THIS MOTION made by the plaintiff，for judgment on the statement of claim，was heard this day at 7755 Hurontario Street，Brampton，Ontario L6V 2M7．
原告提出的就訴訟主張進(jìn)行判決的動(dòng)議于本日在安大略省布蘭普頓市Hurontario街7755號(hào)(L 6 V 2M7)審理完畢。
ON READING the Statement of C1aim，the affidavit of Rochelle Lyons sworn on February 28，1999，filed，and the exhibits attached thereto，and the proof of service of the statement of claim on the defendant，Thomas Edison Soup Company Ltd．filed on January 30，1999 and the defendant Thomas Edison Soup company Ltd．having been noted in default．
本庭宣讀了訴狀、羅什里·利翁于1999年2月28日宣誓并提交的宣誓證明和所附的證據(jù)以及1999年1月30日存檔的向被告托馬斯·愛(ài)迪生羹湯有限公司送達(dá)訴狀的證明等書(shū)證，且被告托馬斯·愛(ài)迪生羹湯有限公司已被通知其未遞交辯護(hù)狀的行為。
1．THIS COURT ORDERS that judgment be granted to the plaintiff in the amount of $ 25，000．
2．THIS COURT ORDERS that prejudgment interest and post judgment interest be granted from the date of this order．
THIS JUDGMENT BEARS INTEREST at the rate of 10% per cent per year commencing on January 6，1999．
The plaintiff the shares in its service station business to the defendants for $ 244，000．The unpaid balance of the purchase price，$ 160，000，was secured by a general security agreement charging all of the defendants' present and afteracquired property．The security agreement contained the defendants' warranty that the collateral would be free of all other charges or encumbrances and that the defendants would notify the plaintiff promptly of any change relating to the Collateral．The agreement also contained an acceleration clause allowing the plaintiff，on default，to demand payment of all or part of the slim secured．Default was defined to include the failure to observe or perform any covenant，term or provision of the agreement．The plaintiff did not register the security agreement Linder the Personal Property Security Act．The defendants later granted security over their assets to three creditors，with the result that the plaintiff held a fourth rather than a first charge．The plaintiff commenced an action to enforce the acceleration clause．The defendants applied under s．62(3) of the Act for relief from acceleration of the debt．
原告在業(yè)務(wù)站向被告出售了244，000元的股份，其中有160，000美元的款額被告沒(méi)有償付，而是簽訂了一份一般擔(dān)保協(xié)議，以被告現(xiàn)在和今后所得的財(cái)產(chǎn)進(jìn)行擔(dān)保。被告在擔(dān)保協(xié)議中保證，擔(dān)保不附帶任何其他費(fèi)用或財(cái)產(chǎn)留置權(quán)，擔(dān)保物如有任何變化，被告將立即通知原告。協(xié)議中還含有一提前條款，如被告違約，允許原告要求償付全部或部分擔(dān)保款項(xiàng)。違約的含義包括不遵守或不履行任何協(xié)議條款或規(guī)定。原告沒(méi)有按照《個(gè)人財(cái)產(chǎn)擔(dān)保法》的規(guī)定登記擔(dān)保協(xié)議。被告以后又用他們的財(cái)產(chǎn)向三位債權(quán)人作了擔(dān)保，結(jié)果是原告所持擔(dān)保物份額變成1/4，而不能優(yōu)先求償。原告起訴要求執(zhí)行提前條款。被告根據(jù)《擔(dān)保法》第62條第3款，要求解除提前償債的義務(wù)。
