仲裁示範條款
點我觀看
  • 本會書刊
  • 仲裁季刊

第 66 期目錄

  • 仲裁專論
    • 撤銷仲裁判斷理論之研究(上)(陳煥文、梁堯清)

      仲裁判斷之作成能夠達成「終局」解決當事人私權紛爭之功能,並確定當事人間之權利義務關係,此乃仲裁制度最終之目的。然仲裁人所作成之仲裁判斷難免會有程序上或實體上之瑕疵,對於瑕疵仲裁判斷之救濟,各國法制或有不同,但無論採取何種法制,均會導致先前所進行之仲裁程序歸於徒勞,此不但與仲裁具有迅速、經濟、有效之特性互相矛盾,亦對仲裁人之信譽有相當之影響,是故仲裁程序進行中仲裁人念茲在茲者,即為如何作出一個沒有瑕疵、不會被「拒卻」(challenge)的仲裁判斷。因之,撤銷仲裁判斷之理論即有研究之必要。 本文主要的目的係為撤銷仲裁判斷架構一理論基礎。首先擴大撤銷仲裁判斷之意義,使其不僅限於「撤銷仲裁判斷之訴」的方式,而係包含任何使仲裁判斷無效或做某程度改變的程序,並進而提出「撤銷仲裁判斷」之理論基礎乃在於國家基於擔保仲裁判斷符合「正當法律程序」所進行的「司法控制」(judicial control),繼而介紹國際仲裁立法例對於撤銷仲裁判斷之三種方式(上訴、撤銷仲裁判斷之訴、發回仲裁庭),並將國際間「撤銷仲裁判斷之事由」加以歸納討論,最後則對撤銷仲裁判斷後之效力問題一併研究,並提出本文對於我國仲裁法制關於撤銷仲裁判斷的幾點修法意見作為總結。

    • Commentary on the articles concerning setting aside arbitral awards of the Arbitration Act of R.O.C.1998 (Part 2)(高啟中)

      Nowadays arbitration has become the prevalent means of alternative dispute settlement. However, arbitration was not popular in Taiwan as the caseload remains insignificant. Although a Commercial Arbitration Ordinance was in effect since 1961, it was considered poorly drafted and attracted much criticism. In 1998 a new Arbitration Act was enacted with reference to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the Model Law) as well as other dvanced foreign legislation, with anticipation that arbitration in Taiwan could be encouraged. Despite some significant improvements were made, the provisions concerning action of setting aside against arbitral awards remains substantially untouched, providing some eleven grounds under which an award could be challenged in court. It is well accepted that usually an award with serious procedural defects could be subject to setting aside. If the parties were allowed to challenge an award on substantive grounds, the fundamental principle of arbitral award being final and binding upon the parties would be undermined. The new act does not follow very well the approach adopted by the Model Law in this regard. Another more serious flaw under the new act is that it failed to point a proper court to hear the action of setting aside. Most foreign legislations designate the action to a specified national court, with a limited access of appeal against setting aside decisions to prevent the losing party from using setting aside procedure to delay the enforcement of the award. Under the new act, however, common procedure is to be followed with full access of appeal, rendering setting aside another series of legal battle after the arbitration proceedings. For the losing party it would be an excuse to resist the enforcement of an award. The failures to comply with the standard grounds of setting aside and to restrain appeal access constitute the major defects of the new act. If no further amendment on these two issues is to be carried out, one cannot be too pessimistic about the future of arbitration in Taiwan..

    • 美國二000年修訂統一仲裁法簡析(下)(許兆慶)

      就美國仲裁法制而言,除該國已於一九七○年簽署加入紐約公約外,美國國會於一九二五年制定通過聯邦仲裁法(Federal Arbitration Act, FAA),而在州法階層,美國多數州亦分別有各該州之仲裁立法,而各該州之仲裁法,則多係以一九五五年「統一(模範)仲裁法」(Uniform Arbitration Act, UAA)為藍本。 惟因FAA制定至今已超過四分之三個世紀,UAA頒布至今亦已將近半世紀,此間,仲裁實務已有相當程度之質變與量變,為因應所需,「修訂統一仲裁法」(Revised Uniform Arbitration Act, RUAA)於焉誕生。 緣以RUAA可謂融合現行仲裁實定法與判例法之精神於一身,足堪代表美國仲裁法制現狀,因生本文研究之動機。本文第二部分首先簡介RUAA之沿革,第三部分說明RUAA主要之修訂目的,第四部分淺析RUAA修訂過程面臨之難題,第五部分闡釋RUAA之新定規範,第六部分析述RUAA之修訂規範,第七部分乃以RUAA為借,省思我國現行仲裁法內容,並以之代本文之結論,最後附錄RUAA原文與相對應之中文翻譯以供參照。

  • 證券仲裁
    • 證券經紀商對客戶之沖正損失所生爭議之判斷(陳峰富)

      證券交易糾紛中,最常發生之情況,厥在於客戶違約交割後之問題。 通常,依證券法令之規定,客戶自集中市場或店頭市場買賣有價證券,當有繳納股款之義務,否則即為違約交割,此時必須由證券商代辦交割手續再反向沖銷後,由證券商向客戶主張損害賠償,且客戶往後數年內必須受到交易限制。惟證券商就其沖正損失向客戶求償時,如為一般常態,較無爭議,但若有涉及融資融券或當日沖銷時,問題即較為複雜。因為證券商在受理客戶下單時,客戶之信用額度不足,致不能當日沖銷,造成違約情況時,客戶對證券商之沖正損失賠償,則常有怨尤。在此情況,是否應考量證券商之僱用人(營業員或信用評估者)有無過失責任,抑或客戶於喊盤之際即應自知信用額度?確有研究價值。爰以此案例敘明證券仲裁中,對於客戶以融資買入再以融券相抵(即當日沖銷),因信用額度不足,致客戶產生違約交割,證券商之沖正損失求償所生之爭議,俾供各界先進斟酌並指正是幸!