due diligence:中文含义为：应有的注意,与之相反则是negligence，即疏忽，没有做到due diligence即构成negligence（过失）。属于《海商法》专有名词。

条款英文原文

中文译文

含　义

条款历史

举证责任

认定标准

原文全文(Investigative due diligence Differing concepts of due diligence Due diligence report The purpose of investigative Due diligence in real estate)

条款英文原文

Due diligence is a term used for a number of concepts involving either the performance of an investigation of a business or person, or the performance of an act with a certain standard of care. It can be a legal obligation, but the term will more commonly apply to voluntary investigations. In particular, due diligence is a process through which a potential acquirer evaluates a target company for acquisition.

中文译文

due diligence译作 "恪尽职守"或"谨慎处理"。与之相反则是negligence，没有做到due care或due diligence即构成negligence（过失）。有的辞典将due diligence译为"克尽职责"或”尽职调查”是不大合适的。

"Due Diligence",作为海商法中的专有名词,最早出现于美国1893年哈特法,随着我国海商法的颁布被引入我国。"Due Diligence"一般被译为"恪尽职守"或"谨慎处理",它要求承运人作为一名具有通常要求的,并谨慎行事的船舶所有人,采取各种为特定情况所合理要求的措施。如同在它的发源地一样,有关"Due Diligence"的很多问题在我国海商法学界并没有达成一致的见解。

含　义

通常意义上说,Due Diligence类似于侵权法中的过错适用原则,即对一般侵权行为来说,只要行为人尽到了一个合理、谨慎的人应尽的注意义务,即使发生了损害,行为人也应该被免除责任。对此,英国法律也持相同观点,认为Due Diligence的义务与普通法中所规定的谨慎义务大体相当。但是两者最大的区别在于,Due Diligence是一种个人义务,不能因委托行为而发生转移。承运人可以雇佣一些人来谨慎处理船舶,使之适航,但是责任并没有因此而转移,还要由承运人来承担。一旦由承运人选派谨慎处理船舶的人在谨慎处理中发生了疏忽,这样的人可能是承运人的雇佣人、独立合同人或验船师等,承运人可能会举证自己并不具备从事谨慎处理的专业技能,同时雇佣了一个具有丰富经验、合格能力的专业人士来从事此项业务,此时他已没有过错可言。但这并不足够,承运人同时还要举证实际从事该项业务的人也没有过错可言,正如上文所述,Due Diligence义务不可转移。

条款历史

"Due Diligence",起源于1893年的哈特法(USHARTZR ACT),对其完整的诠释是在THE MUNCASTER CASTLE一案中,该定义已被大多数海运国家所接受。在该案中,货物在航程中因防浪阀漏入海水而遭受损害。因为该船在数月前进行过检验,检验师对防浪阀也进行了检查,但检查之后,由于钳工的疏忽未将螺丝拧紧,导致此次航行途中海水进入货舱。尽管承运人在此案中并无疏忽,法官还是认定他要对货损负责,因为他的受雇人违反了谨慎处理(due diligence)的义务。当然,承运人可以向疏忽过错的一方追偿其损失,但不能让收货人向一个与他无关的疏忽方提出赔偿,收货人向承运人提出索赔的要求不会因运输之外的原因而受影响。

同时承运人也不会因非他掌握期间内发生的不适航负责,如承运人刚买了一艘新船或期租了一艘船舶,如他已对船舶进行了谨慎处理仍未发现有缺陷,那么他就应该被免除责任,而不必对造船厂或原船东,以及他们的代理人的疏忽负责。但如果该缺陷经"Due Diligence"就能够发现的话,承运人就不能免责。这也是THE AMSTEISLOT一案所确立的原则。

举证责任

1.海牙规则中(HAUGE RULES)第四条第(1)款规定,"除非承运人未按第三条第(1)款的规定,作到谨慎处理(Due Diligence)使船舶适航,他对因船舶不适航所造成的灭失或损坏不负责任","由于船舶不适航所引起的灭失或损害一旦发生,对于谨慎处理的举证责任,便应由根据本条规定要求免责的承运人或其他人承担"。从中我们不难看出,在收货人(或其他索赔方)证明灭失或损坏是由于船舶不适航原因造成之前,承运人对于Due Diligence是无证明义务的。这样的举证责任对收货人可能会产生不公,因为船舶是掌握在承运人手中的,有关的一切情况、细节,只有承运人最清楚。但这一举证责任已被法院认可,如THE　HELLENIC DOLPHIN一案中,由于收货人无法证明船舶存在的缺陷是在装船前还是装船后发生的,也就是说无法证明船舶在开航时是不适航的,法院判决承运人可以依据海上特有风险免责。