While parties who enter knowingly into contracts should be held to their gains，relief should be granted to defaulting debtors if it is fair and just to do so． If such relief is of an equitable nature，the conduct of the parties is a primary factor to be considered．Here，the plaintiff was not obliged to register the general security agreement by either the agreement or the Act．On the other hand，the defendants were clearly obliged by the agreement to grant the plaintiff a first charge．They have breached that obligation by dealing with the collateral contrary to the agreement．The evidence suggested that the breach was not innocent or a result of the defendants' ignorance of the terms of the agreement， but rather flagrant and contemptuous of their contractual obligations．The court could not，by imposing terms，put plaintiff into the position of first secured creditor under the Act，as agreed．Accordingly，it was not appropriate to grant relief to the defendants．
盡管簽訂協(xié)議的當(dāng)事人的利益應(yīng)當(dāng)?shù)玫奖ＷC，但只要公平正當(dāng)，仍應(yīng)免除拖欠債務(wù)者的義務(wù)。如果此種免除屬于衡平法上的救濟(jì)，當(dāng)事人的行為則是考慮的重要因素。本案中，根據(jù)協(xié)議或《擔(dān)保法》規(guī)定，原告無(wú)登記一般擔(dān)保協(xié)議的義務(wù)。另一方面，按協(xié)議規(guī)定，被告明顯負(fù)有讓原告優(yōu)先受償?shù)牧x務(wù)。他們不遵守協(xié)議處分擔(dān)保物，已經(jīng)違背該義務(wù)。證據(jù)表明，此種違背不屬無(wú)知或出于被告對(duì)協(xié)議條款的不理解，而是他們對(duì)合同義務(wù)的公然蔑視。本院不能強(qiáng)加條件，使原告成為《擔(dān)保法》所規(guī)定的優(yōu)先有擔(dān)保的債權(quán)人。同樣，準(zhǔn)許被告免除提前條款義務(wù)也是妥當(dāng)?shù)摹?/DIV>
Cases considered：
援引的判例：
Bank of Montreal v．Amar Enterprises Ltd．(March 15，1994)，Doc．Prince George 26944，Meiklem J．(S．C．) ， [1994] B．C．W．L．D．1098- considered．
蒙特利爾銀行訴阿馬企業(yè)公司案(1094年3月15日)普林斯·喬治(地名)26944號(hào)卷宗，米克萊蒙大法官(最高法院)；(1994)《不列顛哥倫比亞特區(qū)判例摘要同刊》1098期——援引
Mac Donald v．Searle (October 30，1992)，Doc．Victoria 92 3529，Cowan J．(S，C．) [1993] B．C．W．L．D．866—distinguished．
麥克唐納訴塞爾案(1992年10月30日)，維多利亞(地名)923529卷宗，科恩大法官(最高法院)；(1993)《不列顛哥倫比亞特區(qū)判例摘要周刊》866期——用于區(qū)別
Sioan v．Dierden (1984)，52 B．C．L．R．193(S．C．)—considered．
斯隆訴迪爾登案(1984)，《不列顛哥倫比亞判例匯編》第52卷193頁(yè)(最高法院)——援引
Vohra Enterprises Ltd．v．Creative Industrial Corp．(1988)，23 B．C．L．R．(2d)120，28 R．P．R．243 [additional reasons (1988)，40 B．C．L．R．(2d) 394，48 R．P．R．27(S．C．)—considered．
沃拉企業(yè)有限公司訴創(chuàng)造工業(yè)公司案(1988)，《不列顛哥倫比亞判例匯編》第23卷(第2輯)第120頁(yè)；《房地產(chǎn)判例匯編》第28卷第243頁(yè)，附加理由(1988)；《不列顛哥倫比亞判例匯編》第40卷(第2輯)第394頁(yè)；《房地產(chǎn)判例匯編》第48卷第27頁(yè)(最高法院)——援引
Western Mortgage Development Corp．v．H．& D．Investments Ltd．(1982)，40 B．C．L．R．263(S．C．)—considered．
西方按揭發(fā)展公司訴H&D投資有限公司案(1982)，《不列顛哥倫比亞判例匯編》第40卷第263頁(yè)(最高法院)——援引
Statutes considered
援引的法規(guī)：
Law and Equity Act，R．S．B．C．1979，c．224
《普通法和衡平法》，《不列顛哥倫比亞法規(guī)修訂本》，1979，第224章
s．21—considered．
第21條——援引
s．21.1[en．1980，c．I，s．15] — considered．
第21條第1款(1980年頒布，第1章，第15條)——援引
s．21.1(1)(a)[en．1980 c．I，s．15；repealed 1990，c．II，s．72]— considered．
第21條第1款第1段第1項(xiàng)(1980年頒布，第1章第15條；被1990年版本第11章第72條取代)——援引
s．21.1(1)(b)[en．1980 c．I，s．15；repealed 1990，c．II，s．72]—considered．
