该裁决书是对诉讼中间所提交的申请或动议进行裁决，

 

15．1(加拿大)就动议的裁决

Court file no．

案卷编号： 

尊敬的法官先生或女土：

BETWEEN：双方当事人

GEORGE WASHINGTON

乔治·华盛顿

PLAINTIFF (S)

原告    

and

和

THOMAS EDISON SOUP COMPANY LTD

托马斯·爱迪生羹汤有限公司

DEFENDANT (S)

被告      

 

 

    THIS MOTION made by the plaintiff，for judgment on the statement of claim，was heard this day at 7755 Hurontario Street，Brampton，Ontario L6V 2M7．

    原告提出的就诉讼主张进行判决的动议于本日在安大略省布兰普顿市Hurontario街7755号(L 6 V 2M7)审理完毕。

    ON READING the Statement of C1aim，the affidavit of Rochelle Lyons sworn on February 28，1999，filed，and the exhibits attached thereto，and the proof of service of the statement of claim on the defendant，Thomas Edison Soup Company Ltd．filed on January 30，1999 and the defendant Thomas Edison Soup company Ltd．having been noted in default．

    本庭宣读了诉状、罗什里·利翁于1999年2月28日宣誓并提交的宣誓证明和所附的证据以及1999年1月30日存档的向被告托马斯·爱迪生羹汤有限公司送达诉状的证明等书证，且被告托马斯·爱迪生羹汤有限公司已被通知其未递交辩护状的行为。

    1．THIS COURT ORDERS that judgment be granted to the plaintiff in the amount of $ 25，000．

    本庭判决原告获得25，000美元。

    2．THIS COURT ORDERS that prejudgment interest and post judgment interest be granted from the date of this order．

    本庭命令判决前以及从本命令之日起的判决后的利息应予支付。

    THIS JUDGMENT BEARS INTEREST at the rate of 10% per cent per year commencing on January 6，1999．

    本判决判定从1999年1月6日起开始起息，年利率为10%。

 

15．2  (加拿大)就要求解除提前偿债义务申请的裁决

 

 

Supreme Court

最高法院

Dorgan J．(In Chamber)

多根法官

Heard- September 11，1999

审理时间；1999年9月11日

Judgement - October 18，1999

判决时间：1999年10月18日

    The plaintiff the shares in its service station business to the defendants for $ 244，000．The unpaid balance of the purchase price，$ 160，000，was secured by a general security agreement  charging all of the defendants' present and afteracquired property．The security agreement contained the defendants' warranty that the collateral would be free of all other charges or encumbrances and that the defendants would notify the plaintiff promptly of any change relating to the Collateral．The agreement also contained an acceleration clause allowing the plaintiff，on default，to demand payment of all or part of the slim secured．Default was defined to include the failure to observe or perform any covenant，term or provision of the agreement．The plaintiff did not register the security agreement Linder the Personal Property Security Act．The defendants later granted security over their assets to three creditors，with the result that the plaintiff held a fourth rather than a first charge．The plaintiff commenced an action to enforce the acceleration clause．The defendants applied under s．62(3) of the Act for relief from acceleration of the debt．

    原告在业务站向被告出售了244，000元的股份，其中有160，000美元的款额被告没有偿付，而是签订了一份一般担保协议，以被告现在和今后所得的财产进行担保。被告在担保协议中保证，担保不附带任何其他费用或财产留置权，担保物如有任何变化，被告将立即通知原告。协议中还含有一提前条款，如被告违约，允许原告要求偿付全部或部分担保款项。违约的含义包括不遵守或不履行任何协议条款或规定。原告没有按照《个人财产担保法》的规定登记担保协议。被告以后又用他们的财产向三位债权人作了担保，结果是原告所持担保物份额变成1/4，而不能优先求偿。原告起诉要求执行提前条款。被告根据《担保法》第62条第3款，要求解除提前偿债的义务。

    While parties who enter knowingly into contracts should be held to their gains，relief should be granted to defaulting debtors if it is fair and just to do so． If such relief is of an equitable nature，the conduct of the parties is a primary factor to be considered．Here，the plaintiff was not obliged to register the general security agreement by either the agreement or the Act．On the other hand，the defendants were clearly obliged by the agreement to grant the plaintiff a first charge．They have breached that obligation by dealing with the collateral contrary to the agreement．The evidence suggested that the breach was not innocent or a result of the defendants' ignorance of the terms of the agreement， but rather flagrant and contemptuous of their contractual obligations．The court could not，by imposing terms，put plaintiff into the position of first secured creditor under the Act，as agreed．Accordingly，it was not appropriate to grant relief to the defendants．

    尽管签订协议的当事人的利益应当得到保证，但只要公平正当，仍应免除拖欠债务者的义务。如果此种免除属于衡平法上的救济，当事人的行为则是考虑的重要因素。本案中，根据协议或《担保法》规定，原告无登记一般担保协议的义务。另一方面，按协议规定，被告明显负有让原告优先受偿的义务。他们不遵守协议处分担保物，已经违背该义务。证据表明，此种违背不属无知或出于被告对协议条款的不理解，而是他们对合同义务的公然蔑视。本院不能强加条件，使原告成为《担保法》所规定的优先有担保的债权人。同样，准许被告免除提前条款义务也是妥当的。

Cases considered：

援引的判例：

Bank of Montreal v．Amar Enterprises Ltd．(March 15，1994)，Doc．Prince George 26944，Meiklem J．(S．C．) ， [1994] B．C．W．L．D．1098- considered．

蒙特利尔银行诉阿马企业公司案(1094年3月15日)普林斯·乔治(地名)26944号卷宗，米克莱蒙大法官(最高法院)；(1994)《不列颠哥伦比亚特区判例摘要同刊》1098期——援引

Mac Donald v．Searle (October 30，1992)，Doc．Victoria 92 3529，Cowan J．(S，C．) [1993] B．C．W．L．D．866—distinguished．

麦克唐纳诉塞尔案(1992年10月30日)，维多利亚(地名)923529卷宗，科恩大法官(最高法院)；(1993)《不列颠哥伦比亚特区判例摘要周刊》866期——用于区别

Sioan v．Dierden (1984)，52 B．C．L．R．193(S．C．)—considered．

斯隆诉迪尔登案(1984)，《不列颠哥伦比亚判例汇编》第52卷193页(最高法院)——援引

Vohra Enterprises Ltd．v．Creative Industrial Corp．(1988)，23 B．C．L．R．(2d)120，28 R．P．R．243 [additional reasons (1988)，40 B．C．L．R．(2d) 394，48 R．P．R．27(S．C．)—considered．

沃拉企业有限公司诉创造工业公司案(1988)，《不列颠哥伦比亚判例汇编》第23卷(第2辑)第120页；《房地产判例汇编》第28卷第243页，附加理由(1988)；《不列颠哥伦比亚判例汇编》第40卷(第2辑)第394页；《房地产判例汇编》第48卷第27页(最高法院)——援引

Western Mortgage Development Corp．v．H．& D．Investments Ltd．(1982)，40 B．C．L．R．263(S．C．)—considered．

西方按揭发展公司诉H&D投资有限公司案(1982)，《不列颠哥伦比亚判例汇编》第40卷第263页(最高法院)——援引

Statutes considered

援引的法规：

Law and Equity Act，R．S．B．C．1979，c．224

《普通法和衡平法》，《不列颠哥伦比亚法规修订本》，1979，第224章

    s．21—considered．

    第21条——援引

    s．21.1[en．1980，c．I，s．15] — considered．

    第21条第1款(1980年颁布，第1章，第15条)——援引

    s．21.1(1)(a)[en．1980 c．I，s．15；repealed 1990，c．II，s．72]— considered．

    第21条第1款第1段第1项(1980年颁布，第1章第15条；被1990年版本第11章第72条取代)——援引

    s．21.1(1)(b)[en．1980 c．I，s．15；repealed 1990，c．II，s．72]—considered．

    第21条第1款第1段第2项(1980年颁布，第1章第15条；被1990年版本第II章第72条取代)——援引。

Personal Property Security Act，S．B．C．1989，c．36

《动产担保法》，《不列颠哥伦比亚法规修订本》，1989，第36章

    s．43(3)—referred to．   第43条第3款——参考。

    s．43(4)—referred to．    第43条第4款——参考。

    s．62(3)—considered．    第62条第3款——援引。

    s．62(4)—considered．    第62条第4款——援引。

    APPLICATION by defendants under Personal Property Security Act．S．62 (3)，for relief from acceleration of debt．

