从St Albans vs.ICL等案论IT合同限制责任条款  

Analysis on Limited Responsibility Clause from St Albans vs.ICL Cases

作　　者：张曼[1] 

机构地区：[1]西北大学法学院,陕西西安710127

出　　处：《河北法学》2011年第4期155-160,共6页Hebei Law Science

摘　　要：限制责任条款是合同战场中双方当事人利益冲突的焦点,这种现象反映在软件服务合同(简称IT合同)中亦是如此。对于限制责任条款,最为关键的是条款解释的处理,常见的是"不利解释"原则。但是,由于IT合同中软件本身的特殊性,原有的"不利解释"原则是否需要某些调整以应对新对象,还有应如何进行调整,以及如何保证其调整不会打乱整个合同条款解释的内在逻辑体系。对上述问题的回答或许可以从St Albans vs.ICL等IT合同案中关于限制责任条款的诠释,以及对英国合同法条款解释原理的回溯中帮助我们进一步加深了解和学习,为以后中国相关实践活动献智献策。limitations of liability clauses is the conflicting core for both parties in contract battle, such phenomena has been reflected in IT service contract （ so called as IT contract）. As for limitations of liability clauses, the normal applicating method is Contra Proferentem principle. However, as due to the characteristic of IT industry, whether the old Contra Proferentem principle needs any adjustment so as to meet the needs of new subject, or how can it be adjusted, and how can it be guaranteed that any adjustment will not disturb the whole logic system of contract inner interpreting rules. Answering the above questions, we may obtain some apocalypses from the St Albans vs. ICL cases about the interpreting of limitations of liability clauses, as well as the history retrospection to UK contract clause interpreting, which can help us further comprehend and learn the foreign experience in order to provide some advices for future practice in China.

关 键 词：合同 限制责任条款 不利解释 字面解释 目的解释 

分 类 号：DF418[政治法律—经济法学]