下载文档原格式
新《公司法》释疑与解读培训文字实录今天我们主要学习一下新修改的公司法。
这次公司法的修改的内容特别多，很多修改非常重要，所以不管是从事哪个专业领域的律师，都是值得去深入学习。
我国的公司法于1993年制定，在2005年进行过一次非常大的修改，当时改动比较大的就是注册资本的制度改革，后来有一些小修小改，直到2018年的时候大幅度地修改过一次。
之前我也参与了一些公司法修改的讨论，包括在大成内部举行过研讨会，也邀请了人大法工委的领导和参与工作的一些专家、学者，进行过深度的交流，我们给他们也提了很多的意见和建议。
公司法是一个简单但是又特别有难度的法律，若要真正地深入理解很多东西就需要很多的积累和背景知识。
正好在这个过程中对一些立法的考虑、要点，我也有一些了解，所以我们共同学习、交流。
这次公司法在修改的过程中成立一个专家组和一个专班。
专家组邀请了赵旭东老师等一批公司法的资深教授作为专家顾问，专班邀请了沈朝晖老师这些比较优秀的公司法年轻学者。
今天我们的交流主要使用北京大学彭冰老师的对比分析稿作为参考文稿。
彭老师是学术界比较有代表性和个性的一位教授，非常有自己的见解和独到的思想。
他总结得非常好，我认为他评论得也非常到位。
从修改背景整体把握公司法的修改首先，看一部法律的修改，在看法律条文的内容和新旧对比的基础上，很重要的一点是关注立法的背景和材料，包括修改说明和答记者问等等。
比如，全国人大对于公司法修改建立了一个专门的网页。
网页当中包含一项常委会审议，里面记录了审议的一些内容、委员的讲话等。
全国人大常委会审议组的成员都是全国人大常委会或者各方面的领导，话语权比较高。
所以看审议会议记录，就能比较好地理解公司法修订的背景、考虑，甚至具体到哪位领导是怎么考虑的。
因为有些领导虽然并不是这个法律专业的，但可能更多从其管理或者其他的角度去考虑问题。
比如在“国有企业"这一章节中提到了加强国有企业合规，这个内容是江小涓委员提出的。
公司注册编号公司法（第50章）新加坡共和国有限股份公司总纲及公司章程OFXX（私人）有限公司注册成立于公司法，第50章节有限股份公司章程的总纲OFxx（私人）有限公司（在新加坡共和国注册成立）1．公司的名称是xx （私人）有限公司2. 公司的注册办公室会坐落于新加坡共和国3．公司具有公司法（第50章节）和其他成文法授予的全部权利、权力和特权以及全部的能力来执行或者承担任何商业和活动，做任何行为或者缔结任何交易，包括但不限于以下主要的目的：-(a) 执行所有或者任何电子商务项目管理、产品发展、市场营销和生产制造因特网网络产品，每一类型和储存的电器和电子装置和器具的生产、安装、维护和处理，各种类电子和电器、装置、设备的储存的商事活动。
(b) 执行提供有关上述相关科技的电子解决，电子咨询和顾问服务，执行每一类型与电子和电的使用和应用相关的研究、调查和试验工作的商事活动。
(c) 执行电脑系统咨询、管理咨询、电脑软件发展可行性研究、项目管理、设施管理、电脑时间共享和服务办事处，租借电脑软件系统和/或组件，买、卖、供应、贸易和修理电脑软件系统和/或组件，以及各种类型的为任何目的的与电脑/管理工具相关的服务的商事活动。
4. 公司成员承担有限责任。
我/我们，下列列具姓名、地址和职务的签署的迄今股份认购人，均意欲依据总纲组成一间公司，我/我们并分别地同意按列于我们姓名右方的股份数目，承购公司资本中的股份数。
20xx年xx月xx日- 3 -公司法，第50章节有限股份公司公司章程OFxx有限公司(注册成立于新加坡共和国)序言1.公司法附录四表格A的章程不适用于本公司，除非本章程重复或者包含了相同条款。
定义2. 在本章程中“法案”指公司法（第50章节）以及在其生效期间的任何法定修改或者重新制定“公司”指上述的公司，无论其不时地被称作什么其他名字指公司现时的董事或任何具有授权来代表公司的董事“董事”或者“董事会”“红利”包括花红，以货币或物的分配，资本分配和资本化问题；“成员”指登记成为公司股份持有者的个人或者实体；“办公室”指公司现时的注册办公室；“实缴资本”包括以信用出资作为实缴资本；“登记”指依照法案保存的公司成员登记簿，包括依据法案保存的分支机构的登记簿；“秘书”指依照本章程委任的公司秘书，将包括任何人被授权临时履行公司秘书职责的人。
市场主体歇业制度的运行困境及其完善路径摘要：新冠肺炎疫情发生以来，部分市场主体受到疫情影响，经营困难，但仍有较强的经营意愿和能力，《市场主体登记管理条例》在借鉴域外相关制度，结合深圳前期试点经验的基础上，设立了市场主体歇业制度，有利于助企纾困，但部分规定不明确、宣传不到位、配套监管措施不足，阻碍了歇业制度的运行，还有待在实践中不断总结完善。
关键词：歇业制度歇业备案休眠公司市场主体近年来，因新冠肺炎疫情等因素，部分市场主体经营困难，而现有《公司法》规定下，上述公司困于注销或停止运营沦为僵尸企业两种选择之中，允许其暂停营业，以待情况好转后重新经营，有助于降低企业运营成本，提升风险抵御能力，避免企业进入经营异常名录。
《中华人民共和国市场主体登记管理条例》（以下简称《条例》）借鉴域外相关制度，结合深圳前期试点经验，设立了市场主体歇业制度。
该制度为我国受疫情影响暂时无法正常开展业务的市场主体提供了休整之机，但在运行过程中，仍存在一些不足，需要进一步予以完善。
一、我国歇业制度的确立与适用1987年，国务院发布《城乡个体工商户管理暂行条例》，第十一条对个体户歇业的有关问题进行了规定，但配套制度不够健全，《个体工商户条例》颁布实施后，《城乡个体工商户管理暂行条例》被废止，有关个体工商户歇业的规定也随之被废止。
[1]现行《公司法》第二百一十一条从对公司违规停业给予行政处罚的角度，可知公司可以存在六个月的歇业期限。
现行《企业法人登记管理条例》第二十二条规定了视同歇业的情形。
《市场主体登记管理条例》第三十条[2]确定了市场主体的歇业制度。
我国的歇业制度在借鉴域外“休眠公司”制度的同时，结合自身实际进行了调整，将适用对象限制为因不可抗力的困难暂时无法开展经营活动但自身仍有较强经营意愿的市场主体。
同时，合理限制相关市场主体歇业的时间，有效避免公司长时间歇业所带来的负面影响，从而保证制度设计的科学性与合理性。
企业应当在歇业前向登记机关办理备案，登记机关通过国家企业信用信息系统向社会公示歇业期限、法律文书送达地址等信息。
上网找律师就到中顾法律网快速专业解决您的法律问题2004年公司法修改大事记赵文岩中国政法大学一、《公司法》修改草案出台——迎接21世纪社会经济发展的大手笔2003年6月16日，全国人大常委会将《公司法》的修订，列入“抓紧时间研究起草、待条件成熟时适时安排审议”的30件法律草案之一。
2004年初的“两会”期间，共有601名全国人大代表、13位全国政协委员提出了修改公司法的建议。
2004年春节过后，公司法修订工作正式启动。
由国务院法制办负责，设立了不同的三个小组：由国务院相关部委的主管领导组成领导小组，学者组成的专家小组，负责具体事务的起草小组。
三个小组在全国范围进行大量的立法调查，广泛征询各政府相关部门(证监会、工商局、商务部等)、各地方的意见，征询有关行业协会、企业意见，征询国外学者、律师、会计师等专业人士的意见。
为了适应现代企业制度的继续完善和资本市场进一步发展的需要，2004年12月15日国务院常务会议讨论通过了《中华人民共和国公司法(修订草案)》，决定提交全国人大常委会审议。
至此，始于去年年初的公司法修订终于尘埃初定。
预计草案将于2005年上半年通过上网找律师就到中顾法律网快速专业解决您的法律问题新公司法草案内容修改的幅度较大，包括独董制度的引进、股份回购、转投资限制、一人公司、最低资本额等方面，公司法修订草案共新增40多个条款，大改条款超过80个，删除条款10余个，还有50多处的文字改动。
二、《公司法》、《证券法》等九部法律因应《行政许可法》修改行政许可法公布后，公路法、公司法、证券法、票据法、拍卖法、野生动物保护法、渔业法、种子法、学位条例等9部法律中有些行政许可的规定，已不符合行政许可法的规定和转变政府职能、改革行政管理体制的要求，有必要对这9部法律的个别条款予以调整。
2004年8月28日，9部法律在十届全国人大常委会第十一次会议上一次性予以修改。
其中公司法修正案删去原法律的第一百三十一条第二款。
Order of the President(No. 42 [2005])The Company Law of the People's Republic of China was amended and adopted at the 18th session of the Standing Committee of the Tenth National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China on October 27, 2005. The amended Company Law of the People's Republic of China is hereby promulgated and shall come into force on January 1, 2006.President of the People's Republic of China Hu JintaoOctober 27, 2005Company Law of the People's Republic of China(Adopted at the Fifth Session of the Standing Committee of the Eighth National People's Congress on December 29, 1993. Revised for the first time on December 25, 1999 according to the Decision of the Thirteenth Session of the Standing Committee of the Ninth People's Congress on Amending the Company Law of the People's Republic of China. Revised for the second time on August 28, 2004 according to the Decision of the 11th Session of the Standing Committee of the 10th National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China on Amending the Company Law of the People's Republic of China. Revised for the third time at the 18th Session of the 10th National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China on October 27, 2005)ContentsChapter I General ProvisionsChapter II Establishment and Organizational Structure of A Limited Liability Company中华人民共和国主席令（第42号）《中华人民共和国公司法》已由中华人民共和国第十届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第十八次会议于2005年10月27日修订通过，现将修订后的《中华人民共和国公司法》公布，自2006年1月1日起施行。