    被告根据《动产担保法》第62条第3款提出免去提前偿付债务义务的申请。

D．G．Perry，for plaintiff．

D．G．佩里，原告律师

P．G．Guy，for defendants．

P．G．盖依，被告律师

(Docs．Victoria 1051/99，3128/98)               

(《维多利亚案卷》1051页/1999年，3128页/1998年)    

    1．October l8，1999．DORGANJ．：—The defendants apply pursuant to S．62 (3) of the Personal Property Security Act (the“PPSA”)，S．B．C．1989 c． 36，for an order for relief from acceleration of a debt arising from the terms of a GeneralSecurity Agreement between the parties．The application was argued on the assumption that the plaintiff holds a valid and enforceable General Security Agreement and that default has occurred．If the defendant is successful，the plaintiff's action will effectively be dismissed since the action is brought to enforce the acceleration clause．

    1999年10月18日，多根大法官说：——被告根据《动产担保法》(PPSA)第62条第3款以及1989年的《不列颠哥伦比亚法》第36条向法院申请颁发救济令，免去其因双方的《一般担保协议》规定而提前偿债之义务。申请被驳回，理由是原告持有合法的《一般担保协议》，应予执行，然而却没有执行。如果被告申请成功，原告提起的诉讼事实上将被撤销，因为诉讼的提起就是为了执行提前条款。

    2．On or about May 15，1992，the parties entered into a share purchase agreement．The defendants were to purchase all outstanding shares in the plaintiff's service station business for the sum of $ 244，000．The agreement provided the purchase price would be vendor financed to the extent of $ 160，000 which sum was secured through a General Security Agreement (the“GSA”) charging all of the defendants' present and after-acquired property．

    1992年5月15日左右，双方当事人签订了一份股份买卖协议。被告从原告的业务站购买价值244，000美元的全部发行股票。协议规定，价值160，000美元的售价卖方暂不收取，该款项按《一般担保协议》(GSA)规定，用被告所有现在和今后所得的财产予以担保。

    3．Pursuant to the terms of the GSA，specifically Para．4 (a) and Sched． “B”，the defendants warranted that so long as the GSA remained in effect，the collateral was to be free of all other charges or encumbrances；that is，the plaintiff was to have first charge against the assets of the defendants．The agreement also provided，inter alia，that the defendants would notify the plaintiff promptly of any change in information relating to the collateral and that the collateral would not be used in violation of the provisions of the GSA．

    根据GSA的条款规定，特别是第4条第1款和附表“B”，被告保证，只要GSA保持有效，担保物不附带其他费用或留置权；即，原告对被告的财产享有优先受偿权。此外，协议还规定，担保物如有任何变化，被告应将信息立即通知原告，且担保物的使用不得违反GSA的规定。

    4．Pursuant to Para．7 of the GSA，default includes the“non-payment when due，whether by acceleration or otherwise，of any principal or interest…or the failure to observe or perform any obligation，covenant，term，provision or condition contained in the Security Agreement…” Paragraph 8 of the GSA contains the acceleration clause allowing the plaintiff to demand payment of all or part of the sum secured upon default．

    根据GSA第7条规定，违约包括“到期不支付，不论是提前或其他形式的到期，是本金或是利息……或不遵守或履行抵押协议所含的任何义务、约定、条款、规定或条件……”。GSA第8条含有的提前条款，准许原告在被告违约时，要求偿付全部或部分违约担保款。

    5．Between May 1992 and October 1993，the defendants granted three creditors，namely the C．I．B．C．，the F．B．D．B．and the Pacific Coast Savings Credit Union，security against its assets．As a result，the plaintiff holds a forth rather than a first charge．

    在1992年5月至1993年10月，被告答应三位债权人，即加拿大帝国商业银行(CIBC)，联邦业务开发银行(FBDB)和太平洋海岸储蓄信贷协会，用其财产作担保。结果，原告所持的担保权变成1/4，而不能优先受偿。

    6．In February 1993，the plaintiff agreed to sell and the personal defendants agreed to purchase the land on which the business was situated．A collateral agreement was entered into in order to complete that purchase and sale．By its terms，the plaintiff was granted a mortgage against the property， securing the sum of $ 160，000．There is some argument between the parties as to whether the subsequent collateral agreement and mortgage replaced the GSA which is the subject of this application．On the material before me，I cannot find as a fact that the collateral agreement replaced the GSA and，in any event，the defendants' position on this application is that the GSA is valid and enforceable．

