解释合约
1 要整体解释合约
文书合约不会只有几个单词或一两条条文，所以解释一份合约是要求去全面解释，给每一条条文甚至每一个单词都有一定的解释。毕竟，合约中每一条条文或一个单词都是双方约定了去表达他们订约意图的内容，法官/仲裁员在解释合约的时候不能去漠视/忽视。有关一份合约必须整体去解释这个原则，又是差不多每一个著名的大法官一直以来都有提到，笔者只去挑部分节录如下。
第一个是Elenborough勋爵在Barton v. Fitzgerald (1812) 15 East 530中所说的： “The sense and meaning of the parties in any particular part of an instrument may be collected ex antecedentibus et consequentibus; every part of it may be brought into action in order to collect from the whole one uniform and constant sense, if that may be done.”。
第二个是Romilly M.R.勋爵在Re Strand Music Hall Co Ltd (1865) 35 Beav. 153中所说的： “The proper mode of construing any written instrument is, to give effect to every part of it, if this be possible, and not to strike out or nullify one clause in a deed, unless it be impossible to reconcile it with another and more express clause in the same deed.”。
第三个是Watson勋爵在Chamber Colliery Ltd v. Twyerould (1893) [1915] 1 Ch. 268 (Note)中所说的：
“I find nothing in this case to oust the application of the well known rule that a deed ought to be read as a whole, in order to ascertain the true meaning of its several clauses; and what the words of each clause should be so interpreted as to bring them into harmony with the other provisions of the deed, if that interpretation does no violence to the meaning of which they are naturally susceptible.”。
2 整体解释合约之一：两条不同条文之间的协调
这是一个经常会发生的情况，就是一份合约内有一条以上的条文针对同一件事，但说法不一样而且它们之间有一定的矛盾。这一来，如果能够去协调他们之间的矛盾并且给两条或以上的不同条文都有一定的解释与存在价值，就应该去这样解释，即使在协调的过程中会去把一些看来清楚无误的个别文字的意思去作出一定的扭曲或局限。这里可先去介绍Fuller‘s Theatre and Vaudeville Co Ltd v. Rofe (1923) A.C. 435，它是有关悉尼大剧院的一个合约。在枢密院，Atkinson勋爵这样说：
“It is well established, … that if one finds in a lease a covenant by the lessee not to assign or
sublet the demised premises without the consent, in writing, of the lessor first had and obtained, and also a covenant by the lessor that he will not unreasonably withhold his consent to a subletting or such like, the two covenants must be construed together with the result that the covenant of the lessee will be held to be qualified by that of the lessor.”。（这是针对两条不同条文，一是租用人不去转租，除非能预先得到出租人的文书同意。另一条是出租人不会不合理拒绝给与同意去转租。这两条要去一并解释，就是租用人的承诺是受到出租人承诺的限制。即是，如果出租人的拒绝同意转租是被证明不合理，出租人就会是违约并要赔偿租用人的损失。）
较近期的权威说法是Goff勋爵在Yien Yieh Commercial Bank Ltd v. Kwai Chung Cold Storage Co Ltd (1989) 2 H.K.L.R. 639, PC中说的：
“Their Lordships wish to stress that to reject one clause in a contract as inconsistent with another involves a rewriting of the contract which can only be justified in circumstances where the two clauses are in truth inconsistent. In point of fact, this is likely to occur only where there has been some defect of draftsmanship. The usual case is where a standard form is taken and then adapted for a special need, as is frequently done in, for example, the case of standard forms of charterparty adapted by brokers for particular contracts. From time to time, it is discovered that the typed additions cannot live with the printed form, in which event the typed additions will be held to prevail as more likely to represent the intentions of the parties. But where the document has been drafted as a coherent whole, repugnancy is extremely unlikely to occur. The contract has, after all, to be read as a whole; and the overwhelming probability is that, on examination, an apparent inconsistency will be resolved by the ordinary processes of construction.”。