第21條第1款第1段第2項(xiàng)(1980年頒布，第1章第15條；被1990年版本第II章第72條取代)——援引。
Personal Property Security Act，S．B．C．1989，c．36
《動(dòng)產(chǎn)擔(dān)保法》，《不列顛哥倫比亞法規(guī)修訂本》，1989，第36章
s．43(3)—referred to． 第43條第3款——參考。
s．43(4)—referred to． 第43條第4款——參考。
s．62(3)—considered． 第62條第3款——援引。
s．62(4)—considered． 第62條第4款——援引。
APPLICATION by defendants under Personal Property Security Act．S．62 (3)，for relief from acceleration of debt．
被告根據(jù)《動(dòng)產(chǎn)擔(dān)保法》第62條第3款提出免去提前償付債務(wù)義務(wù)的申請(qǐng)。
D．G．Perry，for plaintiff．
D．G．佩里，原告律師
P．G．Guy，for defendants．
P．G．蓋依，被告律師
(Docs．Victoria 1051/99，3128/98)
(《維多利亞案卷》1051頁(yè)/1999年，3128頁(yè)/1998年)
1．October l8，1999．DORGANJ．：—The defendants apply pursuant to S．62 (3) of the Personal Property Security Act (the“PPSA”)，S．B．C．1989 c． 36，for an order for relief from acceleration of a debt arising from the terms of a GeneralSecurity Agreement between the parties．The application was argued on the assumption that the plaintiff holds a valid and enforceable General Security Agreement and that default has occurred．If the defendant is successful，the plaintiff's action will effectively be dismissed since the action is brought to enforce the acceleration clause．
1999年10月18日，多根大法官說(shuō)：——被告根據(jù)《動(dòng)產(chǎn)擔(dān)保法》(PPSA)第62條第3款以及1989年的《不列顛哥倫比亞法》第36條向法院申請(qǐng)頒發(fā)救濟(jì)令，免去其因雙方的《一般擔(dān)保協(xié)議》規(guī)定而提前償債之義務(wù)。申請(qǐng)被駁回，理由是原告持有合法的《一般擔(dān)保協(xié)議》，應(yīng)予執(zhí)行，然而卻沒(méi)有執(zhí)行。如果被告申請(qǐng)成功，原告提起的訴訟事實(shí)上將被撤銷(xiāo)，因?yàn)樵V訟的提起就是為了執(zhí)行提前條款。
2．On or about May 15，1992，the parties entered into a share purchase agreement．The defendants were to purchase all outstanding shares in the plaintiff's service station business for the sum of $ 244，000．The agreement provided the purchase price would be vendor financed to the extent of $ 160，000 which sum was secured through a General Security Agreement (the“GSA”) charging all of the defendants' present and after-acquired property．
1992年5月15日左右，雙方當(dāng)事人簽訂了一份股份買(mǎi)賣(mài)協(xié)議。被告從原告的業(yè)務(wù)站購(gòu)買(mǎi)價(jià)值244，000美元的全部發(fā)行股票。協(xié)議規(guī)定，價(jià)值160，000美元的售價(jià)賣(mài)方暫不收取，該款項(xiàng)按《一般擔(dān)保協(xié)議》(GSA)規(guī)定，用被告所有現(xiàn)在和今后所得的財(cái)產(chǎn)予以擔(dān)保。
3．Pursuant to the terms of the GSA，specifically Para．4 (a) and Sched． “B”，the defendants warranted that so long as the GSA remained in effect，the collateral was to be free of all other charges or encumbrances；that is，the plaintiff was to have first charge against the assets of the defendants．The agreement also provided，inter alia，that the defendants would notify the plaintiff promptly of any change in information relating to the collateral and that the collateral would not be used in violation of the provisions of the GSA．
根據(jù)GSA的條款規(guī)定，特別是第4條第1款和附表“B”，被告保證，只要GSA保持有效，擔(dān)保物不附帶其他費(fèi)用或留置權(quán)；即，原告對(duì)被告的財(cái)產(chǎn)享有優(yōu)先受償權(quán)。此外，協(xié)議還規(guī)定，擔(dān)保物如有任何變化，被告應(yīng)將信息立即通知原告，且擔(dān)保物的使用不得違反GSA的規(guī)定。
4．Pursuant to Para．7 of the GSA，default includes the“non-payment when due，whether by acceleration or otherwise，of any principal or interest…or the failure to observe or perform any obligation，covenant，term，provision or condition contained in the Security Agreement…” Paragraph 8 of the GSA contains the acceleration clause allowing the plaintiff to demand payment of all or part of the sum secured upon default．
根據(jù)GSA第7條規(guī)定，違約包括“到期不支付，不論是提前或其他形式的到期，是本金或是利息……或不遵守或履行抵押協(xié)議所含的任何義務(wù)、約定、條款、規(guī)定或條件……”。GSA第8條含有的提前條款，準(zhǔn)許原告在被告違約時(shí)，要求償付全部或部分違約擔(dān)�？�。
5．Between May 1992 and October 1993，the defendants granted three creditors，namely the C．I．B．C．，the F．B．D．B．a(chǎn)nd the Pacific Coast Savings Credit Union，security against its assets．As a result，the plaintiff holds a forth rather than a first charge．
在1992年5月至1993年10月，被告答應(yīng)三位債權(quán)人，即加拿大帝國(guó)商業(yè)銀行(CIBC)，聯(lián)邦業(yè)務(wù)開(kāi)發(fā)銀行(FBDB)和太平洋海岸儲(chǔ)蓄信貸協(xié)會(huì)，用其財(cái)產(chǎn)作擔(dān)保。結(jié)果，原告所持的擔(dān)保權(quán)變成1/4，而不能優(yōu)先受償。
6．In February 1993，the plaintiff agreed to sell and the personal defendants agreed to purchase the land on which the business was situated．A collateral agreement was entered into in order to complete that purchase and sale．By its terms，the plaintiff was granted a mortgage against the property， securing the sum of $ 160，000．There is some argument between the parties as to whether the subsequent collateral agreement and mortgage replaced the GSA which is the subject of this application．On the material before me，I cannot find as a fact that the collateral agreement replaced the GSA and，in any event，the defendants' position on this application is that the GSA is valid and enforceable．
1993年2月，原告同意出售且被告自己同意購(gòu)買(mǎi)業(yè)務(wù)站土地。為完成買(mǎi)賣(mài)，簽署了一份附屬協(xié)議。根據(jù)協(xié)議規(guī)定，原告得到財(cái)產(chǎn)的抵押權(quán)，作為那筆160，000美元的擔(dān)保。當(dāng)事人之間就此附屬協(xié)議和抵押是否替代GSA有一些分歧，而GSA則是申請(qǐng)的理由。就呈送法庭的材料而言，我無(wú)法確認(rèn)附屬協(xié)議替代GSA這一事實(shí)，無(wú)論如何，被告在本申請(qǐng)中堅(jiān)持認(rèn)為GSA是合法和應(yīng)予執(zhí)行的。
7．The defendants submit that while a default under the GSA has occurred， the court ought to relieve against the acceleration claimed by the plaintiff in this action．They argue that the default is technical in nature and that it results from the plaintiff's own failure to register a financial statement pursuant to s．43(4) of the PPSA．The defendants submit their behavior has not been flagrant or contemptuous and thus the court's discretion under s．62 (3) should be exercised in their favor．
被告認(rèn)為，盡管有違反GSA情況，法院應(yīng)該準(zhǔn)予救濟(jì)，不執(zhí)行本訴訟中原告提出的提前償付的要求。他們辯稱(chēng)，違約屬于技術(shù)性質(zhì)，是原告方?jīng)]有按《動(dòng)產(chǎn)擔(dān)保法》第43條第4款作財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告登記造成的。被告認(rèn)為他們的行為不屬公然蔑視，由此，法院應(yīng)按第62條第3款規(guī)定行使自由酌處權(quán)，準(zhǔn)許他們的申請(qǐng)。
8．The plaintiff argues it was under no obligation to file a financial statement and that an order for relief against acceleration should only be granted where the terms imposed by the court are just and reasonable to all parties affected．They submit that relief from acceleration should not be granted since imposing conditions will not place the parties in the positions agreed to in the share purchase agreement．
原告辯稱(chēng)其沒(méi)有義務(wù)作財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告登記，且只有給予所有當(dāng)事人的條件公正和合理時(shí)，法院才能作出免除提前償付的命令。他們認(rèn)為由于給予的條件不能使當(dāng)事雙方恢復(fù)股份買(mǎi)賣(mài)協(xié)議所規(guī)定的地位，故不能作出免去提前條款的命令。
9．Section 62 (3) and (4) of the PPSA read as follows：
《動(dòng)產(chǎn)擔(dān)保法》第62條第3款和第4款規(guī)定如下：
(3) Where a security agreement
如擔(dān)保協(xié)議
(a) provides for a security interest in other than consumer goods，and
規(guī)定是物權(quán)擔(dān)保而不是用消費(fèi)品擔(dān)保，且
(b)provides that，by reason of a default by the debtor，the payment or performance of an obligation secured is required at an earlier time than would have been the case if the default had not occurred，
規(guī)定，由于債務(wù)人違約，須比不違約時(shí)提前支付和履行擔(dān)保義務(wù)，
upon application by the debtor or in a proceeding for the enforcement of rights under the security agreement，a court may
經(jīng)債務(wù)人申請(qǐng)或根據(jù)擔(dān)保協(xié)議提起訴訟以執(zhí)行權(quán)利時(shí)，法院可以
(c)relieve the debtor from the consequences of the default，or
免除債務(wù)人的違約責(zé)任，或
(d) stay enforcement of any provision of a security agreement providing for acceleration of the payment or performance upon default by the debtor．
維持擔(dān)保協(xié)議的規(guī)定，鑒于債務(wù)人的違約，要求提前支付或履行義務(wù)。
(4)In granting relief under subsection (3)，the court may impose a condition and make an order as to cists．
在根據(jù)第3款免除義務(wù)時(shí)，法院可以就訴訟費(fèi)規(guī)定條件和作出命令。
10．Section 62(3) of the PPSA essentially replaces the repealed s．21.1 (1) (a) and (b) of the Law and Equity Act，R．S．B．C．1979，c．224． Section 21 of the Law and Equity Act was enacted to permit the court to relieve against penalties and forfeitures．Section 21.1 Was subsequently enacted to extend this jurisdiction to cases involving acceleration provisions in the context of chattel mortgages，conditional sales，mortgages of land and agreements for the sale of land．Under s．62(3)，the court may now relieve the debtor from the consequences of default or it may stay enforcement of acceleration provisions upon default of agreements dealing with personal property security．
《動(dòng)產(chǎn)擔(dān)保法》第62條第3款基本上取代了《普通法和衡平法》(《不列顛哥倫比亞法規(guī)修訂本》，1979，第224章)的第21條第1款第1段第1項(xiàng)和第2項(xiàng)之規(guī)定。《普通法和衡平法》第21條的頒布是為了讓法院免除處罰和沒(méi)收。爾后所頒布的第21條第1款將此權(quán)限擴(kuò)大適用到涉及動(dòng)產(chǎn)按揭抵押、有條件銷(xiāo)售、土地按揭抵押和土地銷(xiāo)售協(xié)議的提前條款案件上。根據(jù)第62條第3款，法院可以免除債務(wù)人的違約責(zé)任或按違反有關(guān)動(dòng)產(chǎn)擔(dān)保協(xié)議情況執(zhí)行提前條款之規(guī)定。
11．There are primarily two concerns in an application of this nature， namely：1) that contracting parties be held to the bargains they have knowingly entered into without court interference and 2) that relief from the strict terms of the bargain may be provided to defaulting debtors if it is just and fair to do so． The relief sought is discretionary；equitable principles apply．The conduct and behavior of the parties involved and especially that of the defaulting party is therefore a prime factor to be considered．
此類(lèi)申請(qǐng)有兩點(diǎn)特別需要關(guān)注，即： 1) 認(rèn)定合同雙方應(yīng)維護(hù)未經(jīng)法院干涉由他們自己同意簽訂的買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同， 2) 可以向違約債務(wù)人就交易的嚴(yán)格條款提供救濟(jì)，只要這樣屬公平合理。申請(qǐng)的救濟(jì)可自由處酌；應(yīng)適用衡平法原則。由此，合同和有關(guān)雙方當(dāng)事人，特別是違約方的行為和舉動(dòng)是主要的考慮因素。
12．Mac Donald v．Searle (Q．L．[1992] B．C．J．No．2865)(B．C．S．C．)， appears to be the only case which has considered s．62 (3) of the PPSA． There, the applicant debtor defaulted in installment payments on three occasions．The debtor made up two of the payments late and was in default of one payment when the application for relief from acceleration of the balance of the debt was heard．Cowan J．granted relief be condition that the missed payment together with the creditor's legal fees be paid．Unlike the case before me，in Mac Donald the creditor agreed with reinstatement on the conditions imposed and the relief granted put the creditor in the same monetary position he or she would have been had the default not occurred．
麥克唐納訴塞爾案(魁北克案件，1992，《不列顛哥倫比亞司法雜志》NO．2865)(不列顛哥倫比亞最高法院)似乎是惟一援引了《動(dòng)產(chǎn)擔(dān)保法》第62條第3款的案例。該案中，提出申請(qǐng)的債務(wù)人3次在分期付款上違約。當(dāng)提起申請(qǐng)免去提前交納剩余債務(wù)之訴時(shí)，債務(wù)人已有兩次延遲付款和一次沒(méi)有付款。大法官科恩準(zhǔn)予了免除申請(qǐng)，條件是債務(wù)人必須交納未交款項(xiàng)和承擔(dān)訴訟費(fèi)。與本案不同的是，在麥克唐納一案中，債務(wù)人同意回復(fù)原有條件，免除申請(qǐng)的準(zhǔn)許使債務(wù)人重新處于他或她在未違約前所處的同樣的經(jīng)濟(jì)地位。
13．In cases decided under ss．21 and 21.1 of the Law and Equity Act，the court has stated that relief from acceleration ought not to be granted where there has been a flagrant and contemptuous disregard of the parties' contractual obligations．In the case of Vohra Enterprises Ltd．v．Creative Industrial Corp．(Q．L．[1988] B．C．J．No．159)(B．C．S．C．) [reported 23 B．C．L．R． (2d)120]，relief was granted to a defaulting debtor under a mortgage when it failed to pay property taxes on the due date．Callaghan J．found that the default was unanticipated，not flagrant and essentially beyond the control of the debtor．
在根據(jù)《普通法和衡平法》第21條和第21條第1款所判決的一些案件中，法院已經(jīng)說(shuō)明，如果有公然蔑視當(dāng)事人合同義務(wù)的情況，不應(yīng)當(dāng)免去提前償付的義務(wù)。在沃拉企業(yè)有限公司訴創(chuàng)造工業(yè)公司一案(魁北克案件，1988，《不列顛哥倫比亞司法雜志》，NO．159)(不列顛哥倫比亞最高法院)，(收錄于《不列顛哥倫比亞判例匯編》第2輯23卷第120頁(yè))對(duì)一位違約的債務(wù)人給予了救濟(jì)，該債務(wù)人在規(guī)定期限沒(méi)有繳納抵押財(cái)產(chǎn)的財(cái)產(chǎn)稅。大法官卡拉漢認(rèn)為，違約不是故意的，不惡劣，基本上不能為債務(wù)人所控制。
14．In the case of Sloan v．Dierden (1984)，52 B．C．L．R．193(S．C．)， McKenzie J．granted the relief sought under s．21 where a debtor missed an installment payment under an agreement because of a bank error in clearing her cheque． The court held the debtor was in no way responsible for the default and accordingly granted relief．
在斯隆訴迪爾登一案(1984)，《不列顛哥倫比亞判例匯編》第52卷第193頁(yè)(最高法院)，債務(wù)人沒(méi)有按合同規(guī)定繳納一筆分期付款，原因是銀行在兌換她的支票時(shí)出了差錯(cuò)，大法官梅肯茲準(zhǔn)予了按第21條申請(qǐng)的責(zé)任免除。法院認(rèn)為債務(wù)人不應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)違約責(zé)任，由此應(yīng)當(dāng)準(zhǔn)予救濟(jì)。
15．In granting relief from acceleration，Meiklem J．in Bank of Montreal v．Amar Enterprises Ltd．(Q．L．[1994] B．C．J．No．648)(B．C．S．C．)， found that the debtor's conduct fell short of flagrant and contemptuous disregard of contractual obligations．A persuasive factor in the decision appears to be his finding that all breaches which could be rectified were rectified by the debtor at the time the application was heard．
在免除提前償付義務(wù)時(shí)，大法官米克萊蒙在蒙特利爾銀行訴阿馬企業(yè)公司一案(魁北克案件，1994年，《不列顛哥倫比亞司法雜志》，NO．648)，(不列顛哥倫比亞最高法院)中，認(rèn)為債務(wù)人的行為構(gòu)不成公然蔑視合同義務(wù)。判決使人相信，他認(rèn)為凡是能夠糾正的違約行為在審理案件時(shí)已由債務(wù)人所糾正。
16．In Vohra，supra，reference is made to Western Mortgage Development Corp．v．H．& D．Investments Ltd．(1982)，40 B．C．L．R．263 (S．C．)， which refers to the principle that relief should not be granted where a default under an agreement will likely occur again．Obviously，repeated default will likely amount to a flagrant and contemptuous disregard of contractual obligations．
在上述沃拉案件中，援引了西方抵押發(fā)展公司訴H&D投資有限公司一案(1982)，《不列顛哥倫比亞判例匯編》第40卷第263頁(yè)(最高法院)，其涉及到一個(gè)原則，即一種違約如果可能再次發(fā)生，則不應(yīng)該準(zhǔn)予免除義務(wù)。很明顯，反復(fù)違約可能會(huì)達(dá)到公然蔑視合同義務(wù)的地步。
17．In the case before me，while the plaintiff could have registered a financial statement in the personal property registry pursuant to s．43(3) of the PPSA，thereby ensuring its security position with respect to other creditors，it was not obligated either by the PPSA or by the share purchase agreement to do so．on the other hand，the defendants' obligations under the share purchase agreement were clear．They were to grant the plaintiff a first charge against their assets．
本案中，盡管原告本可以按《動(dòng)產(chǎn)保法》第43條規(guī)定在動(dòng)產(chǎn)登記處進(jìn)行登記，由此保證它與其他債權(quán)人之間的擔(dān)保地位，但不論根據(jù)《動(dòng)產(chǎn)擔(dān)保法》或股份購(gòu)買(mǎi)協(xié)議的規(guī)定，它均無(wú)義務(wù)進(jìn)行這樣的登記。另一方面，根據(jù)股份購(gòu)買(mǎi)協(xié)議，被告的義務(wù)則很清楚。被告應(yīng)給予原告就他們財(cái)產(chǎn)進(jìn)行優(yōu)先受償?shù)臋?quán)利.
18．The defendants breached the agreement by dealing with the collateral in violation of the GSA．The defendants granted security to three other creditors， having covenanted with the plaintiff not to do so．By the time of the breach，the defendants had obtained the benefit of the money loaned to them by the plaintiff．There is little evidence to suggest the breach arose innocently or in ignorance of the terms of their agreement with the plaintiff；quite the contrary．
被告違反GSA規(guī)定處分擔(dān)保物，故應(yīng)負(fù)違約責(zé)任。被告在與原告簽約后不再用財(cái)產(chǎn)對(duì)他人作擔(dān)保的情況下，仍對(duì)3位債權(quán)人作出擔(dān)保。在違約時(shí)，被告已經(jīng)從原告處得到借款。幾乎沒(méi)有證據(jù)證明，他們是無(wú)意或沒(méi)有理解與原告簽訂的協(xié)議而導(dǎo)致的違約；事實(shí)剛好相反。
19．The court cannot，by imposition of terms，put the plaintiff in the position of first secured creditor under the PPSA as was originally contracted for． I cannot accept the defendants' argument that since there has been no monetary default to date and since the plaintiff now has additional security，namely，the mortgage，the default has not placed the plaintiff at any greater risk．In order to accept that argument，I would have to conclude，and I will not，that holding a fourthranked charge against personal property entails no greater risk than holding a first charge．
法院不能強(qiáng)加條件，使原告恢復(fù)《動(dòng)產(chǎn)擔(dān)保法》所規(guī)定的優(yōu)先擔(dān)保債權(quán)人的地位，就像原合同所規(guī)定那樣。我也不能接受被告的論點(diǎn)，認(rèn)為由于至今尚無(wú)金融方面的違約情況，且原告現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)具有附加擔(dān)保，即按揭抵押權(quán)，由此違約不會(huì)對(duì)原告帶來(lái)進(jìn)一步的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。為了接受這個(gè)論點(diǎn)，我必須得出結(jié)論，即對(duì)個(gè)人財(cái)產(chǎn)持1/4的擔(dān)保權(quán)所承擔(dān)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)與具有優(yōu)先受償權(quán)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)一樣大，但我不愿作這樣的結(jié)論。
20．On the affidavit evidence before me，I have concluded that：1)the conduct of the defendants has been flagrant and contemptuous of their contractual obligations；2) terms which would put the parties into their pre-breach positions cannot be imposed；and 3) granting the relief sought would effectively dismiss the plaintiff's action．
就我所得到的誓證，我得出以下結(jié)論：1) 被告的行為已經(jīng)表明他們公然蔑視其合同義務(wù)；2)不能施加條件使當(dāng)事雙方恢復(fù)違約前的地位；3)準(zhǔn)許所申請(qǐng)的救濟(jì)會(huì)駁回原告的起訴。
21．Accordingly，this is not a case where relief from acceleration should be granted on this interlocutory motion．The application is dismissed．Costs will be in the cause．
因此，本案不能根據(jù)訴訟中間動(dòng)議，準(zhǔn)許免除提前求償?shù)牧x務(wù)。駁回申請(qǐng)。裁決費(fèi)用記入訴訟費(fèi)中。
Application dismissed．
申請(qǐng)駁回。
(聲明：本站所使用圖片及文章如無(wú)注明本站原創(chuàng)均為網(wǎng)上轉(zhuǎn)載而來(lái)，本站刊載內(nèi)容以共享和研究為目的，如對(duì)刊載內(nèi)容有異議，請(qǐng)聯(lián)系本站站長(zhǎng)。本站文章標(biāo)有原創(chuàng)文章字樣或者署名本站律師姓名者，轉(zhuǎn)載時(shí)請(qǐng)務(wù)必注明出處和作者，否則將追究其法律責(zé)任。)
