英语翻译19.The proposition that the implication of a term is an

英语翻译
19.The proposition that the implication of a term is an exercise in the construction of the instrument as a whole is not only a matter of logic (since a court has no power to alter what the instrument means) but also well supported by authority.In Trollope & Colls Ltd v North West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board [1973] 1 WLR 601,609 Lord Pearson,with whom Lord Guest and Lord Diplock agreed,said:
"[T]he court does not make a contract for the parties.The court will not even improve the contract which the parties have made for themselves,however desirable the improvement might be.The court's function is to interpret and apply the contract which the parties have made for themselves.If the express terms are perfectly clear and free from ambiguity,there is no choice to be made between different possible meanings:the clear terms must be applied even if the court thinks some other terms would have been more suitable.An unexpressed term can be implied if and only if the court finds that the parties must have intended that term to form part of their contract:it is not enough for the court to find that such a term would have been adopted by the parties as reasonable men if it had been suggested to them:it must have been a term that went without saying,a term necessary to give business efficacy to the contract,a term which,though tacit,formed part of the contract which the parties made for themselves."
20.More recently,in Equitable Life Assurance Society v Hyman [2002] 1 AC 408,459,Lord Steyn said:
"If a term is to be implied,it could only be a term implied from the language of [the instrument] read in its commercial setting."
21.It follows that in every case in which it is said that some provision ought to be implied in an instrument,the question for the court is whether such a provision would spell out in express words what the instrument,read against the relevant background,would reasonably be understood to mean.It will be noticed from Lord Pearson's speech that this question can be reformulated in various ways which a court may find helpful in providing an answer – the implied term must "go without saying",[2] it must be "necessary to give business efficacy to the contract"[3] and so on – but these are not in the Board's opinion to be treated as different or additional tests.There is only one question:is that what the instrument,read as a whole against the relevant background,would reasonably be understood to mean?

19.言外之意”这一命题的术语是一种运动在施工中的仪器作为一个整体,不仅是一种物质的逻辑(因为法庭没有力量去改变什么乐器),还有很好的支持手段权威.在特罗洛普& Colls有限区域医院第五北西大都(1973)1 WLR板,609皮尔逊601耶和华与主耶和华Diplock约定,客人说:
",他不会让一个法院合同当事人.法院甚至不愿意提高合同当事人为自己,但是理想的改进.法院的功能是解释和运用此合同当事人为自己.如果明示条款都很明确,远离含糊不清,没有选择之间做不同的含义:明确条款必须应用即使法院认为,一些其他条款会更合适.没有一个词可以暗示如果法庭认为,当事人必须的术语的合同的一部分:它是不够的,法院发现这样一个学期就一直采用合理的男人如果当事人已经建议:那一定是一个术语,就不用多说,这个必要给商业效能的合同,一个学期,尽管默契,形成了部分合同当事人为自己建造的.”
20.最近,在公平的人寿保险的社会v海曼出版社[2002]1交流电408,459,主·斯坦说:
“如果一个词是暗示,它只能被一个词隐含的“乐器]看其商业背景.”
21.它在每种情况中,这是说有些规定应当在票据,问题在于这样的法院规定将拼出在表达的话,阅读相关的背景下,会对合理理解为代表.它将会注意到