2020年4月3日，在Shanghai Shipyard Co Ltd v Reignwood International Investment (Group) Co Ltd [2020] EWHC803 (Comm)一案中（判决请见：阅读原文），英格兰及威尔士高等法院王座法庭商事法庭认定，船舶买方的母公司向上海船厂提供担保作为船舶分期付款的担保不是一项“见索即付保函”（demand guarantee）而导致船舶买方的母公司在发生违约情形时即必须按需立即付款，而且不论如何，这种担保都是一种“一般保函”（see to it guarantee），而依照该等保函，只有在买方被判定为有责任支付最后一笔分期付款款项时，才产生担保人责任，因此担保人责任需要等待仲裁庭的最终认定结果才能确定，从而拒绝支持上海船厂的1.7亿美元的尾款担保索赔主张。
一、背景介绍
在本案中法院必须确定与造船合同有关的担保所引起的初步问题。
本案原告是上海船厂；被告是船舶买方的母公司和担保人Reignwood。二者之前签订了一份不可撤销付款担保合同，担保目的是确保若买方违约，则对于应由船舶买方支付给上海船厂的船舶的分期付款的最后一期货款的1.7亿美元，上海船厂可以向担保人主张该等担保金额，而担保人必须在收到主张后立即付款。
然而，担保还规定，如果买方和上海船厂之间就买方的最后付款责任和上海船厂有权收取最后一笔货款发生争议，而且该争议已提交仲裁，则担保人可以扣留并推迟支付担保金以待仲裁结果。
双方的具体合同约定如下：
1.In consideration of [the Builder] entering into [the Contract] with [the Buyer]… for the construction of [the Vessel], [the Guarantor] hereby IRREVOCABLY, ABSOLUTELY and UNCONDITIONALLY guarantee[s] in accordance with the terms hereof, as the primary obligor and not merely as the surety, the due and punctual payment by [the Buyer] of the Final [I]nstalment of the Contract Price amounting to … US$170,000,000 … .
…
3.[The Guarantor] also IRREVEOCABLY, ABSOLUTELY and UNCONDITIONALLY guarantee[s], as primary obligor and not merely as surety, the due and punctual payment by [the Buyer] of interest on the Final Instalment guaranteed hereunder at the rate of … (5%) per annum from and including the first day after the default until the date of full payment by [the Guarantor] of such amount guaranteed hereunder.
4. In the event that [the Buyer] fails to punctually pay the Final Instalment guaranteed hereunder in accordance with the Contract or [the Buyer] fails to pay any interest thereon, and any such default continues for a period of fifteen (15) days, then, upon receipt by [the Guarantor] of [the Builder's] first written demand, [the Guarantor] shall immediately pay to [the Builder] or [the Builder's] assignee all unpaid Final [I]nstalment, together with the interest as specified in paragraph (3) hereof, without requesting [the Builder] to take any further action, procedure or step against [the Buyer] or with respect to any other security which you may hold.
Inthe event that there exists dispute between [the Buyer] and the Builder as to whether:
(i)[The Buyer] is liable to pay to the Builder the Final Instalment; and
(ii)The Builder is entitled to claim the Final Instalment from [the Buyer],
and such dispute is submitted either by [the Buyer] or by [the Builder] for arbitration in accordance with Clause 17 of the Contract, [the Guarantor] shall be entitled to withhold and defer payment until the arbitration award is published. [The Guarantor] shall not be obligated to make any payment to [the Builder] unless the arbitration award orders [the Buyer] to pay the Final Instalment. If [the Buyer] fails to honour the award, then [the Guarantor] shall pay you to the extent the arbitration award orders.
…
7.[The Guarantor's] obligations under this guarantee shall not be affected or prejudiced by:
(a)any dispute between [the Builder] and [the Buyer] under the Contract; …
…
(c)any variation or extension of their terms thereof; …
…
10.The maximum amount … that [the Guarantor is] obliged to pay to [the Builder] under this Guarantee shall not exceed the aggregate amount of …(USD171,416,666.67) being an amount equal to the sum of:
(a)The Final Instalment guaranteed hereunder …; and
(b)Interest at the rate of … (5%) per annum on the instalment for a period of sixty (60) days …"
11.All payments by [the Guarantor] under this Guarantee shall be made without any set-off or counterclaim and without deduction or withholding for or on account of any taxes, duties, or charges whatsoever …".
