布莱曼诉扎帕塔近海公司案案例援引分析.ppt

最高法院的观点： It is clear that Unterwesers action in filing its limitation complaint in the District Court in Tampa was, so far as Zapata was concerned, solely a defensive measure made necessary as a response to Zapatas breach of the forum clause of the contract. When the six-month statutory period for filing an action to limit its liability had almost run without the District Courts having ruled on Unterwesers initial motion to dismiss or stay Zapatas action pursuant to the forum clause, Unterweser had no other prudent alternative but to protect itself by filing for limitation of its liability. 20 Its action in so doing was a direct consequence [*20] of Zapatas failure to abide by the forum clause of the towage contract. There is no basis on which to conclude that this purely necessary defensive action by Unterweser should preclude it from relying on the forum clause it bargained for. 非常明确的是，Unterweser在坦帕区法院提起的限责诉讼，据Zapata所知，仅仅是出于对Zapata违反合同法院选择条款行为的必要防御性回应。六个月的限责诉讼期间将过，却还没有拿到区法院对于其在Zapata本诉中，依合同法院选择条款所提动议的任何决定，Unterweser除通过限责立案之外别无更好选择。这不过是Zapata违背拖船合同法院选择条款的直接结果。这种最低限度的防御性措施不成为阻却其依据之前法院选择条款进行诉讼的理由。 最高法院关于公共政策的观点之一 ——驳Insurance Co. v. Morse.的引用 上诉院的观点： 区法院根据： agreements in advance of controversy whose object is to oust the jurisdiction of the courts are contrary to public policy and will not be enforced. 这一美国法院的传统观点驳回Unterweser关于管辖权异议的动议。 上诉院在维持的同时，引出形成该传统观点的重要案例Insurance Co. v. Morse. 最高院的观点： But the holding of that case was only that the State of Wisconsin could not by statute force a foreign corporation to agree to surrender its federal statutory right to remove a state court action to the federal courts as a condition of doing business in Wisconsin. 保险公司案的判决仅仅是在说明：威斯康辛州不能通过让一个外州公司以放弃将州法院诉讼移交联邦法院的联邦法定权利为条件，而在威州展开业务。 Thus, the case is properly understood as one in which a state statutory requirement was viewed as imposing an unconstitutional condition on the exercise of the federal right of removal. 因此，该案从根本上来讲只是一个排除违宪性的问题。也即，上诉院的理论依据并不适用本案的情形。 最高法