    1993年2月，原告同意出售且被告自己同意购买业务站土地。为完成买卖，签署了一份附属协议。根据协议规定，原告得到财产的抵押权，作为那笔160，000美元的担保。当事人之间就此附属协议和抵押是否替代GSA有一些分歧，而GSA则是申请的理由。就呈送法庭的材料而言，我无法确认附属协议替代GSA这一事实，无论如何，被告在本申请中坚持认为GSA是合法和应予执行的。

    7．The defendants submit that while a default under the GSA has occurred， the court ought to relieve against the acceleration claimed by the plaintiff in this action．They argue that the default is technical in nature and that it results from the plaintiff's own failure to register a financial statement pursuant to s．43(4) of the PPSA．The defendants submit their behavior has not been flagrant or contemptuous and thus the court's discretion under s．62 (3) should be exercised in their favor．

    被告认为，尽管有违反GSA情况，法院应该准予救济，不执行本诉讼中原告提出的提前偿付的要求。他们辩称，违约属于技术性质，是原告方没有按《动产担保法》第43条第4款作财务报告登记造成的。被告认为他们的行为不属公然蔑视，由此，法院应按第62条第3款规定行使自由酌处权，准许他们的申请。

    8．The plaintiff argues it was under no obligation to file a financial statement and that an order for relief against acceleration should only be granted where the terms imposed by the court are just and reasonable to all parties affected．They submit that relief from acceleration should not be granted since imposing conditions will not place the parties in the positions agreed to in the share purchase agreement．

    原告辩称其没有义务作财务报告登记，且只有给予所有当事人的条件公正和合理时，法院才能作出免除提前偿付的命令。他们认为由于给予的条件不能使当事双方恢复股份买卖协议所规定的地位，故不能作出免去提前条款的命令。

    9．Section 62 (3) and (4) of the PPSA read as follows：

    《动产担保法》第62条第3款和第4款规定如下：

    (3) Where a security agreement

    如担保协议

    (a) provides for a security interest in other than consumer goods，and

    规定是物权担保而不是用消费品担保，且

    (b)provides that，by reason of a default by the debtor，the payment or performance of an obligation secured is required at an earlier time than would have been the case if the default had not occurred，

    规定，由于债务人违约，须比不违约时提前支付和履行担保义务，

    upon application by the debtor or in a proceeding for the enforcement of rights under the security agreement，a court may

    经债务人申请或根据担保协议提起诉讼以执行权利时，法院可以

    (c)relieve the debtor from the consequences of the default，or

    免除债务人的违约责任，或

    (d) stay enforcement of any provision of a security agreement providing for acceleration of the payment or performance upon default by the debtor．

    维持担保协议的规定，鉴于债务人的违约，要求提前支付或履行义务。

    (4)In granting relief under subsection (3)，the court may impose a condition and make an order as to cists．

    在根据第3款免除义务时，法院可以就诉讼费规定条件和作出命令。

    10．Section 62(3) of the PPSA essentially replaces the repealed s．21.1 (1) (a) and (b) of the Law and Equity Act，R．S．B．C．1979，c．224． Section 21 of the Law and Equity Act was enacted to permit the court to relieve against penalties and forfeitures．Section 21.1 Was subsequently enacted to extend this jurisdiction to cases involving acceleration provisions in the context of chattel mortgages，conditional sales，mortgages of land and agreements for the sale of land．Under s．62(3)，the court may now relieve the debtor from the consequences of default or it may stay enforcement of acceleration provisions upon default of agreements dealing with personal property security．

    《动产担保法》第62条第3款基本上取代了《普通法和衡平法》(《不列颠哥伦比亚法规修订本》，1979，第224章)的第21条第1款第1段第1项和第2项之规定。《普通法和衡平法》第21条的颁布是为了让法院免除处罚和没收。尔后所颁布的第21条第1款将此权限扩大适用到涉及动产按揭抵押、有条件销售、土地按揭抵押和土地销售协议的提前条款案件上。根据第62条第3款，法院可以免除债务人的违约责任或按违反有关动产担保协议情况执行提前条款之规定。