2.《中华人民共和国海商法》中有关Due Diligence的举证责任与《海牙规则》有所不同。虽然海商法第51条有关承运人免责的规定完全是照搬《海牙规则》第4条第(2)款的规定,只是形式上做了某些调整,但是由于缺少了第4条第(1)款关于适航义务及Due Diligence举证责任的规定,仅以"经谨慎处理仍未发现的船舶潜在缺陷"作为免责事项,使有关举证义务含混不清。此处的潜在缺陷免责是对适航义务的补充,因潜在缺陷的存在就意味着不适航。

首先根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第64条,及《最高法院关于适用民诉法若干问题的意见》第74条之规定,当事人对自己提出的主张,有责任提供证据,即"谁主张,谁举证"。收货人欲使承运人对运输的货物灭失损坏承担责任,他必须先证明灭失损坏是在运输期间由船舶不适航原因造成的;之后由承运人举证其是否已尽Due Diligence义务,即该不适航原因是否是潜在缺陷,否则就要承担败诉风险。

然而,按照海商法第51条第2款的规定:"承运人按照前规定免除赔偿责任的,除第(二)项规定的原因外,应当负举证责任。"它要求承运人对涉及Due Diligence的全部情况负举证责任,首先是货物灭失损坏由船舶不适航造成;其次是该不适航原因经谨慎处理无法发现。海商法中的规定应视为一种过错推定,类似于《汉堡规则》的规定,但该原则没有在民事诉讼法中得以体现,造成了举证义务不明。但最新颁布的《中华人民共和国合同法》对此应有指导作用,按合同法第107条规定,当事人一方不履行合同或者履行合同义务不符合约定的,应当承担继续履行、采取补救措施或者赔偿损失等违约责任。该规定在违约责任构成上只规定了违约行为,一旦出现违约行为并经原告证明,被告就要承担违约责任,除非他能证明有免责事由的存在。将此推广至海上运输合同中来也是一样,原告(收货人)只要明证明货物灭失损坏在运输过程中发生(违约行为),被告(承运人)必须证明其违约行为符合免责事项(经谨慎处理仍未发现的船舶潜在缺陷)的规定。

认定标准

由于《合同法》的出台,使违约责任的构成要件简化,只要有违约行为存在,当事方就得承担违约责任,不论其主观上是否有过错。同时免责事由都属于客观事实,证明起来相对容易。但是海商法中的Due Diligence免责事项实际上是一种过错责任,如前述,它要求考虑当事人的主观心理状态,强调行为人是否具有一种应受非难的心理状态。

过错是一种主观状态,其表现为受行为人主观支配的外部行为,大多数学者认为是一种主客观因素结合的产物。应采用何种标准来确定Due Diligence所要求达到的程度,实际上是采用何种标准来确定违约责任中的过错问题。对此我国立法中没有明确,学者也有不同看法。我认为,应借鉴国外判例和学说的经验,采用客观标准加以确定过错。

Due Diligence所追求的虽然是一种主观上的无过错,但采用主观标准不利于正确认定过错,它要求对当事人的预见能力作准确判断,这对于法官和违约方来说都十分困难,特别是许多承运人都是法人,而法人毕竟不像自然人那样能够思考。同时,对于自然人来说,由于个人的认识能力、专业知识、业务技能等诸多因素不同,对后果的预见能力各不相同,因此主观标准势必给民事归责带来困难。而客观标准则较好地解决了上述问题,同时也符合行为是当事人主观意志体现的基本原则。其实,早在罗马法中就出现了"良家父"这样的客观过错标准,Due Diligence正是"良家父"标准在海商法中的具体体现。当然这是一种抽象标准,不是一个统一的模式,而应根据当时的情况来考虑。

应当指出的是,客观标准较之于主观标准更为合理,前提是客观所确定的标准必须合理,它要求考虑到交易的性质,如从事远洋运输的船舶比沿海运输要遭受更大的风险,也要考虑到当事人的职业,如专业检验师对船舶的熟悉程度要远远超过承运人等等情况。总之,过错概念的客观化不仅使过错的认定更为容易,而且也会大大促进过错推定的发展。另外,把Due Diligence作为违约责任也排除了因第三人原因导致违约的免责可能。

由于我国海商法中Due Diligence的概念完全是"舶来品",对它的理解目前还存在不同看法,法律用语上也存在不足之处。如《海牙规则》对潜在缺陷检查中涉及的Due Diligence不要求实际进行,只要承运人能证明即使他进行了谨慎处理仍不能发现潜在缺陷时,就可以免责。我国海商法英文版中的定义与之相同,即"Latent defect of the ship not discoverable by due diligence."而中文"原文"(更确切地说是对公约的翻译)却是"经谨慎处理仍未发现的船舶潜在缺陷",它所表达的意思是----承运人实际上进行了谨慎处理,但没有发现潜在缺陷。这一规定与公约原文和海商法英文中discoverable"的意思相左。

