bokee.net

翻译/译审工作者博客

正文 更多文章

索赔,仲裁,销售协议,采购协议,民法翻译 

(iii)项诉求并非依据《长期销售及采购协议》的特定条款。相反,实际损害索赔是基于《日本民法典》中的民法原则,即第XX条。换言之,原告并未寻求依其条款执行《长期购买及销售协议》。从而,仲裁庭并不认为最初裁决中有关宣告式救济的既判力效力能够排除原告在本次仲裁中提起此项诉求。被告辩称,由于AA.B.部分第6段,应排除原告提起任何损害索赔。如前所述,该段内容为19987月底之后……允许原告继续就所遭受的损害提出索赔看来是不公正的不过,应指出的是,此段最多只能构成裁决理由,并不产生任何既判力效力。确实,在确定结论性文字之既判力效力的范围时,裁决者(法官或仲裁员)可以对做出该项结论的理由加以考虑。不过,这并不意味着应该对做出该结论的理由做出宽泛的解释,或者更有甚者,该理由自身就产生既判力效力。

Claim (iii) is not based on specific terms of the LTA. Rather, the actual damages claim is
based upon relevant civil law principle under the Japan Civil Code, e.g., Article XX. In other
words, the Claimant does not seek to "enforce the LTA by its terms." Therefore, the tribunal
does not believe that the res judicata effect of the original award with respect to the declarative
relief precludes the Claimant from rasing this claim in the current arbitration. The respondent
seems to argue that, due to Section AA.B, paragraph 6, the Claimant should be precluded from
introducing any 'damages' claim. As noted, that paragraph reads  " ... after the end of July,
1998, it seems unfair to allow Claimant to continue to claim damages suffered by it."
Nevertheless, it should be noted that such paragraph constitutes at most the 'reason for the
award," which does not generate any res judicata effect. It is true that, in determining the
scope of res judicata effect of the conclusive text, an adjudicator (whether a judge or an
arbitrator) may take into account the reason for that conclusion. However, this does not mean
that the reason for that conclusion should be broadly interpreted or that, more fundamentally,
the reason itself generates res judicata effect.

 

 

此外尚未明确的是此句AA.B部分第6段)是否构成裁决理由,或仅仅是仲裁员的附带意见。按照日本的法律,此句并未明确提供任何法律依据使得损害索赔(针对1998731日之后的合同期)为不公正。此句亦未指出何种损害赔偿(约定或实际)诉求为不公正。本仲裁庭认为,依照日本法律,单凭某项诉求看来不公平这一事实,并不构成驳回该项诉求的理由6所以,本仲裁庭认为,就本次的实际损害索赔诉求而言,仅仅根据最初裁决中这个措辞含糊的语句就认定具备既判力效力,这是不合理的,尤其从既判力效力在法律上和实践中所具有的重要影响来说,就更是如此。

In addition, it seemsunclear whether this sentence (Section AA.B, paragraph 6) constitutes the reason for the award or simply a dictum. This sentence does not explicitly provide for any legal basis under the Japanese law to make a damages claim (covering the contractual period after 31 July 1998) 'unfair.' Nor did this sentence specify what types of 'damages' (liquidated or actual) claims are unfair. In the view of the current tribunal, the fact that a certain claim is 'seemingly unfair' alone does not constitute a 'reason' to reject such claim under the Japanese law. Therefore, the current tribunal believes that it would be unreasonable to draw the res judicata effect of the original award with respect to the current actual damages claim on the basis of this vaguely drafted sentence only, especially in light of the legally and practically significant implication of the res judicata effect.

 

 

原告能否获得“实际损害赔偿”,获得多少?

对于在19988月至19993月期间产生的实际损害,原告寻求获得实际损害赔偿。原告的实际损害索赔依据两个不同的理由,但最终索赔的金额为每克XX日元,和原告依据其它理由寻求的索赔金额相等,例如第4条:结算金额或约定损害赔偿金。

The Claimant seeks recovery of actual damages incurred during the period from August 1998 to March 1999. The Claimant's actual damages claim is based on two alternative grounds, but ultimately seeks damages in the amount of JY XX per gram, which is equivalent to the amount it seeks based on other grounds, e.g., Section 4: Settlement Amount or liquidated damages.

 

首先,原告在第一次书面陈述的附录中提交了损害赔偿金的计算方式,包括固定成本和利润的计算。原告在其附录中的结论是,产生的实际损害金额是每克XX日元。不过,原告承认,出于保密或商业机密的原因,并未提交额外的财务信息以支持这些计算,尤其是可变成本的计算,如原材料成本和制造成本等。即便对于固定成本和XXX%的利润率,原告也没有提交任何支持性文件,只是由YYY先生在证词中说,该等计算是由其公司的财务部门内部提供的。在听证中回答首席仲裁员的询问时,他说该等计算是在公司内部进行的,并非由公司以外的独立专业人士提供。并且,严格来说,第一次书面陈述中的附录本身并非证据,只是答辩词。有鉴于此,仲裁庭认为不可能采信原告方在附录中宣称的损害赔偿计算。

Firstly, the Claimant, submitted its calculation of damages in an Attachment to the First' Written Statement, which includes calculations of fixed costs as well as profits. The Claimant conclusively argued in that Attachment that the amount of actual damages incurred was JY XX per gram. As conceded by the Claimant, however, due to the nature of confidentiality or business secret, it did not submit additional financial information to support these calculations, in particular, on variable costs such as raw material costs and manufacturing costs. Even for the fixed costs and XXX percent profit margin, the Claimant has not submitted any supporting documents, except for Mr. YYY's testimony that such calculations were provided internally by the finance department of his company. In response to the Chairman's question at the hearing, he stated that such calculations were internally generated, rather than provided by an independent expert outside the company. Also, strictly speaking, the Attachment to the First Written Statement itself is not evidence, but pleading. In light of the above, the tribunal finds it impossible to rely on the Claimant's calculation of damages as alleged in that Attachment.

分享到:

上一篇:信用证翻译,审计报告翻译,财务报告翻

下一篇:退休翻译家 余热欲挥发 字里行间血 

评论 (0条) 发表评论

抢沙发,第一个发表评论
验证码