    11．There are primarily two concerns in an application of this nature， namely：1) that contracting parties be held to the bargains they have knowingly entered into without court interference and 2) that relief from the strict terms of the bargain may be provided to defaulting debtors if it is just and fair to do so． The relief sought is discretionary；equitable principles apply．The conduct and behavior of the parties involved and especially that of the defaulting party is therefore a prime factor to be considered．

    此类申请有两点特别需要关注，即： 1) 认定合同双方应维护未经法院干涉由他们自己同意签订的买卖合同， 2) 可以向违约债务人就交易的严格条款提供救济，只要这样属公平合理。申请的救济可自由处酌；应适用衡平法原则。由此，合同和有关双方当事人，特别是违约方的行为和举动是主要的考虑因素。

    12．Mac Donald v．Searle (Q．L．[1992] B．C．J．No．2865)(B．C．S．C．)， appears to be the only case which has considered s．62 (3) of the PPSA． There, the applicant debtor defaulted in installment payments on three occasions．The debtor made up two of the payments late and was in default of one payment when the application for relief from acceleration of the balance of the debt was heard．Cowan J．granted relief be condition that the missed payment together with the creditor's legal fees be paid．Unlike the case before me，in Mac Donald the creditor agreed with reinstatement on the conditions imposed and the relief granted put the creditor in the same monetary position he or she would have been had the default not occurred．

    麦克唐纳诉塞尔案(魁北克案件，1992，《不列颠哥伦比亚司法杂志》NO．2865)(不列颠哥伦比亚最高法院)似乎是惟一援引了《动产担保法》第62条第3款的案例。该案中，提出申请的债务人3次在分期付款上违约。当提起申请免去提前交纳剩余债务之诉时，债务人已有两次延迟付款和一次没有付款。大法官科恩准予了免除申请，条件是债务人必须交纳未交款项和承担诉讼费。与本案不同的是，在麦克唐纳一案中，债务人同意回复原有条件，免除申请的准许使债务人重新处于他或她在未违约前所处的同样的经济地位。

    13．In cases decided under ss．21 and 21.1 of the Law and Equity Act，the court has stated that relief from acceleration ought not to be granted where there has been a flagrant and contemptuous disregard of the parties' contractual obligations．In the case of Vohra Enterprises Ltd．v．Creative Industrial Corp．(Q．L．[1988] B．C．J．No．159)(B．C．S．C．) [reported 23 B．C．L．R． (2d)120]，relief was granted to a defaulting debtor under a mortgage when it failed to pay property taxes on the due date．Callaghan J．found that the default was unanticipated，not flagrant and essentially beyond the control of the debtor．

    在根据《普通法和衡平法》第21条和第21条第1款所判决的一些案件中，法院已经说明，如果有公然蔑视当事人合同义务的情况，不应当免去提前偿付的义务。在沃拉企业有限公司诉创造工业公司一案(魁北克案件，1988，《不列颠哥伦比亚司法杂志》，NO．159)(不列颠哥伦比亚最高法院)，(收录于《不列颠哥伦比亚判例汇编》第2辑23卷第120页)对一位违约的债务人给予了救济，该债务人在规定期限没有缴纳抵押财产的财产税。大法官卡拉汉认为，违约不是故意的，不恶劣，基本上不能为债务人所控制。

    14．In the case of Sloan v．Dierden (1984)，52 B．C．L．R．193(S．C．)， McKenzie J．granted the relief sought under s．21 where a debtor missed an installment payment under an agreement because of a bank error in clearing her cheque． The court held the debtor was in no way responsible for the default and accordingly granted relief．

    在斯隆诉迪尔登一案(1984)，《不列颠哥伦比亚判例汇编》第52卷第193页(最高法院)，债务人没有按合同规定缴纳一笔分期付款，原因是银行在兑换她的支票时出了差错，大法官梅肯兹准予了按第21条申请的责任免除。法院认为债务人不应当承担违约责任，由此应当准予救济。

    15．In granting relief from acceleration，Meiklem J．in Bank of Montreal v．Amar Enterprises Ltd．(Q．L．[1994] B．C．J．No．648)(B．C．S．C．)， found that the debtor's conduct fell short of flagrant and contemptuous disregard of contractual obligations．A persuasive factor in the decision appears to be his finding that all breaches which could be rectified were rectified by the debtor at the time the application was heard．