由此可见,Due Diligence的概念及相关标准是解决承运人适航责任的关键,而我国海商法对它的正确理解还缺乏全面的探讨及系统的归类,与之相关的许多知识还有待于我们消化吸收,这样在具体案件的处理上才能做到公正与统一。

原文全文

Due diligence is a term used for a number of concepts involving either the performance of an investigation of a business or person, or the performance of an act with a certain standard of care. It can be a legal obligation, but the term will more commonly apply to voluntary investigations. In particular, due diligence is a process through which a potential acquirer evaluates a target company for acquisition.[1]

Investigative due diligence

Uses of due diligence

In finance, due diligence is the process of research and analysis that takes place in advance of an acquisition, investment, business partnership or bank loan in order to determine the value of the subject of the due diligence or whether there are any "skeletons in the closet".

The potential investor generally uses in-house resources or hires a consulting firm that specializes in due diligence and corporate investigations to investigate the background and principals of the target company. Professional reports from accountants and solicitors will also frequently be included.

Due diligence can also refer to the ongoing activities of pension or investment fund managers in keeping track of the operations, solvency, and trustworthiness of the managers of a corporation in which their fund is invested, or those of the managers of an acquiring corporation toward a target corporation.

Differing concepts of due diligence

In the US, the key factor that separates due diligence from a more in-depth background check is that due diligence reports are always gathered from publicly available information. A due diligence assignment generally includes reviewing press and SEC filings, checking for regulatory and licensing problems, identifying liens and judgments, and uncovering civil and criminal litigation matters. Sophisticated investigators will also search for conflicts of interest, insider trading and press and public records that identify problems that may have occurred under the principal's "watch." Public records often include sensitive data on a target, such as their date of birth and social security number, which can be gathered from credit card records. Unlike a background check, more intrusive methods of surveillance are not used.

By contrast, due diligence in the UK can and frequently does mean an examination of the target's private records, such as the internal audit reports of a company and important contracts. This clearly requires the consent of the company that is the subject of the due diligence, as would be the case for a recommended takeover offer, a private acquisition or a bank loan. Because the investigators have access to sensitive information, the due diligence process is covered by confidentiality undertakings.

Due diligence is also frequently conducted into the probity of sales agents, consultants and distributors, or companies for merger, acquisition or joint venture, to ensure that potential business partners do not carry any liability of bribery and corruption.

In lay terms, due diligence is the responsibility one has to investigate and identify issues, and due care is doing something about the findings from due diligence.

Due diligence report

The investigative results may be prepared in a "due diligence report" that collates the information uncovered during the due diligence in an orderly way that allows an analysis of the nature of the target and the risks involved in involvement with it. For example, the report on the target of an acquisition will, so far as possible, contain an analysis of the company's financial situation and prospects (including its assets), its contractual relationships with clients and suppliers, its legal risks, its tax position, its employees, its IT systems and anything else relevant to its particular industry.

The purpose of investigative

The overriding purpose of this form of due diligence is to allow the investigating party to find out everything that it needs to know about the subject of the due diligence. This then allows the investigator to consider his options in light of the facts:

· Withdrawal from the deal - if the due diligence unearths information that makes the investment, loan or participation risky or undesirable and which cannot be adequately resolved then

· Adjust the valuation of the investment - the investigator may revise his valuation of the company or reassess the price at which it will provide services. Usually the information will be adverse and therefore the valuation will go down or the price will go up, as positive information will have been made more publicly available by the target from the start.

· Have the problem remedied - it may be possible for a problem uncovered by the due diligence to be remedied before the deal goes ahead. For example, unpaid stamp duty could be paid, company filings could be put in order or, if negative information is uncovered on a principal of the target company, the investor may put pressure on the target firm to replace that individual. This will mean that the target is put into a state that the investigator is happier with before it deals with it.

Due diligence in real estate

In US real estate law, due diligence may be a legal requirement. It is usually conducted by preparation of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment on a real property holding, which is performed to determine potential environmental conditions that may cause harm to the surrounding environment.

Due diligence as a concept in civil litigation

Due diligence in civil litigation (also known as due care) is the effort made by an ordinarily prudent or reasonable party to avoid harm to another party. Failure to make this effort may be considered negligence. This is conceptually distinct from investigative due diligence, involving a general obligation to meet a standard of behaviour. Quite often a contract will specify that a party is required to provide due diligence.