Goff勋爵在上述先例中警告说在两条不同条文之间有矛盾时，去漠视或删除其中一条是应该尽量避免，因为这是去改写（rewrite）双方订立的合约。比较普遍发生的情况是双方使用一份被普遍使用的标准格式合约（例如是租约），然后双方去加上一些有特殊需要的附加条文。这就经常出现这被加上的附加条文无法去全面配合标准格式合约中的印本条文，这一来，应该就是去接受附加条文是有更大的可能代表订约双方的意图。但出现这种情况，还是要去尽量协调，而不是简单的去漠示或删除标准格式内的条文。
其他也有许多著名法官提到两条或以上不同条文之间有矛盾时，应该去尽量协调，部分节录如下。
早在Joyce v. Realm Marine Insurance (1872) L.R. 7 Q.B. 580，Blackburn勋爵针对一份保单就说：
“The ordinary and general rule in the case of a policy of insurance, of course, is that we must construe the policy as we find it; it is a printed form, with written parts in introduced
into it, and we are to take the whole together, both the written and the printed parts. Although it has sometimes been endeavoured to be argued that we ought to bestow no more attention on the written parts than on the printed parts which are uniform in most policies of insurance, there is no doubt that we do, and ought to, make a difference between them. The part that is specially put into a particular instrument is naturally more in harmony with that the parties are intending than the other, although it must be used to reject the other, or to make it have no effect.”。
在The ―Caspiana‖ (1956) 2 Lloyd‘s Rep. 379，Jenkins大法官也针对提单说：
“… a recognised principle, which is not confined to bills of lading, but in its relation to bills of lading may be stated as being that where a bill of lading is concluded by means of a printed form containing general conditions, into which the parties write, type or otherwise incorporated the terms agreed upon in respect of the particular transaction in view (for example the termini of the voyage contracted for), and any of the printed conditions is found to be inconsistent with or repugnant to the main object and intention of the bill of lading as disclosed by the terms specially agreed, the court will limit or modify the conflicting printed condition to the extent necessary to enable effect to be given to such main object and intention, or in a case of complete repugnancy wholly reject it.”。（提单使用一份印本的标准格式，内有一般性的条件，然后双方当事人去写上、打字或合并其他条文，例如是程租租约， 而这与印本条件有冲突或违背了提单的目的/目标与意图，法院就会去限制或更改起矛盾的印本条件，或如果是一个全面的矛盾导致无法协调，就会去漠视或删除。）
这种在两条不同条文之间的协调，是笔者几乎每天在做的工作，有无数的例子可作介绍。只去多举几个如下。
2.1 例子一
在著名的NYPE 46期租合约，它的第1条文是说明船东必须支付船舶的保险（The owners shall pay for the insurance of the vessel.），它没有其他限制的文字，所以应该从字义上可理解为只要去涉及船舶的保险而不是货物的保险，船东就要承担。同样的说法也出现在第26条文。但现实中，期租合约经常有附加条文去说明如果船舶被承租人命令去战区，战区的船舶保险加保费就要承租人承担。本来，一份好的合约就会在第1与第26条文中在说明船东必须支付船舶的保险的一句后，马上加上说“附加条文第几条的战区保险加保费除外”。又或是，在附加条文有关战争保险加保费的前面去加上一句说“不论本合约其他条文有怎样的不同说法”（notwithstanding any clauses in this contract stating to the contrary）。这一来，就可把它们之间的矛盾以明示加以协调。但即使是没有这样做，仲裁员去解释的时候也应该很容易在这一个情况下去作出协调并且给每一条文都有一定的意思或存在价值。这协调就是船东必须支付船舶的保险，但战争保险加保费是唯一
的例外。毕竟，根据解释合约的规则，也很容易得出这一个结论。第一是附加条文解释起来分量比印本条文重，虽然今天不少期租合约整份用电脑印出来，也不是这么容易区分了。第二也是更大的规则就是面窄的条文应该比广泛性的条文解释起来分量重，而针对战区保险加保费明显是面比较窄。
2.2 例子二
笔者也遇过几次是订约双方在附加条文中约定一条是承租人要负责所有货损货差，但另有一条是说船东要保证船舶舱盖水密。这种租约通常会是针对一些对水湿十分敏感的货物，例如是食糖。这一来，可去推断针对船东要保证舱盖水密的条文明显是更有针对性与在谈判时估计订约双方会去真正考虑与谈判过后的约定。所以，笔者去协调的解释就是所有货损货差都要承租人去负责，只除了因为舱盖水密不足导致海水渗入并造成的货损是要船东负责。