CHAPTER 8 THE LAW OF CONTRACTSection 1 IntroductionSection 2 Offer and AcceptanceSection 3 ConsiderationSection 4 Intention to Create Legal RelationsSection 5 Terms of the ContractSection 6 Capacity to ContractSection 7 Privity of ContractSection 8 Discharge of ContractSection 9 MistakeSection 10 MisrepresentationSection 11 Duress, Undue Influence and UnconscionabilitySection 12 Illegality and Public PolicySection 13 Judicial Remedies for Breach of ContractSECTION 1 INTRODUCTION8.1.1 Contract law in Singapore is largely based on the common law of contract in England. Unlike its neighbours Malaysia and Brunei, following Independence in 1965, Singapore’s Parliament made no attempt to codify Singapore’s law ofcontract. Accordingly, much of the law of contract in Singapore remains in the form of judge-made rules. In some circumstances, these judge-made rules have been modified by specific statutes.8.1.2 Many of these statutes are English in origin. To begin with, 13 English commercial statutes have been incorporated as part of the Statutes of the Republic of Singapore by virtue of s 4 of the Application of English Law Act (Cap 7A, 1993 Rev Ed). These are listed in Part II of the First Schedule of this Act. Other statutes, eg the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act (Cap 53B, 2002 Rev Ed), are modelled upon English statutes. There are also other areas where statutory development based on non-English models has taken place, eg the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (Cap 52A, 2004 Rev Ed) (which was largely drawn from fair trading legislation enacted in Alberta and Sasketchewan).8.1.3 The rules developed in the Singapore courts do, nevertheless, bear a very close resemblance to those developed under English common law. Indeed, wherethere is no Singapore authority specifically on point, it will usually be assumed that the position will, in the first instance, be no different from that in England.Return to the topSECTION 2 OFFER AND ACCEPTANCEAgreement8.2.1 A contract is essentially an agreement between two or more parties, the terms of which affect their respective rights and obligations which are enforceable at law. Whether the parties have reached agreement, or a meeting of the minds, is objectively ascertained from the facts. The concepts of offer and acceptance provide in many, albeit not all, cases the starting point for analysing whether agreement has been reached.Offer8.2.2 An offer is a promise, or other expression of willingness, by the ‘offeror’ to be bound on certain specified terms upon the unqualified acceptance of these terms by the person to whom the offer is made (the ‘offeree’). Provided the other formation elements (ie consideration and intention to create legal relations) are present, the acceptance of an offer results in a valid contract.8.2.3 Whether any particular statement amounts to an offer depends on the intention with which it is made. An offer must be made with the intention to be bound. On the other hand, if a person is merely soliciting offers or requesting for information, without any intention to be bound, at best, he or she would be making an invitation to treat. Under the objective test, a person may be said to have made an offer if his or her statement (or conduct) induces a reasonable person to believe that the person making the offer intends to be bound by the acceptance of the alleged offer, even if that person in fact had no such intention.Termination of Offer8.2.4 An offer may be terminated by withdrawal at any time prior to its acceptance, provided there is communication, of the withdrawal to the offeree, whether by the offeror or through some reliable source. Rejection of an offer, which includes the making of a counter-offer or a variation of the original terms, terminates the offer. In the absence of an express stipulation as to time, an offer will lapse after a reasonable time. What this amounts to depends on the particular facts of the case. Death of the offeror, if known to the offeree, would render the offer incapable of being accepted by the offeree. Even in the absence of such knowledge, death of either party terminates any offer which has a personal element.Acceptance8.2.5 An offer is accepted by the unconditional and unqualified assent to its terms by the offeree. This assent may be expressed through words or conduct, but cannot be inferred from mere silence save in very exceptional circumstances.8.2.6 As a general rule, acceptance must be communicated to the offeror, although a limited exception exists where the acceptance is sent by post and this method of communication is either expressly or impliedly authorised. This exception, known as the ‘postal acceptance rule’, stipulates that acceptance takes place at the point when the letter of acceptance is posted, whether or not it was in fact received by the offeror.Certainty8.2.7 Before the agreement may be enforced as a contract, its terms must be sufficiently certain. At the least, the essential terms of the agreement should be specified. Beyond this, the courts may resolve apparent vagueness or uncertainty by reference to the acts of the parties, a previous course of dealing between the parties, trade practice or to a standard of reasonableness. On occasion, statutory provision of contractual details may fill the gaps. For more on implication of terms, see Paragraphs 8.5.5 to 8.5.8 below.Completeness8.2.8 An incomplete agreement also cannot amount to an enforceablecontract. Agreements made ‘subject to contract’ may be considered incomplete if the intention of the parties, as determined from the facts, was not to be legally bound until the execution of a formal document or until further agreement is reached.Electronic Transactions Act8.2.9 The Electronic Transactions Act (Cap 88, 1999 Rev Ed) (‘ETA’) clarifies that, except with respect to the requirement of writing or signatures in wills, negotiable instruments, indentures, declarations of trust or powers of attorney, contracts involving immovable property and documents of title (s 4(1)), electronic records may be used in expressing an offer or acceptance of an offer in contract formation (s 11). A declaration of intent between contracting parties may also be made in the form of an electronic record (s 12). The ETA also clarifies when an electronic record may be attributed to a particular person (s 13) and how the time and place of despatch and receipt of an electronic record are to be determined (s 15).Return to the topSECTION 3 CONSIDERATIONDefinition8.3.1 A promise contained in an agreement is not enforceable unless it is supported by consideration or it is made in a written document made underseal. Consideration is something of value (as defined by the law), requested for bythe party making the promise (the ‘promisor’) and provided by the party who receives it (the ‘promisee’), in exchange for the promise that the promisee is seeking to enforce. Thus, it could consist of either some benefit received by the promisor, or some detriment to the promisee. This benefit/detriment may consist of a counter promise or a completed act.Reciprocity8.3.2 The idea of reciprocity that underlies the requirement for consideration means that there has to be some causal relation between the consideration and the promise itself. Thus, consideration cannot consist of something that was already done before the promise was made. However, the courts do not always adopt a strict chronological approach to the analysis.Sufficiency8.3.3 Whether the consideration provided is sufficient is a question of law, and the court is not, as a general rule, concerned with whether the value of the consideration is commensurate with the value of the promise. The performance of, or the promise to perform, an existing public duty imposed on the promisee does not, without more, constitute sufficient consideration in law to support the promisor’s promise. The performance of an existing obligation that is owed contractually to the promisor is capable of being sufficient consideration, if such performance confers a real and practical benefit on the promisor. If the promisee performs or promises to perform an existing contractual obligation that is owed to a third party, the promisee will have furnished sufficient consideration at law to support a promise given in exchange.Promissory Estoppel8.3.4 Where the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies, a promise may be binding notwithstanding that it is not supported by consideration. This doctrine applies where a party to a contract makes an unequivocal promise, whether by words or conduct, that he or she will not insist on his or her strict legal rights under the contract, and the other party acts, and thereby alters his or her position, in reliance on the promise. The party making the promise cannot seek to enforce those rights if it would be inequitable to do so, although such rights may be reasserted upon the promisor giving reasonable notice. The doctrine prevents the enforcement of existing rights, but does not create new causes of action.Return to the topSECTION 4 INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATIONSContractual Intention8.4.1 In the absence of contractual