《美国统一商法典及其正式评述》（译著）读后随笔

最近在看孙新强教授翻译的《美国统一商法典及其正式评述》(第一卷）（中国人民大学出版社出版），就如作者所言，该书比较遗憾的是无法附法典及评述的原文（人大出版社未能与版权人美国法学会AL达成协议），我颇费周折找到资料对比阅读后，不由对孙教授严谨、负责的翻译风格肃然起敬，随即买了该书第二、三卷，准备抽点时间细读并做些笔记什么的。法律英语是涉外律师必须掌握的重要技能，且永无止境。鉴于我们对客户的文本负有保密义务，讨论公开出版物算是一种比较稳妥的提高法律英语的途径。我本人并非英语专业出身，以下一些读后随笔（包括今后可能发布的系列文章），旨在学习交流法律英语翻译，并不构成对某种译法的支持或者贬低，而是期望得到批评与指正，以减少在实务中出错的可能性。

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[原文] § 1-209. Subordinated Obligations.

An obligation may be issued as subordinated to payment of another obligation of the person obligated, or a creditor may subordinate his right to payment of an obligation by agreement with either the person obligated or another creditor of the person obligated. Such a subordination does not create a security interest as against either the common debtor or a subordinated creditor. This section shall be construed as declaring the law as it existed prior to the enactment of this section and not as modifying it.

[Source: Westlaw; Citation: ULA UCC s 1-209]

[原译文] 第1-209条 降位债权或债务

债务人的一项债务可置于另一项债务之后清偿；债权人也可以与债务人或债务人的另一债权人约定将其债权让位于另一项债权之后受偿。此种降位不产生可对抗共同债务人或者降位债权人的担保权益。本条应解释为系对其制定前的既存法的宣示，而非对其修改。

我初看标题"Subordinated Obligations"以为是“附随义务”，看完条款正文后理解标题中的"Subordinated"表示“后偿（顺序在后之清偿或者受偿）”，而"Obligations"是指（后偿）义务；初步考虑整个标题译为“后偿义务”，以对应国内法上的“优先受偿”之表述。

"Subordinated“本意为“次要的, 从属的”；作为动词在Black's Law中意为：To place in a lower rank, class, or position; to assign a lower priority to <subordinate the debt to a different class of claims>；术语有subordinated bonds or debentures[次级债券], subordinated debt[从属债务]等；

原译文将标题中的"Subordinated“译为“降位”侧重表达"To place in a lower rank, class, or position", 虽然符合条款正文的意思，但由于中国法没有直接对应的法律概念，若单看译文不易理解其意。而"Obligations"译为“债权或债务”，普通读者可能不易接受。

此外，我担心"Subordinated“ 采用“后偿”的译法虽然简练但可能会有歧义（不论是“降位”还是“后偿”，对于国内法来说应该算是“生词”），觉得还是将标题译为“顺序在后之清偿或者受偿”，而将条款后半部分的 "subordinated creditor“ 译为“后偿债权人”，这种过渡性的表达似乎更为稳妥，调整后的译文具体如下：

[参考译文] 第1-209条 顺序在后之清偿或者受偿

债务人的一项债务可置于另一项债务之后清偿；债权人也可以与债务人或债务人的另一债权人约定将其债权让位于另一项债权之后受偿。此种顺序在后之清偿或者受偿不产生可对抗共同债务人或者后偿债权人的担保权益。本条应解释为系对其制定前的既存法的宣示，而非对其修改。

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[原文] § 2-205. Firm Offers

An offer by a merchant to buy or sell goods in a signed writing which by its terms give assurance that it will be held open is not revocable, for lack of consideration, during the time stated or if no time is stated for a reasonable time, but in no event may such period of irrevocability exceed three months; but any such term of assurance on a form supplied by the offeree must be separately signed by the offeror.

[Source: Westlaw; Citation: ULA UCC s 2-205]

[原译文] 第2-205条 确定的要约

商人在签字的书面文件中作出的买受或者出售货物的要约条款保证要约将持续有效性的，该要约在规定时间内，未规定时间的，在合理时间内，不得因缺少对价而予撤销，但在任何情形下，此种不可撤销的期间不得超过3个月；但此种保证条款系在受要约人提供之格式合同上作出的，必须经要约人另行签字。

[修订建议] 我认为该标题"Firm Offers”译为“不可撤销的要约”比较合适，原译文“确定的要约”不是通用的术语，且标题和条款正文内容有些不“匹配”。

理由：根据Black's Law，"Firm Offers” See irrevocable offer under OFFER. 而irrevocable offer under意为：An offer that includes a promise to keep it open for a specified period, during which the offer cannot be withdrawn without the offeror's becoming subject to liability for breach of contract.

此外，除了《元照英美法詞典》，我国合同法对此相近的条款也采用了“不可撤销”的表述，具体如下：

中国合同法：
第十九条  有下列情形之一的，要约不得撤销：
    （一）要约人确定了承诺期限或者以其他形式明示要约不可撤销；
    （二）受要约人有理由认为要约是不可撤销的，并已经为履行合同作了准备工作。

"Firm Offers” 在《元照英美法詞典》中意为：
實盤；不可撤銷的要約　１按照美國《統一商法典》〔U.C.C.〕的解釋，指商人為購買或出售貨物而在所簽署的文件上保證保持其有效性的要約。這種要約在規定期限或合理期限內不得因其無對價而撤銷；但不可撤銷的期限不超過三個月。如載有這種條款的表格系對方所提供，則必須由要約人另行簽署才有效；２在雙方同意的期限內不可撤銷的要約。

[原文]( 上述§ 2-205. Firm Offers条款项下的正式评述的第2条）

2. The primary purpose of this section is to give effect to the deliberate intention of a merchant to make a current firm offer binding. The deliberation is shown in the case of an individualized document by the merchant's signature to the offer, and in the case of an offer included on a form supplied by the other party to the transaction by the separate signing of the particular clause which contains the offer. “Signed” here also includes authentication but the reasonableness of the authentication herein allowed must be determined in the light of the purpose of the section. The circumstances surrounding the signing may justify something less than a formal signature or initialing but typically the kind of authentication involved here would consist of a minimum of initialing of the clause involved. A handwritten memorandum on the writer's letterhead purporting in its terms to “confirm” a firm offer already made would be enough to satisfy this section, although not subscribed, since under the circumstances it could not be considered a memorandum of mere negotiation and it would adequately show its own authenticity. Similarly, an authorized telegram will suffice, and this is true even though the original draft contained only a typewritten signature. However, despite settled courses of dealing or usages of the trade whereby firm offers are made by oral communication and relied upon without more evidence, such offers remain revocable under this Article since authentication by a writing is the essence of this section.

[原译文] 然而，尽管要约系依据确定的商业往来或者行业惯例口头作出的，且被信赖而无更多的证据，但依据本编，此种要约仍不得撤销，因为利用书面材料鉴证是本条的实质。

根据 § 2-205以及评述的内容，我对划线部分的原译文有不同理解，具体如下：

[参考译文]   然而，尽管要约系依据确定的商业往来或者行业惯例口头作出的，且被信赖而无更多的证据，但依据本编，此种要约仍可撤销，因为利用书面材料鉴证是本条的实质。

（待续）

仲奕
2009年9月6日