faxue081行业英语翻译作业.doc

英语班级:IB5 专业：法学081
成员：沈科圣 学号：082210401
成员：罗俽 学号：08221040124
成员：王家珧 学号：08221040130
成员：吴顶忠 学号：08221040135

The First Appliccation of Hong Kong Law by a Mainland Court
首例在内地使用的香港程序法

在6月11日，中山市中级人民法院，广东省法院对第一例有关香港的租赁纠纷进行审判。这个案件被称为第一个应用香港法的大陆法院。原告钻石租赁有限公司（以下简称“钻石”）和被告荣辉科技有限公司都是香港公司。法庭下令当事人之间的合同终止，承租人荣辉返还设备的租金。
据报道，这一争端由于被告荣辉违反租赁协议的规定。原告钻石声称，在2002年11月22日，钻石与签订了机器设备的租赁合同，租用钻石的机器设备。钻石根据该协议交付给荣辉机器设备使用，但实际的用户是荣辉电子（中山）有限公司（以下简称“荣辉Ⅱ”）。
然而，荣辉并没有履行在合同中的规定支付租金，而且自2003年9月到现在都没有支付租金.钻石指控荣辉公司违反合同，并要求法院下令解除合同和由两名被告返还设备的租金。
“本合同受香港法律制约，并按香港法律诠释。出租人与承租人接受香港法庭的审判权，出租人可向任何其他有管辖权限的法庭请求强制执行本合同。”合同双方同意《租赁合同》第16条是对解决纠纷的适用法律的规定。
既然钻石租赁公司和荣辉科技公司统一香港法律为管辖法律，中山市中级法院要求钻石租赁公司就相关的适用法律进行举证。作为对中山市中级法院要求的回应，钻石租赁公司提供了由香港迪肯律师行出具的一份法律意见, 该意见对租赁协议的相关条款提出了主张。
根据这份意见书，如果荣辉科技公司没有按合同的条款和条件适时支付租金，并为违约承担相应的支付责任，钻石租赁公司就可以根据合同以书面通知书的形式立即终止该合同。
中山市中级法院认为，钻石租赁公司提供的法律意见是由香港具备资格的律师开具由司法部承认的委托公证人公证且由中国法律服务（香港）有限公司递送的。因此，这份法律意见书不仅是以合理、合法的渠道呈现的，而且涉及到香港的法律内容也与香港基本法的司法原则相符合。它既没违背大陆法律的基本原则，也没违背社会公共利益。因此，这份意见书可以通过。
中山市中级法院非常坚决的在一审就判决原告和被告的租赁合同终止，荣辉在裁决生效后返3天内返还所有由钻石租赁的机器设备，两个被告共同承担案件受理费，共人民币36500元。
The First Application of Hong Kong Law by a Mainland Count
On June 11, Zhongshan Intermediate People’s Court of Guangdong Province made the first instance judgment on a Hong Kong-related lease dispute. The case is said to be the first one where Hong Kong law is applied by a mainland court. Plaintiff Diamond Lease Ltd(hereinafter referred to as “Diamond”)and one defendant Ronghui Technology Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as “Ronghui”)are both Hong Kong based companies. The court ordered the contract between the parties to be terminated, and the lessee Ronghui to return rental equipment.
The dispute is reportedly due to defendant Ronghui’s violation of the lease agreement. Plaintiff Diamond claimed that, on November 22,2002,it entered into a lease contract with Ronghui agreeing that Ronghui leased certain machine equipment from Diamond delivered the equipment to Ronghui for use under the agreement, although the actual user was Ronghui Electronic(Zhongshan) Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as “RonghuiⅡ”). However, Ronghui did not fulfill the rental payment requirements set out in the contract, and failed to pay any rental since September 2003.Diamond alleged Ronghui’s contractual violation, and requested the court to order the contract dissolution and the return of rental equipment from two defendants.
“This contract shall be governed by, and interpreted and construed in accordance with the Law of Hong Kong. The Lessor and Lessee consent to the jurisdicition of court in Hong Kong, and the Lessor may turn to courts in any other comperent jurisdiction for compulsory of this contract.” The contracting parties agreed upon the application of law for dispute resolution under Article 16 of the Lease Contract.
Since Diamond and Ronghui concurred the Law of Hong Kong as the governing law, Zhongshan Intermediate Court ordered Diamond to proof concerning the application of law. In response, Diamond filed a legal opinion rendered by Deacons Law Firm, Hong Kong, proposing opinions concerning certain provisions of the terms and conditions of the agreement.According to this legal opinion, Diamond may , in the case that Ronghui fails to pay rental timely pursuant to the terms and conditions of the agreement , immediately terminate the contract through written notification under the agreement, and be liable correspondingly for breach of contract.
Zhongshan Intermediate Court found that the legal opinion filed by Diamond was provided by a qualified attorney in Hong Kong, attested by an appointed attesting officer recognized by the Ministry of Justice, and delivered through China Legal Services( Hong Kong)Ltd.The opinion was thus not only presented via a sound, legal channel, but the legal content within Hong Kong thereof was in accordance with the judicial principles of the Basic Law of Hong Kong, and was neither contrary to basic principles of mainland law nor against social public interest. Therefore, the opinion could be adopted.
Zhongshan Intermediate Court so determined at first instance that the lease contract between the plaintiff and the defendant be terminated, Ronghui return all the machine equipment leased from Diamond within three days after the ruling takes effect, the two defendants bear the Case Acceptance Fee, RMB36500 Yuan.