intention, an agreement, even if supported by consideration, cannot be enforced. Whether the parties to an agreement intended tocreate legally binding relations between them is a question determined by an objective assessment of the relevant facts.Commercial Arrangements8.4.2 In the case of agreements in a commercial context, the courts will generally presume that the parties intended to be legally bound. However, the presumption can be displaced where the parties expressly declare the contrary intention. This is often done through the use of honour clauses, letters of intent, memoranda of understanding and other similar devices, although the ultimate conclusion would depend, not on the label attached to the document, but on an objective assessment of the language used and on all the attendant facts.Social Arrangements8.4.3 The parties in domestic or social arrangements are generally presumed not to intend legal consequences.Return to the topSECTION 5 TERMS OF THE CONTRACTExpress Terms8.5.1 The rights and obligations of contracting parties are determined by first, ascertaining the terms of the contract, and secondly, interpreting those terms. In ascertaining the terms of a contract, it is sometimes necessary, especially where the contract has not been reduced to writing, to decide whether a particular statement is a contractual term or a mere representation. Whether a statement is contractual or not depends on the intention of the parties, objectively ascertained, and is a question of fact. In ascertaining the parties’ intention, the courts take into account a number of factors including the stage of the transaction at which the statement was made, the importance which the representee attached to the statement and the relative knowledge or skill of the parties vis-à-vis the subject matter of the statement.8.5.2 Once the terms of a contract have been determined, the court applies an objective test in construing or interpreting the meaning of these terms. What is significant in this determination therefore is not the sense attributed by either party to the words used, but how a reasonable person would understand those terms. In this regard, Singapore courts have consistently emphasised the importance of the factual matrix within which the contract was made, as this would assist in determining how a reasonable man would have understood the language of the document.8.5.3 Where the parties have reduced their agreement into writing, whether a particular statement (oral or written) forms part of the actual contract depends on the application of the parol evidence rule. In Singapore, this common law rule and its main exceptions are codified in s 93 and s 94 of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed). Section 93 provides that where ‘the terms of a contract…have been reduced …tothe form of a document…, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract …except the document itself’. Thus, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement may be admitted in evidence to contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from the terms of the written contract. However, secondary evidence is admissible if it falls within one of the exceptions to this general rule found in the proviso to s94. Some controversy remains as to whether s 94 is an exhaustive statement of all exceptions to the rule, or whether other common law exceptions not explicitly covered in s 94 continue to be applicable.8.5.4 It should, however, be noted that the scope of s 93 and s 94 has been circumscribed by Parliament in certain circumstances.Implied Terms8.5.5 In addition to those expressly agreed terms, the court may sometimes imply terms into the contract.8.5.6 Generally, any term to be implied must not contradict any express term of the contract.8.5.7 Where a term is implied to fill a gap in the contract so as to give effect to the presumed intention of the parties, the term is implied in fact and depends on a consideration of the language of the contract as well as the surrounding circumstances. A term will be implied only if it is so necessary that both parties must have intended its inclusion in the contract. The fact that it would be reasonable to include the term is not sufficient for the implication, as the courts will not re-write the contract for the parties.8.5.8 Terms may also be implied because this is required statutorily, or on public policy considerations. The terms implied by the Sale of Goods Act (Cap 393, 1994 Rev Ed) (eg s 12(1) – that the seller of goods has a right to sell the goods) provide examples of the former type of implied terms. As for the latter, whilst there has been no specific authority on the point, it is not inconceivable that Singapore courts, like