互联网第三方支付平台联盟营销服务协议的法律适用

一、案情介绍

本案关于在电子钱包和在线赌博/游戏背景下涉嫌不支付佣金的争议。本案原告为Harry Greenhouse（以下统称“原告”），一名中高端扑克游戏专家，并曾任扑克教练。被告Paysafe Financial Services Ltd（前身为Optimal Payments Ltd）运营全球电子货币支付服务，为其他商家提供第三方支付服务。Neteller属于被告旗下品牌之一，也是本案直接相关方，主要业务包括为线上赌博或游戏（尤其线上扑克游戏）提供第三方支付服务。

2013年7月9日，原告与Neteller正式签订了一份联盟营销服务合同（the affiliateagreement），由原告利用其在线上扑克游戏社区的影响力发展Neteller使用用户，Neteller根据原告推广情况向其支付佣金，该合同于2014年10月26日正式终止。原告主张Neteller违反合同义务，未向其支付部分佣金，向法院提起诉讼。经过庭审质证，法院于2018年11月30日作出判决，支持原告所有主张，要求被告支付剩余佣金且继续履行合同中约定义务。

二、争议焦点

法院认为，本案主要争议点有四个：用户同意书问题、商家免责条款问题、单方面通知问题以及日常报告问题。本案争议的焦点不是相关事实部分，而是法律的适用问题。所以，在讨论本案争议焦点问题前，应首先明确本案法律适用的几项原则：

（1）合同的解释。合同的内容应该按照其目的和背景进行解释（an objective and contextual approach），即在解释合同术语的含义时，应当从整个合同的角度来考虑，该术语对在订立合同时掌握合理背景知识的理性当事人有何意义；以及，商业基本常识以及术语的目的也应当考虑到。

（2）默认条款的解释。依据普通法判例可知，合同的默认条款应当与合同的一般解释进行区分，对其解释应当遵循“殷勤的旁观者”原则和“商事效率”原则。

（3）合同变更。合同是否发生变更，主要考虑是否同时具备发出要约邀请和接受该要约邀请（offer and acceptance）。

（4）禁反言原则（Promissory estoppel）。在实践中该原则适用于违反已承诺事项的情形，需同时具备两个要素：该承诺事项需明确，且承诺人对此承诺有足够的信赖。

（5）单方面修改合同通知的解释和撤回。单方面修改合同的通知的解释应当遵从目的解释和背景解释；只有在双方达成共识的情况，通知的撤回才有效。

（一）争议一：用户同意书

在合同履行期间，Neteller通过邮件告知原告，其发展的老用户只有在其提交用户同意书的情况下，方可被承认为原告发展的用户。原告主张，被告无权要求原告为其发展的用户必须提供带其签名的用户同意书的纸质复印件。法院支持原告该主张，论证如下：

（1）在双方签订的联盟营销合同中，不存在明示的条款要求提供签名的用户同意书。虽然被告主张在合同修改附件第4.1.1条包含此项要求，但法院认为该项要求不属于普通款项，因此此项要求不属于合同中的明示条款。（2）合同中亦不存在默认条款包含此项要求。该项要求在实际操作中为原告发展推广业务造成明确的困扰，已明显超出了普通人可以预期的范围，也不符合商事效率原则，因此不属于合同默认条款。（3）虽然被告发出了添加此项要求修改合同的要约邀请，但是被告并未接受该要求邀请，因此不构成合同变更。（4）由于原告没有明确表示同意被告的该项请求，因此不存在任何与此相关的承诺事项，故也未违反禁反言原则。（5）综上所述，被告无权要求原告为其发展的用户必须提供附带签名的用户同意书。

（二）争议二：商家免责条款

在双方来往的邮件中，Neteller告知原告，将商家免责条款近适用于专门的VIP账户。法院认为，Neteller此项单方面通知构成违约，论证如下：

（1）由于原告从始至终明确表示反对此项提议，因此Neteller要求将商家免责条款适用于专门的VIP账户不构成合同变更。（2）由于原告并未对此做过任何承诺，所以也不构成违反禁反言原则。（3）综上所述，Neteller的行为构成违约，应当向原告赔偿相应的损失。

