英国上议院对未登记的浮动抵押权效力的认定——史密斯诉布里真德县自治委员会案
|
摘要
郡政府与公司签订合同恢复废弃的土地,郡政府提前给公司预支了款项,由公司用该笔款项购买设备;而该笔款项从拟支付给公司的总款项中扣除。为了保护郡政府的利益,合同规定一方当事人所有的设备、商品及原材料等物资,一旦被固定在合同约定的地点,都属于郡政府。而为了完成该工程,当事人在任何时间都可以出售上述建筑设备、临时工程和未经使用的产品和原材料,并将出售的收入用于偿还已到清偿期的款项或者根据合同将到清偿期的款项。上议院认为,一项赋予债权人可以出售债务人的财产并将所得款项抵偿债务人对自己欠款的合同权利就是一项担保权利;并且因为涉及的财产(建筑设备、临时性工程、施工现场的商品和物资)属于可变动的资产,在合同当事人正常经营过程中能够消耗或者移出现场,这属于浮动抵押。根据《公司法》第395条第(1)项的规定,未进行登记的抵押不能对抗清算人和管理人和公司的任何债权人,也不能对抗处于清算或者接管阶段的让与人。郡政府的权利构成担保物权,但因未登记而无效,即使当事人在合同中规定郡政府享有合同抵销权,因不符合成文法的规定而无效;衡平法并不干预并保护未能遵守成文法规范的当事人。
The Council and the corporation signed the contract in order to rehabilitate the discarded land. The Council advanced some payment to the company to buy the equipment,and the money should be deducted from the total amount paid to the Council. In order to protect the benefit of the Council,the contract clarified that all the equipment,commodity and raw material possessed by one party would be the property of the Council once they are fixed in a contractually agreed location. In order to complete the construction,any party could sell the said construction equipment,temporary works and unused goods and materials at any time,and apply the proceeds of sale in or towards the satisfaction of any sums due or which may become due under the contract. House of Lords concluded a contractual right enabling a creditor to sell his debtor's goods and apply the proceeds in or towards satisfaction of the debt is a right of a security character. Furthermore,since the property(constructional plant,temporary works,goods and materials on the site) was a fluctuating body of assets which could be consumed or removed from the site in the ordinary course of the contractor's business,it was a floating charge. The failure to register the charge under section 395(1) made the charge void against the liquidator,administrator or any creditor of the company. The right of the Council constituted a guarantee right but was void because it did not register. Even if their contract provided the Council with a contractual right of set-off,it was void for failure to comply with applicable statutory provisions. The equity doesn't intervene and protect the Council from its failure to comply with the statutory provisions.
The Council and the corporation signed the contract in order to rehabilitate the discarded land. The Council advanced some payment to the company to buy the equipment,and the money should be deducted from the total amount paid to the Council. In order to protect the benefit of the Council,the contract clarified that all the equipment,commodity and raw material possessed by one party would be the property of the Council once they are fixed in a contractually agreed location. In order to complete the construction,any party could sell the said construction equipment,temporary works and unused goods and materials at any time,and apply the proceeds of sale in or towards the satisfaction of any sums due or which may become due under the contract. House of Lords concluded a contractual right enabling a creditor to sell his debtor's goods and apply the proceeds in or towards satisfaction of the debt is a right of a security character. Furthermore,since the property(constructional plant,temporary works,goods and materials on the site) was a fluctuating body of assets which could be consumed or removed from the site in the ordinary course of the contractor's business,it was a floating charge. The failure to register the charge under section 395(1) made the charge void against the liquidator,administrator or any creditor of the company. The right of the Council constituted a guarantee right but was void because it did not register. Even if their contract provided the Council with a contractual right of set-off,it was void for failure to comply with applicable statutory provisions. The equity doesn't intervene and protect the Council from its failure to comply with the statutory provisions.
引文
Smith(Administrator of Cosslett(Contractors)Limited(Appellant)v.Bridgend County Borough Council(Respondents)On 8 November2001.判例原文对注释性的案例、法条和参考文献采用了文中夹注法,为符合本刊的注释体例,译者将其改为页下脚注,并且作了编号。译稿主标题、内容摘要和关键词,系译者所加。案情简介属于译者针对案件的归纳,具体还请看判决书的内容。
(1)In re Monolithic Building Company[1915]1 Ch 643.667.
(1)Independent Automatic Sales Ltd v.Knowles&Foste[r 1962]1 WLR 974.
(2)Re Ayala Holdings Ltd(No 2)[1996]1 BCLC 467.
(3)Independent Automatic Sales Ltd v.Knowles&Foste[r 1962]1 WLR 974.
(1)Manson v.Smith(Liquidator of Thomas Christy Ltd)[1997]2 BCLC 161.
(2)Hanak v.Green[1958]2 QB 9.
(3)Winter Garden Theatre(London)Ltd v.Millennium Productions Ltd[1948]A C 173,203.