their English counterparts, may imply ‘default’ terms into specific classes of contracts to give effect to policies that define the contractual relationships that arise out of those contracts.Classification of Terms8.5.9 The terms of a contract may be classified into conditions, warranties or intermediate (or innominate) terms. Proper classification is important as it determines whether the contract may be discharged or terminated for breach [as to which see Paragraphs 8.8.11 to 8.8.12 below].8.5.10 The parties may expressly stipulate in the contract how a particular term is to be classed. This is not, however, conclusive unless the parties are found to have intended the technical meaning of the classifying words used. In the absence of express stipulation, the courts will look objectively at the language of the contract to determine how, in light of the surrounding circumstances, the parties intended a particular term to be classed. There are also instances where statutes may stipulatewhether certain kinds of terms are to be treated as conditions or warranties, in the absence of any specific designation by the contracting parties.Exception Clauses8.5.11 Exception clauses that seek to exclude or limit a contracting party’s liability are commonly, but not exclusively, found in standard form agreements. The law in Singapore relating to such clauses is essentially based on English law. The English Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which either invalidates an exception clause or limits the efficacy of such terms by imposing a requirement of reasonableness, has been re-enacted in Singapore as the Unfair Contract Terms Act (as Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed).Incorporation8.5.12 Whether an exception clause will have its intended effect depends on a number of factors. The threshold requirement is that the clause must have been incorporated into the contract. There are generally three ways in which such incorporation may occur. Where a party has signed a contract which contains an exception clause, the signatory is bound by the clause, even if he or she had not read or was unaware of the clause. An exception clause may also be incorporated, in the absence of a signed contract, if the party seeking to rely on the clause took reasonably sufficient steps to draw the other party’s attention to the existence of the clause. The determination of this issue is heavily dependent on the facts of the particular case. Finally, exception clauses may be incorporated because there has been a consistent and regular course of dealing between the parties on terms that incorporate the exception clause. Even if no steps were taken to incorporate the clause in a particular contract between such parties, it may have been validly incorporated by the parties’ prior course of dealing.Construction8.5.13 The next consideration is one of construction (or interpretation). This is necessary to determine if the liability, which the relevant party is seeking to exclude or restrict, falls within the proper scope of the clause. Here, the courts adopt the contra proferentum rule of construction, and will construe exception clauses strictly against parties seeking to rely on them. Nevertheless, the Singapore courts appear to construe clauses which seek to limit liability more liberally than those which seek to completely exclude liability.Unfair Contract Terms Act8.5.14 Finally, the limits placed by the Unfair Contracts Terms Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed) (the ‘UCTA’) on the operation and efficacy of exceptions clauses must be considered. It should be noted that the UCTA generally applies only to terms that affect liability for breach of obligations that arise in the course of a business or from the occupation of business premises. It also gives protection to persons who are dealing as consumers. Under the UCTA, exception clauses are either rendered wholly ineffective, or are ineffective unless shown to satisfy the requirement of reasonableness. Terms that attempt to exclude or restrict a party’s liability for deathor personal injury resulting from that party’s negligence are rendered wholly ineffective by the UCTA, while terms that seek to exclude or restrict liability for negligence resulting in loss or damage other than death or personal injury, and those that attempt to exclude or restrict contractual liability, are subject to therequirement of reasonableness. The reasonableness of the exception clause is evaluated as at the time at which the contract was made. The actual consequencesof the breach are therefore, in theory at least, immaterial.Return to the topSECTION 6 CAPACITY TO CONTRACTMinors8.6.1 Under Singapore common law, a minor is a person under the age of 21. The validity of contracts entered into by minors is governed by the common law, as modified by the Minors’ Contracts Act (Cap 389, 1994 Rev Ed).Contracts with Minors8.6.2 As a general rule, contracts are not enforceable against minors. However, where a minor has been supplied with necessaries (ie goods or services suitable for the maintenance of the station in life of the minor concerned: see also s 3(3), Sale of Goods Act (Cap 393, 1999 Rev Ed)), the minor must pay for them. Contracts of service which are, on the whole, for the minor’s benefit are also valid. The minor is also bound by certain types of contracts (ie contracts concerning land or shares in companies, partnership contracts and marriage settlements), unless the minor repudiates the contract before attaining majority at age 21 or within a reasonable time thereafter.Minors’ Contracts Act8.6.3 Under s 2 of the Minors’ Contracts Act, a guarantee given in respect of a minor’s contract, which may not be enforceable against the minor, is nevertheless enforceable against the guarantor. Section 3(1) of the Minors’ Contracts Act empowers the court to order restitution against the minor if it is just and equitable to do so.Mental Incapacity and Drunkards8.6.4 A contract entered into by a person of unsound mind is valid, unless it can be shown that that person was incapable of understanding what he or she was doing and the other party knew or ought reasonably to have known of the disability. In this case, the contract may be avoided at the option of the mentally unsound person (assisted by a court-sanctioned representative where necessary). The same principle applies in the case of inebriated persons. Under s 3(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, persons incapacitated mentally or by drunkenness are required to pay a reasonable price for necessaries supplied.Corporations8.6.5 Subject to any written law and to any limits contained in its constitution, a company has full capacity to undertake any business, do any act or enter into any transaction (s 23 – Companies Act, Cap 50, 1994 Rev Ed). Where there are restrictions placed on the capacity of a company and the company acts beyond its capacity, s 25 of the Companies Act validates such ultra vires transactions if they would otherwise be valid and binding. Contracts purportedly entered into by a company prior to its incorporation may be ratified and adopted by the company after its formation (s 41 – Companies Act).8.6.6 A limited liability partnership is also a body corporate under Singapore law – see Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2005 (Act No 5 of 2005). It may, in its own name: sue and be sued in its own name; acquire, own, hold and develop property; hold a common seal; and may do and suffer such other acts and things as any body corporate may lawfully do and suffer – see s 5(1). Section 5(2) also extends s 41 of the Companies Act to apply to a limited liability partnership.Return to the topSECTION 7 PRIVITY OF CONTRACTThird party Enforcement of Contractual Rights Generally not Permitted8.7.1 As a general proposition, only persons who are party (ie ‘privy’) to a contract may enforce rights or obligations arising from that contract. This is sometimes referred to as the ‘privity rule.’8.7.2 A third party who is not privy to a contract is generally not allowed to bring any legal action in his or her own name for breach of contract against a contracting party who fails to perform his or her contractual obligations, even if such failure of performance has caused the third party to suffer a loss.When is Someone Party or Privy to a Contract?8.7.3 There is no clear definition as to when a person is/is not privy to a contract. Generally, a party who is an offeror or offeree will be privy to the contract. However, it seems that merely being mentioned in the contract is not enough.8.7.4 It is, nevertheless, possible to have a multilateral contract where there are multiple offerees (one or more of whom accept the offer on behalf of the others) or where there are multiple offerors (one or more of whom make the offer on behalf of the others). In either case, each offeree or offeror is a joint party to the contract and the privity rule will not apply to them.Non-statutory Exceptions to the Privity Rule8.7.5 The privity rule is not absolute. It is subject to many exceptions. Apart from the possibility of a multilateral or multi-party contract (mentioned above), some other exceptions can be found in the law relating to: (a) agency; (b) trusts; or (c) land (in relation to covenants which ‘run’ with the land or lease). For an in depth discussion of these other legal techniques to circumvent the privity rule, please see Chapters 15 and 18.Statutory Exceptions to the Privity Rule8.7.6 There are also statutory exceptions. Most of these are only applicable to specific and narrowly defined cases. Two examples of such statutes include: (a) the Bills of Exchange Act (Cap 23, 1985 Rev Ed) [see Chapter 22 on Banking Law]; and (b) the Bills of Lading Act (Cap 384, 1994 Rev Ed) [see Chapter 25 on Shipping Law]. Of more general application, the Singapore Parliament enacted the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act (Cap 53B, 2002 Rev Ed) in 2001.Contracts (Rights of Third Parties)Act8.7.7 Section 1 provides that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act has no retrospective effect – it cannot apply to any contract formed before 1 January2002. Section 1 also provides that the Act does not apply to any contracts which were formed on or after 1 January 2002, but before 1 July 2002, unless the contracting parties expressly provided in their contract for it to do so. Contracts formed on or after 1 July 2002 are always subject to the Act.8.7.8 Where the Act applies, it gives a third party a statutory right to enforce a term of a contract against a party who is in breach of his or her obligations under the contract (the ‘promisor’), even though even though the third party is a volunteerwho has not provided any contractual consideration – see s 2(5).8.7.9 This may occur if either: (a) the contract expressly provides that the third party may enforce a term of the contract in his or her own right – s 2(1)(a); or (b) the contract, ‘purports to confer a benefit on the third party’ – s 2(1)(b). However, s 2(1)(b) is qualified: a third party will not be granted the direct statutory right of suit in the absence of an express provision permitting him or her to do so, ‘if, on a proper construction of the contract, it appears that the parties did not intend the term to be enforceable by the third party.’ – s 2(2).8.7.10 This statutory right of enforcement is not just limited to cases where the promisor is under an obligation to act to confer a positive benefit on the thirdparty. ‘Negative’ benefits, such as the benefit of a term excluding or limiting the third party’s legal liabilities to the promisor, may also be enforced –s 2(5).8.7.11 The third party’s statutory right of enforcement against the promisor is qualified in a number of ways. First, the third party’s statutory right of recovery may be qualified by a defence or set-off which the promisor would have been able to assert vis-à-vis the other party to the contract (the ‘promisee’) – s 4. Second, any sum to be recovered by the third party pursuant to the Act may be reduced to take into account sums recovered by the promisee from the promisor in respect of the promisor’s breach – s 6.8.7.12 Once third party rights are created under the Act, certain restrictions are imposed on the ability of the parties to the contract to vary or rescind their contract if this would extinguish or alter the third party’s rights under the Act – s 3.8.7.13 Though wider in its scope than many of the other legal techniques for circumventing privity, the Act is not of universal application. Section 7 of the Act sets out a number of situations where the Act does not apply. Excluded cases include:(a) contracts on a bill of exchange, promissory note or other negotiable instrument;(b) limited liability partnership agreements as defined under the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2005 (Act 5 of 2005); (c) the statutory contract binding a company and its members under s39 of the Companies Act (Cap 50, 1994 Rev Ed); (d) third party enforcement of any term of an employment contract against an employee; and (e) third party enforcement of any term (apart from any exclusion or limitation of liability for the benefit of the third party) in a contract for carriage of goods by sea, or a contract for the carriage of goods or cargo by rail, road or air, if such contract is subject to certain international transport conventions.Return to the topSECTION 8 DISCHARGE OF CONTRACTDischarge by Performance8.8.1 If all the contractual obligations as defined by the terms of the contract are fully performed, the contract is brought to an end or ‘discharged’ by performance. In theory, such performance must be precise. However, trivial defects in performance may be ignored as being negligible or ‘de minimis.’ In addition, where full performance is only possible with the cooperation of the other party (as is almost invariably the case with obligations of payment or delivery), tender of performancein circumstances where the other party refuses to accept it is generally deemed to be equivalent to full performance so as to discharge the contract.Non- or Defective Performance8.8.2 In the event that a contractual obligation is not performed or is performed defectively in a non-trivial fashion, Singapore law provides for a variety of legal responses and remedies, depending on the nature of the failure of performance.Lawful Excuses for Breach of Contract8.8.3 If the failure of performance is not subject to any lawful excuse, thecontract is said to be ‘breached.’ In this context, ‘lawful excuses’ may take the following forms.Discharge by Agreement8.8.4 First, just as parties are free to agree to bind themselves to a contract, they are free to negotiate with each other to release themselves from the obligations of。
