法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 論獨立性原則之權利濫用(詐欺)例外-以英國、美國及德國之履約擔保狀、擔保信用狀及銀行擔保狀法為中心(The Fraud Exception to the Principle of Independence-English, American and German Law of Performance Bonds, Standby Credits and Bank Guarantees)
編著譯者: 許忠信
出版日期: 2001.12
刊登出處: 台灣/輔仁法學第 22 期 /151-250 頁
頁  數: 100 點閱次數: 1373
下載點數: 400 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 許忠信
關 鍵 詞: 擔保信用狀銀擔保行狀履約摻保狀銀行保證狀獨立性原則權利濫用例外詐欺例外嚴格一致原則假處分禁止令
中文摘要: 單據性擔保狀本具有「先付款再爭論」(Pay first, argue later; Erst zahlen,dann prozessieren)之功能設計,目的在使受益人提出狀上所載之單據時,能迅速而確定地自銀行獲得付款,等該擔保金在手後,再與擔保狀申請人爭論基礎關係上的是非。為確保此一目的與功能的達成,擔保狀須獨立於基礎(契約)關係,而不容開狀銀行以基礎關係上之爭執為由而拖延給付擔保金,此即擔保狀所具之獨立性。
然而此一獨立性並非絕對,例如英、美兩國的法律即承認此一獨立性原則有一詐欺例外,如英國法要求證明此一詐欺事實的證據係屬明白而即時可得者(clear and immediately available)為限;德國法亦要求受益人之權利濫用事實須屬明顯或可以以即時證據加以證明(offensichtlich oder liquide beweisbar);美國統一商法典第 5-109 條雖未作此高標準要求,但亦有部分判例認為應採高標準。本文認為,為了確保擔保狀之「先付款再爭論」之設計功能的達成,獨立性原則的 例外,不論稱之為詐欺或權利濫用,應限於能以明白而即時可得的證據加以證明者方可,以使開狀銀行或法院能快速而且輕易地作出決定,免得阻礙受益人藉擔保狀而獲取迅速而確定的付款的途徑。
英文關鍵詞: standby letters of creditletters of creditperformance bondsbank guaranteesdocumentary guaranteesthe independence principlethe fraud exceptionabuse of rightpreliminary injunctionsinterim injunctionsattachmentsMareva injunctions
英文摘要: Under English law, to obtain a freezing injunction, the applicant must establish a good arguable case. The standard of proof required by this threshold test is lower than that required by an interim injunction to enjoin the issuer from making payment, or to enjoin the beneficiary from making a demand. By contrast, the standard of proof for an attachment order is the same as that for a preliminary injunction under Subsection 5-109(b)(4) of the revised U.C.C. (1995). Logically, the degree of proof for a freezing injunction should be lower than that for an interim injunction to enjoin the issuer from making payment because a freezing injunction does not interfere with the issuer’s obligation to pay. Thus, it is submitted that the English approach is more acceptable.
目  次: 1.Introduction
2.English law
2.1.Fraud in the credit transaction
2.1.1.Fraudulent documents
2.1.2.Fraud in a simple demand
2.2.Fraud in the performance of the underlying contract
2.3.Fraud in the underlying contract between the issuer and the account party
2.4.Fraud in the formation of the underlying contract
2.5.The basis for the fraud exception
2.6.Interim injunctions
2.6.1.Enjoining the issuer from making payment
2.6.2.Enjoining the counter guarantor from paying the primary guarantor
2.6.3.Enjoining the primary guarantor from paying the beneficiary
2.6.4.The time of clear notice of fraud
2.6.5.Enjoining the beneficiary from making a demand
2.6.6.Issues arising from different proper laws of primary and counter guarantees
2.7.Freezing injunctions
2.7.1.The requirements for a freezing injunction
2.7.2.Freezing injunctions and documentary guarantees
3.American law
3.1.Forged or fraudulent documents
3.2.Fraud in the transaction
3.2.1.The scope of the fraud in the transaction exception
3.2.2.Degree of fraud in the fraud in the transaction defence
3.3.Preliminary injunctions
3.3.1.Standard of proof
3.3.2.Irreparable harm
3.3.3.Additional considerations in other Circuits
3.4.Attachments
4.German law-
4.1.The obvious abuse of right defence
4.2.Interim injunctions
4.3.Interim attachments
5.Conclusion
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
      返回功能列