(4)Agnew v.Commissioner of Inland Revenue[2001]3 WLR 454,464.
(1)Agne’s case,at p457.
(2)本案一审法院卷[1997]Ch 23.
(3)本案上诉法庭卷[1998]Ch 495.
(1)本案上诉法庭卷[1998]Ch 495,508.
(2)参见本案上诉法院埃文斯法官的论述,[1998]Ch at p505.
(3)参见本案上诉法院埃文斯法官的论述,[1998]Ch at p508.
(4)参见本案上诉法院劳斯法官的判决,段15和段16。
(5)参见Agnew v.Commissioner of Inland Revenue[2001]3 WLR 454,465-466 per Lord Millet.
(1)In re Garrud,Ex p Newit(t1881)16 Ch 522.
(2)参见该案第7部分,1854年《汇票法案》第17和18条,《维多利亚票据法》第36条。
(3)c/f Cuckmere Brick Co Ltd v.Mutual Finance Ltd[1971]Ch 949.
(4)c/f Tse Kwong Lam v.Wong Chit Sen[1983]1 WLR 1349.
(5)参见该案上诉审案件[1998]Ch 495,510.
(1)参见本案副本第16段。
(2)参见Lord Mc Naghten in Governments Stock and Other Securities Investment Co v.Manila Railway Co Ltd[1897]AC 81,86。
(3)Evan v.Rival Granite Quarries Ltd[1910]2 KB 979.
(4)参见1986年英国破产法第245条和第15条第(3)项。
(5)维多利亚法第第31章,第41、42条。
(6)维都利亚法第43章,第45、46条。
(1)In re Monolithic Building Company[1915]1 Ch 643,667.
(2)参见英国破产法第109条第(1)项附注6段10。
(3)Clerk&Lindsell on Torts,18th ed,(2000).
(1)Orakpo v.Manson Investments Ltd[1978]AC 95.
(2)Dimond v.Lovel[l2000]2 WLR 1121(HL).
(3)17&18,Geo 5,c21.
(4)Dimond v.Lovel[l2000]2 WLR 1121,1131(HL).
(1)In re Monolithic Building Company[1915]1 Ch 643.667.
(1)Independent Automatic Sales Ltd v.Knowles&Foste[r 1962]1 WLR 974.
(2)Re Ayala Holdings Ltd(No 2)[1996]1 BCLC 467.
(3)Independent Automatic Sales Ltd v.Knowles&Foste[r 1962]1 WLR 974.
(1)Manson v.Smith(Liquidator of Thomas Christy Ltd)[1997]2 BCLC 161.
(2)Hanak v.Green[1958]2 QB 9.
(3)Winter Garden Theatre(London)Ltd v.Millennium Productions Ltd[1948]A C 173,203.
(4)Agnew v.Commissioner of Inland Revenue[2001]3 WLR 454,464.
(1)Agne’s case,at p457.
(2)本案一审法院卷[1997]Ch 23.
(3)本案上诉法庭卷[1998]Ch 495.
(1)本案上诉法庭卷[1998]Ch 495,508.
(2)参见本案上诉法院埃文斯法官的论述,[1998]Ch at p505.
(3)参见本案上诉法院埃文斯法官的论述,[1998]Ch at p508.
(4)参见本案上诉法院劳斯法官的判决,段15和段16。
(5)参见Agnew v.Commissioner of Inland Revenue[2001]3 WLR 454,465-466 per Lord Millet.
(1)In re Garrud,Ex p Newit(t1881)16 Ch 522.
(2)参见该案第7部分,1854年《汇票法案》第17和18条,《维多利亚票据法》第36条。
(3)c/f Cuckmere Brick Co Ltd v.Mutual Finance Ltd[1971]Ch 949.
(4)c/f Tse Kwong Lam v.Wong Chit Sen[1983]1 WLR 1349.
(5)参见该案上诉审案件[1998]Ch 495,510.
(1)参见本案副本第16段。
(2)参见Lord Mc Naghten in Governments Stock and Other Securities Investment Co v.Manila Railway Co Ltd[1897]AC 81,86。
(3)Evan v.Rival Granite Quarries Ltd[1910]2 KB 979.
(4)参见1986年英国破产法第245条和第15条第(3)项。
(5)维多利亚法第第31章,第41、42条。
(6)维都利亚法第43章,第45、46条。
(1)In re Monolithic Building Company[1915]1 Ch 643,667.
(2)参见英国破产法第109条第(1)项附注6段10。
(3)Clerk&Lindsell on Torts,18th ed,(2000).
(1)Orakpo v.Manson Investments Ltd[1978]AC 95.
(2)Dimond v.Lovel[l2000]2 WLR 1121(HL).
(3)17&18,Geo 5,c21.
(4)Dimond v.Lovel[l2000]2 WLR 1121,1131(HL).
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |