《胡椒子规则Peppercorn rule,你知道是什么吗?》

2 人赞同了该文章

In legal parlance, a peppercorn is a metaphor for a very small cash payment or other nominal consideration, used to satisfy the requirements for the creation of a legal contract. It featured in Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd ([1960] AC 87), which stated that "a peppercorn does not cease to be good consideration if it is established that the promisee does not like pepper and will throw away the corn". (Wikipedia)

胡椒子规则Peppercorn rule对价(consideration)制度中的一个重要规则。胡椒子在这里指的是微小事物,微不足道者,旧时用于表示纯粹名义上的合同对价(nominal consideration)。一分钱、一粒胡椒子亦可构成一个有价值的对价(valuable consideration)

体现胡椒子规则的典型案例为Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd一案。此案是英国合同法案例中非常有名的案例之一,因为正是在此案中,英国上议院确认对价必须是充分的,但不必一定是适当的。(Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd [1959] UKHL 1 is an important English contract law case, where the House of Lords confirmed the traditional doctrine that consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate.)

在此案中,原告为音乐曲目“Rockin’ Shoes”的版权人Chappell & Co Ltd,被告为Nestle Co Ltd。第三方录制了这一音乐曲目并出售给了被告,单价为4便士。之后,被告以1先令6便士外加三张其公司生产的巧克力的包装纸的单价向公众出售该作品,其目的是为了推销其巧克力,因为包装纸在其收到之后就会被丢掉。根据1956年《版权法》的规定:出售音乐作品,应按“零售价格”向版权所有人支付 6.25%的版权使用费(The Copyright Act 1956 s 8 said a 6.25% royalty needed to be paid on the “ordinary retail selling price” to the owners of copyrights.)。被告在向原告支付版权使用费时,以1先令6便士为计价基础。但原告对此提出异议,认为巧克力包装纸所含的巧克力利润也应该被计算在内。法庭最后判决,支持原告的主张,因为包装纸本身也是考量其对价的一部分,尽管包装纸的经济价值非常微小。

与胡椒子相关的法律术语还有peppercorn rent 胡椒子租金;象征性租金 指极低的、纯属名义上的租金。

以下为有关胡椒子规则的例句:

Consideration must be sufficient, but courts will not weigh the adequacy of consideration. For instance, agreeing to sell a car for a penny may constitute a binding contract. All that must be shown is that the seller actually wanted the penny. This is known as the peppercorn rule. Otherwise, the penny would constitute nominal consideration, which is insufficient. Parties may do this for tax purposes, attempting to disguise gift transactions as contracts.

对价必须是充分的,但是法院并不刻意关心(过问)对价的适当性。例如,以一便士的价格出售轿车可以构成一个有约束力的合同。(买方/原告)只需要表明卖方事实上想要这一便士即可。这就是所谓的“胡椒子规则”。否则,这枚便士仅构成名义上的对价,即不充分的对价。当事人可能出于避税的目的而将赠与交易伪装成合同交易。

(参考文献:屈文生、石伟《法律英语阅读与翻译教程》)

发布于 2020-06-08 09:39:30
还没有评论
    旗渡客服