后来买方拒绝接受该船舶的交付，并拖欠了最后一期货款。上海船厂向担保人主张该等担保金额。两年后，当事人根据合同提起针对最后一期货款的仲裁。
本案的争议点是：
（1）本案的担保合同到底是“见索即付保函”（demand guarantee），由此担保人在上海船厂主张该等担保金额之后即产生付款责任；还是 “一般保函”（seeto it guarantee），由此只有在买方被判为有责任支付最后的一期款项时才产生付款责任；
（2）如果在上海船厂主张该等担保金额时仲裁程序已经开始，则担保人是否仅仅是有权在仲裁结果之前拒绝付款。
二、法院认定
1、本案涉案担保合同的性质
法院认定，本案的担保合同类型不是“见索即付保函”（demand guarantee），而是“一般保函”（see to it guarantee）（I have reached the conclusion that the Guarantee is a 'see to it' guarantee）。
法院给出了以下几点理由：
（1）法院援引Wuhan Guoyu Logistics Group Co Ltd v Emporiki Bank of Greece SA [2012] EWCA Civ 1629案，认为很难确定担保合同是“见索即付保函”，还是“一般保函”或“有条件的付款义务”，因为两种类型的保函用语存在很大的共性，而且经常产生歧义（Mr Turner QC and Mr Stevenson recognise that determining whether a guarantee is a demand guarantee can be difficult because there is significant commonality in the language used in the two different types of guarantee. As Longmore LJob served in Wuhan Guoyo Logistics Group v Emporiki Bank of Greece [2014] 1Lloyd's Rep 266 at [23], there are often "pointers in different directions".）。
（2）法院援引Marubeni Hong Kong and South China Ltd v Government of Mongolia [2005] 1 WLR 2497，认为涉案担保合同必须结合上下文来的解释。在本案中，担保人是船舶买方的母公司，而非银行，并且担保并非在银行业背景下作出。参照上述案件，该案中缺乏使得非银行签发的债券与银行签发债券有类似的效果，因此使得该案不具备可以被视为在银行的语境下作出（The Guarantor is a parent company and not a bank. It appears it is not simply a parent company, for in other proceedings in Singapore it has described itself as offering investment services. Even taking that into account the context here is not, or at least is not squarely, a banking context. In Marubeni Hong Kong and South China Ltd v Government of Mongolia [2005] 1 WLR 2497 at [30] the Court of Appeal had regard to the fact that the transaction there considered was outside the banking context. The absence of language in an instrument to describe it "in terms appropriate to a demand bond or something having similar effect" created, "in a transaction outside the banking context", "a strong presumption against" interpretation as a demand bond in the view of the Court.）。
不过，法院承认上海船厂的主张有一定道理，即在造船业中无论担保是由银行签发还是由母公司签发，该文件的功能都可能是相同的（There are, inevitably, differences between the instrument under consideration in Marubeni and the instrument here. There is force in Mr Turner QC's point that in the shipbuilding industry the function of an instrument can be the same whether issued by a bank or a parent company. Any presumption can "more readily give way to language that indicates the contrary" where the context is a transaction in the nature of a financing transaction: see Bitumen Invest AS v Richmond Mecantile Ltd FZC [2017] 1 Lloyd's Rep 219 at [17] (SirJeremy Cooke).）。
（3）法院通过仔细分析该担保合同的语言，而认定上海船厂所依赖的作为“见索即付保函”特征的语言并不是可以独立成立的，不是具有决定性的，并且并不能就一定排除其不构成“一般保函”或“有条件的付款义务”（…that is not the same as saying that a provision on the lines of this part of Clause 4 is only consistent with an instrument being a demand guarantee）。
（4）法院认为，必须依照Wuhan Guoyu Logistics Group Co Ltd v Emporiki Bank of Greece SA [2012] EWCA Civ 1629案中确定的原则来进行有关语言的解释，而在该案中上诉法院指出尽管一切最终都取决于当事人在担保合同中的实际措词，但仍然存在以下推定——若文书中存在某些内容，则其可以以一种或另一种方式来解释。该推定是基于权威著作Paget'sLaw of Banking而得出的。该书罗列了为理解文书性质而需要考虑的四个要素，并指出在这些要素全都存在的情况下，该文书基本可都被解释为见索即付保函（demandguarantee）。法官出于维持法院的一贯做法的考虑必须参考这一推定，以便所有当事方都知道其所处的情形是什么（"he ought in my respectful view to have had much more regard to the presumption than he did", in the interests of "a consistency of approach by the Courts, so that all parties know where they stand".）。
具体而言，Paget'sLaw of Banking一书中的"Contract of Suretyship v demand guarantee"一章中指出，“如果文书（i）与不同司法辖区的当事方之间的基础交易有关，（ii）由银行签发，（iii）包含“见索即付”（topay 'on demand'）的承诺（是否有“first”和/或“书面”的字样皆可）和（iv）不包含排除或限制担保人可用的抗辩的条款，则该文书几乎总被解释为见索即付保函（"Where an instrument (i) relates to an underlying transaction between the parties in different jurisdictions, (ii) is issued by a bank, (iii) contains an undertaking to pay 'on demand' (with or without the words 'first' and/or 'written') and (iv) does not contain clauses excluding or limiting the defences available to a guarantor, it will almost always be construed as a demand guarantee.）。
（5）Wuhan Guoyu Logistics Group Co Ltd案中上诉法院指出，如果文书中存在某些元素，则可以一种或另一种方式解释该文件。Paget书中的推定的要素之一是该文书是由银行签发的，该书建议，如果该文书不是由银行或其他金融机构签发的，则必须有确凿的迹象表明该文书的目的是作为见索即付保函（demand guarantee）。在本案涉案担保合同中并没有如此强度或者质量的迹象，而这种确凿的迹象的缺失非常重要，而且不利于上海船厂的该文书是一种见索即付保函（demand guarantee）的主张（in contrast to the facts of Wuhan, the fact that the Guarantee was not issued by a bank takes the present case out of the "presumption" derived from the distinguished banking textbook. The textbook in its current edition has added the words "or other financial institution" to element (ii) of the presumption. It has also, by a footnote, drawn attention to the fact that the presumption has been applied to a bond issued by an insurance company in the ordinary course of its business (Caterpillar Motoren GmbH & Co KG v Mutual Benefits Assurance Co [2015] EWHC 2304 (Comm) at [20] per Teare J). These amplifications do not bring the present case within element (ii) of the presumption.）。
2、仲裁条款方面的分析
本案涉案担保规定，如果买方与上海船厂之间若存在买方的付款责任和上海船厂获取最终分期付款的权利二者之间的争议，并且该争议由买方或上海船厂提交仲裁，则担保人可以扣留并推迟支付担保金以待仲裁结果。
法院认为，没有任何理由可以将以上情形解释为除非在上海船厂向担保人主张该等担保金额之前将争议提交仲裁，否则各方当事人有意使这些安排的利益不适用或将被永久剥夺（Having considered the arguments carefully, I see no basis in the language of the Guarantee for an interpretation that the parties intended that the benefit of these arrangements would not apply or would be taken away permanently unless the dispute had been submitted to arbitration before a demand was made under the Guarantee.）。
法院认为，商事当事人不会预想认为仲裁或向担保人主张该等担保金额是首先要做的事情（I cannot see that the commercial parties would contemplate that what should matter was being first to arbitration or to demand.）。此外，合同提供了一个框架，邀请各方当事人在提起仲裁之前先尝试友好解决争议（Nonetheless the provision still contra-indicates a framework that invites hastening to arbitration before demand.）。
对于可能在后期在仲裁之后还会存在的由于主张该等担保金额而产生的诉讼可能造成的延迟，法院认为由于上海船厂在适当的早期阶段可将争议提交仲裁，因此该迟延造成的不利也被抵销（The concern identified by Mr Turner QC that there could be delay by there being litigation followed at a late stage by arbitration, is at least partly addressed by the ability of the Builder to submit the dispute to arbitration at a suitable early point.）。
法院认为，正确的解释是，不论该仲裁何时开始或可能何时开始，该担保合同使得担保人可以拒绝支付最后一期货款，以待仲裁裁决结果。
三、评论
本案中法院的裁判思路较为保守，认定本案的担保即便其文字存疑，而且在造船业内无论担保是由银行签发还是由母公司签发其功能都可能是相同的，但还是严格区分了银行或其他金融机构签发的保函和除此以外的其他机构签发的保函，并且认为涉案担保合同中的文字不足以明确到让其被认定为见索即付保函，则其只构成一般保函。
由于该担保不是“见索即付保函”而是“一般保函”，因此根据本案的实体约定和争议解决条款的约定，最后一期货款的担保金额的是否应由作为担保人的船舶买方的母公司承担这个问题被交给了仲裁庭。
本案表明法院在这个问题上的保守性以及其较为倾向于维持法院的一贯做法，而且本案也在一定程度上表明法院对于当事人约定的仲裁的尊重。