3整体解释合约之二：相同文字应该有统一解释
照理说，同一份书面文件中所使用的相同文字或句子应该是给与统一的解释。但会有罕见的例子是做不到这一点。这可见Watson v. Haggitt (1928) A.C. 127，案情是有关一个合伙人之间的协议，它的第3条文有关报酬是说明先去支付给每一个合伙人工资，之后把净利润（nett profit）去在他们之间分摊。但另有第21条文规定了如果有一位合伙人死亡，在世的合伙人就要在之后的5年去支付给其继承人每年净利润的1/3（nett annual profit）。虽然文字上看来都是一样，说是“净利润”，但在枢密院给这两条不同条文的计算方法有不同解释。第3条文的计算净利润是在扣除工资之后，但第21条文就是在在世的合伙人工资被扣减之前。
4整体解释合约之三：两条不同条文起直接矛盾
这与上述第2段不同之处是两条不同条文是没有办法作出协调，而被迫要去作出取舍，要漠视或删除其中一条。在Forbes v. Git (1922) 1 A.C. 256，Wrenbury勋爵说： “The principle of law to be applied may be stated in few words. If in a deed an earlier clause is followed by a later clause which destroys altogether the obligation created by the earlier clause, the later clause is to be rejected as repugnant and the earlier clause prevails. In this case the two clauses cannot be reconciled and the earlier provision in the deed prevails over the later. Thus if A covenants to pay 1001. and the deed subsequently provides that he shall not be liable under his covenant, that later provision is to be rejected as repugnant and void, for it altogether destroys the covenant. But if the later clause does not destroy but only qualifies the earlier, then the two are to be read together and effect is to be given to the intention of the parties as disclosed by the deed as a whole. Thus if A covenants to pay 1001.
and the deed subsequently provides that he shall be liable to pay only at a future named date or in a future defined event or if at the due date of payment he holds a definite office, then the absolute covenant to pay is controlled by the words qualifying the obligation in manner described.”。
上述是Wrenbury勋爵所举的有关不能协调与能够协调的例子。第一种情况是A承诺支付一笔钱，但协议后来另有一条文说明A没有任何支付责任，这就是起直接矛盾而必须要去漠视其中一条，办法例如是看哪一条条文的分量更重。第二种情况是A承诺支付一笔钱，但协议后来另有一条文说明A只需要在将来的某一天支付，或将来发生某一件事情才需要支付。这一来，A本来是绝对/严格的承诺支付这笔钱就受到了后来所讲情况的限制（或将来某一天才支付或将来必须先发生某一件事情，等的限制）。
但上述Wrenbury勋爵所讲的前部分的条文分量超越了后面的条文，所谓的“first clause prevails”，已经不再是今天的英国法律地位，这可见《Odgers‘ Construction of Deeds and Statutes》一书。
对上述的说法，也可以节录《Chitty on Contract》第29版12-078段的说法如下： “Inconsistent or repugnant clauses. Where the different parts of an instrument are inconsistent, effect must be given to that party which is calculated to carry into effect the real intention of the parties as gathered from the instrument as a whole, and that part which would defeat it must be rejected. The old rule was, in such a case, that the earlier clause was to be received and the later rejected, but this rule was a mere rule of thumb, totally unscientific, and out of keeping with the modern construction of documents.”。
今天的地位应该是较后的条文反而会是分量比前面的条文更重，虽然要强调这并非是一个死板与普遍被接受的规则，而只是没有办法解释的最后一招（a mere rule of thumb and to be used as the last resort）。有关条文/文字之间的分量轻重，在稍后第6段会再详论。
在Addis v. Burrows (1948) 1 K.B. 444，Greene M.R.勋爵也说：
“… apart from striking any words out, the fact that the parties have deliberately typed into this document words creating a tenancy for eighteen months made it clear that it must be so construed, and that, if necessary, the subsequent words in print must yield to that construction.”。
5 起矛盾条文之间给予分量的轻重
在解释文书合约时经常会要把有关的条文去作出不同的对待，因为它们之间分量的轻重会有不同。这种做法会像在需要把两条有矛盾的条文去作出协调，更或是被迫要去漠视