作者：未知文章来源：未知更新时间：2005-11-7 13:42:31Company Law of The People's Republic of China (1999)Order of the President of the People''s Republic ofChina"Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People''s Congress Regarding the Revision of Company Law of the People''s Republic of China" is adopted on The 13th Session of the Standing Committee of the Ninth National People''s Congress on December 25, 1999,and is promulgated. This law and decision are effective as of the same date of Promulgation.《全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于修改〈中华人民共和国公司法〉的决定》已由中华人民共和国第九届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第十三次会议于1999年12月25日通过，现予公布，修改后的《中华人民共和国公司法》和本决定自公布之日起施行。
President of the People''s Republic of China: JiangZeminDecember 25, 1999Company Law of the People''s Republic of ChinaContent目录Chapter I General Provisions第一章总则Chapter II Establishment and Organizational Structureof Limited Liability Companies第二章有限责任公司的设立和组织机构Section 1 Establishment第一节设立Section 2 Organizational Structure第二节组织机构Section 3 Wholly State-owned Companies第三节国有独资公司Chapter III Establishment and OrganizationalStructure of Joint Stock Limited Companies第三章股份有限公司的设立和组织机构Section 1 Establishment第一节设立Section 2 Shareholders'' General Meetings第二节股东大会Section 3 Board of Directors, and Manager第三节董事会、经理Section 4 Supervisory Board第四节监事会Chapter IV Issue and Transfer of Shares of Joint StockLimited Companies第四章股份有限公司的股份发行和转让Section 1 Issue of Shares第一节股份发行Section 2 Transfer of Shares第二节股份转让Section 3 Listed Companies第三节上市公司Chapter V Company Bonds第五章公司债券Chapter VI Financial Affairs and Accounting ofCompanies第六章公司财务、会计Chapter VII Merger and Division of Companies第七章公司合并、分立Chapter VIII Bankruptcy, Dissolution and Liquidationof Companies第八章公司破产、解散和清算Chapter IX Branches of Foreign Companies第九章外国公司的分支机构Chapter X Legal Liability第十章法律责任Chapter XI Supplementary Provisions第十一章附则Chapter I General Provisions第一章总则Article 1 This Law is formulated in accordance with the Constitution of the People''s Republic of China in order to meet the needs of establishing a modern 第一条为了适应建立现代企业制度的需要，规范公司的组织和行为，保护公司、股东和债权人的合法权益，维护社会经济秩序，促进社会主义市场经enterprise system, to standardize the organization andactivities of companies, to protect the legitimate rightsand interests of companies, shareholders and creditors,to maintain social and economic order and to promotethe development of the socialist market economy.济的发展，根据宪法，制定本法。
当代中国借鉴外国法律的实例（下）十四、民法与经济法之分在80年代初，“经济法”这一名称对中国还是相当陌生的。
随着国家的主要任务转向经济建设，同时也在当时苏联和个别其他东欧国家以及少数西方国家法学的影响下、中国法学界出现了倡导经济法的呼声。
但与此同时，在法学界也出现了民法与经济该之间界限的争论。
据报道，在1986年起草《民法通则》时，上述争论就正式展开。
当时争论的出发点是“制定民法通则的时机是否成熟”？因为倾向于经济法的一方认为当前制定民法通则的时机不成熟，制定民法通则应与制定经济法纲要同步进行。
但实质上争论的问题是民法与经济法之间界限应如何界定，大体上双方的对立论点是：倾向经济法的一方主张：（1）公民之间、公民与法人之间财产关系由民法调整，法人之间的财产关系应由经济法调整。
（2）法人问题不由民法通则规定，而应单独制定法律。
（3）应建立两种合同制度，分别调整经济合同关系与民事合同关系。
总之，民法调整平等主体之间民事关系，而经济法调会主义公有制基础上的经济管理与协作关系。
反过来，倾向民法一方的主张是：（1）法人之间财产关系应由民法调整，民法调整的对象包括平等主体的法人之间的财产关系，即横向的经济关系，不包括领导关系、隶属关系，即纵向经济关系。
（2）法人与自然人一样，是民事活动主体，大多数国家的民事法律都确立了法人制度。
（3）经济合同法调整的是平等主体间经济关系，不包括纵向经济关系。
全国人大法律委员会采纳了后一种意见，认为“西方国家没有经济法典，苏联和东欧国家也没有搞经济法典（只有捷克有经济法典），我国立法一向不主张先搞体系，然后再立法，而是成熟一个，制定一个。
学术理论问题可以慢慢讨论，但不是不搞民法通则的问题，不应当因此而影响立法。
”〔1〕因此，《民法通则》规定：“中华人民共和国民法调整平等主体的公民之间、法人之间、公民和法人之间的财产关系和人身关系。
”（第2条）从以上情况可以看出，80年代经济法的出现以及随之而来的争论，既是当时中国经济领域发展的产物，也是外国法律和法学影响下的体现。
《公司法》无面额股制度——评述《公司法修订草案》第155条摘要：面额股制度有着保护债权人债权和股东利益的功能，但也存在着不能折价发行新股而导致的融资上的缺陷。
随着公司制度从实缴制变成了认缴制，面额股制度的根基受到了动摇，为了适应这种改变，无面额股制度应运而生。
而面对实行全面无面额股制度还是面额股制度和无面额股制度并存制度的选择时，公司法修订草案选择了二者并存的制度作为面额股制度向无面额股制度的过渡，这与我国目前的情况相适应。
但在引入无面额制度仍然存在着二者并存制度的质疑以及对股东权益保障问题的担忧。
关键词：无面额股公司法修订草案债权保护股东权益保障我国此次《公司法修订草案》第一百五十五条规定：公司的全部股份，根据公司章程的规定择一采用面额股或者无面额股。
这表明我国此次修订草案采用了后者面额股制度和无面额股制度并存的方式。
我国一直以来实行的都是面额股制度，那么为什么现在要引入无面额股制度？采取面额股制度和无面额股制度并存的方式还是全面引入无面额股制度对于我国目前而言更加适合？一、面额股制度的功能（一）保护债权人的债权现行《公司法》将股份有限公司的资本划分为金额相等的股份，因此股票上的票面金额乘以发行的股份形成的股本总额就是股份有限公司的注册资本，若是股票低于票面金额折价发行，那么资本将达不到注册资本额。
根据我国现行《公司法》的规定，股东将对此承担虚假出资或出资不实的责任，因此现行《公司法》规定股票不得低于票面金额折价发行。
而根据资本三原则资本确定、资本维持、资本不变原则的要求，注册资本为债权人提供了保障，让债权人在理想状态下可以依据注册资本来判断公司的资本充足情况和偿债能力[1]。
因此，面额股制度也就具有了保护债权人债权的功能。
（二）保护股东的权益面额股制度使得股东都以等于或者大于票面金额出资，一定程度上维护了股东在出资时支付股票之对价的公平。
此外，若是允许新股能够以低于票面金额的价格折价发行，那么其他股东的股权就将会被稀释，从而损害其他股东对公司的权益。
