接以疾病、疫情为由申请适用“履约障碍”的情形，新冠肺炎疫情的可能适用性在参考之前案件的同时亦需关注此次疫情已在中国严格措施下取得初步抗疫胜利，但已在世界范围内大面积爆发的特点。政府的突发性非常措施，如果对国际商事交易直接产生客观履行不能的结果，通常CISG项下履约障碍的适用会得到裁判机构的积极考虑。
最近CISG中履约障碍条款得到支持的案例，多为大陆法系国家的诉讼、仲裁结果。因“不可抗力”源于大陆法系，如为成功适用CISG第79条之目的，在选择争议解决机构及仲裁员时，建议考虑更多具有大陆法系渊源的机构和仲裁员；反之，如为不适用之目的，则可考虑更多。
INTRODUCTION
CISG is considered as the combination of different legal systems. "Impediment" in article 79, which is in its nature a force majeure provision , can be employed to relieve a non-performing party from liability. In the absence of official interpretation to CISG, a case reporting system has been established to assist relevant stakeholders, by making decisions of courts and arbitral tribunals interpreting CISG available on the UNCITRAL website. The available cases involving application of article 79 show a quite low acceptance rate from 1995 to 2018 , only 6 of the 39 vendor claims have been supported, and the number for the 20 buyer claims is 5.
"Impediment" is not applicable when：
No "impediment" exists. The following circumstances were considered as non-existence of “impediment”: the vendor was capable to perform despite the market fluctuations; the theft of buyer's payment that had been made; the imported food radiation level did not meet the buyer's requirement; the raw material price increased due to the weather; significant decrease of the market price after the contract signing; the dramatic price increase in the international market impacted the equilibrium of the contract yet the vendor was still possible to perform. Therefore, changes of any party's financial capacity and market prices are generally not considered as "impediment.
No unforeseeability of “impediment”. For instance, the vendor’s country forbade exports, which could be foreseen; food that contained Sudan was well acknowledged by the vendor.
The non-performing party is possible to control "impediment". For example, the buyer could not be exempted due to its partner’s problem; the vendor negligently had the goods stolen.
On the contrary, the claims were supported in the following circumstances：
restriction on exporting in the vendor's country;
the vendor’s plant was disabled due to the fire;
unable to deliver as the port was shut down in extreme cold;
delayed government tender;
the producer controlled the raw materials;
the carrier delayed;
the payout disputes were pending in court;
the Iraq war broke out;
he buyer could not obtain certificate since high lead content in the food;
the goods had quality problems.
Therefore, the applicable circumstances include weather conditions, unpredictable restrictions and third party issues。
According to the above, the following are noteworthy:
The courts and arbitral tribunals are not prone to exempt the non-performing party. Buyers’ claims were more supported than vendor’s, nevertheless the general success rate is low.
02There were no claims involving diseases or epidemics. The COVID-19 is well controlled in China but other regions of the world is of concern, one should be cautious when analyzing the impact of COVID-19 in different cases. Non-performance directly caused by government’s unpredictable actions may be favorably considered under CISG.
"Impediment" claims were mostly supported in civil law countries since force majeure originates from civil law system. To benefit from article 79, institutions and arbitrators with civil law backgrounds would be a preferable choice comparing with the ones with common law backgrounds.
本文在China Business Law Journal 《商法》2020年9月号首次出版。
作 者 简 介