    在免除提前偿付义务时，大法官米克莱蒙在蒙特利尔银行诉阿马企业公司一案(魁北克案件，1994年，《不列颠哥伦比亚司法杂志》，NO．648)，(不列颠哥伦比亚最高法院)中，认为债务人的行为构不成公然蔑视合同义务。判决使人相信，他认为凡是能够纠正的违约行为在审理案件时已由债务人所纠正。

    16．In Vohra，supra，reference is made to Western Mortgage Development Corp．v．H．& D．Investments Ltd．(1982)，40 B．C．L．R．263 (S．C．)， which refers to the principle that relief should not be granted where a default under an agreement will likely occur again．Obviously，repeated default will likely amount to a flagrant and contemptuous disregard of contractual obligations．

    在上述沃拉案件中，援引了西方抵押发展公司诉H&D投资有限公司一案(1982)，《不列颠哥伦比亚判例汇编》第40卷第263页(最高法院)，其涉及到一个原则，即一种违约如果可能再次发生，则不应该准予免除义务。很明显，反复违约可能会达到公然蔑视合同义务的地步。

    17．In the case before me，while the plaintiff could have registered a financial statement in the personal property registry pursuant to s．43(3) of the PPSA，thereby ensuring its security position with respect to other creditors，it was not obligated either by the PPSA or by the share purchase agreement to do so．on the other hand，the defendants' obligations under the share purchase agreement were clear．They were to grant the plaintiff a first charge against their assets．

    本案中，尽管原告本可以按《动产保法》第43条规定在动产登记处进行登记，由此保证它与其他债权人之间的担保地位，但不论根据《动产担保法》或股份购买协议的规定，它均无义务进行这样的登记。另一方面，根据股份购买协议，被告的义务则很清楚。被告应给予原告就他们财产进行优先受偿的权利.

    18．The defendants breached the agreement by dealing with the collateral in violation of the GSA．The defendants granted security to three other creditors， having covenanted with the plaintiff not to do  so．By the time of the breach，the defendants had obtained the benefit of the money loaned to them by the plaintiff．There is little evidence to suggest the breach arose innocently or in ignorance of the terms of their agreement with the plaintiff；quite the contrary．

    被告违反GSA规定处分担保物，故应负违约责任。被告在与原告签约后不再用财产对他人作担保的情况下，仍对3位债权人作出担保。在违约时，被告已经从原告处得到借款。几乎没有证据证明，他们是无意或没有理解与原告签订的协议而导致的违约；事实刚好相反。

    19．The court cannot，by imposition of terms，put the plaintiff in the position of first secured creditor under the PPSA as was originally contracted for． I cannot accept the defendants' argument that since there has been no monetary default to date and since the plaintiff now has additional security，namely，the mortgage，the default has not placed the plaintiff at any greater risk．In order to accept that argument，I would have to conclude，and I will not，that holding a fourthranked charge against personal property entails no greater risk than holding a first charge．

    法院不能强加条件，使原告恢复《动产担保法》所规定的优先担保债权人的地位，就像原合同所规定那样。我也不能接受被告的论点，认为由于至今尚无金融方面的违约情况，且原告现在已经具有附加担保，即按揭抵押权，由此违约不会对原告带来进一步的风险。为了接受这个论点，我必须得出结论，即对个人财产持1/4的担保权所承担的风险与具有优先受偿权的风险一样大，但我不愿作这样的结论。

    20．On the affidavit evidence before me，I have concluded that：1)the conduct of the defendants has been flagrant and contemptuous of their contractual obligations；2) terms which would put the parties into their pre-breach positions cannot be imposed；and 3) granting the relief sought would effectively dismiss the plaintiff's action．

    就我所得到的誓证，我得出以下结论：1) 被告的行为已经表明他们公然蔑视其合同义务；2)不能施加条件使当事双方恢复违约前的地位；3)准许所申请的救济会驳回原告的起诉。

    21．Accordingly，this is not a case where relief from acceleration should be granted on this interlocutory motion．The application is dismissed．Costs will be in the cause．

    因此，本案不能根据诉讼中间动议，准许免除提前求偿的义务。驳回申请。裁决费用记入诉讼费中。

    Application dismissed．

    申请驳回。