（三）争议三：单方面通知问题

Neteller主张在2014年7月31日发给原告的邮件构成提前60日修改合同条款的单方面通知，故有权不再支付原告在2014年10月1日至25日期间发展旧用户的佣金。原告主张该通知没有获得原告同意，因此无效；即使该单方面通知有效，Neteller又在同年9月25日撤销了该通知，故适用本案的合同从始至终都是最终签订的那份合同。考虑到单方面通知的效力问题，原告的此项主张获得法院支持。

（四）争议四：日常报告问题

    根据双方合同约定，被告有义务向原告提供关于其佣金分配的每日报告，然而在合同终止后，被告不再履行此项义务，仅提供每月的报告，原告主张被告的行为构成违约。考虑到合同的目的和背景，提供日常报告对于原告管理其资产具有重要意义，法院支持原告此项主张。

三、法院判决

根据普通法的合同法律适用原则，原告的所有主张均得到了法院支持。

【英文版本】

Case SummarIES

HARRY GREENHOUSE v PAYSAFE FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD

(Case No: CL-2017-369)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES COMMERCIAL COURT (QBD)

30^th November 2018

Decision of the Hight Court of Justice (delivered by Judge ANDREW BURROWS QC):

The claimant succeeded on all four issues.

The material facts

1    Thisis a dispute about the alleged non-payment of commission in the context of e-wallets and online gambling/gaming. The Claimant, Harry Greenhouse had played mid to high stakes poker for many years and he ran a poker coaching business,who was well-known in the poker community. The defendant, Paysafe Financial Services Ltd (formerly known as Optimal Payments Ltd), operates a global electronic money payment service allowing users to send and receive payments online. As this case is concerned with Neteller’s operations, as one of the defendant’s brands, whose business was providing e-wallet facilities to participants in online gambling and gaming (especially online poker).

2   On 9 July 2013, the affiliate contract was entered into between the Claimant and Neteller, in which the Claimant would recruit and encourage newmembers for Neteller for earning the commissions. This contract came into end on 26 October 2014. The Claimant contended that Neteller had breached the contractual obligations and did not pay part of the commission.

The court’s decisions

3  On 30 November 2018, the court made a judgment, all the four claims of the Mr.Green house were supported. The judge had referred to the disputed issues as follows: the “affiliate consent form issue”; the “merchant exclusion issue”;the “unilateral notice issue”; and the “daily reporting issue”.

4  As for the issue of the “affiliate consent form”, during the performance of the contract, Neteller informed the Claimant by email that a hard copy of an affiliate consent form to be signed was required. The Claimant argued that the Defendant was not entitled to require such an affiliate consent form. The court supported the Claimant’s claims and argued as follows:

5 Firstly, in the affiliate agreement signed by both parties, there was no express term which require the sending in of asigned affiliate consent form. Although the Defendant claimed that the requirement was included in Article 4.1.1 of the Contract Amendment, the court considered that the request was not a normal payment, so this requirement did not belong to the express terms in the contract. Secondly, there was also no implied term in the contract that includes this requirement. In practice, this requirement had caused clear problems for the Claimant to develop and promote the business in actual operation. It had obviously exceeded the scope that ordinary people could expect and did not conform to the tests of “officious bystander” or “business efficacy”. Therefore, there was no implied term in the contract for this issue. Thirdly,

although the Defendant issued offer of anamendment to the contract, the Claimant did not accept this offer and therefore it did not constitute a variation of the contract. Fourthly, since the Claimant did not expressly accept the Defendant's request, there was no promise related to this, and therefore it did not violate the principle of promissory estoppel.In summary, the Defendant had no right to require the plaintiff to provide asigned filiate consent form.

6   As for the second issue “the merchant exclusion”, in the mail between the two parties, Neteller informed the Claimant that merchant exclusions would be applied to the Exclusive VIP account. The court held that Neteller’s unilateral notice constituted a breach of contract, as evidenced by the following: firstly, since the Claimant explicitly objected to this proposal from the beginning to the end, Neteller's insistence to apply the merchant exclusions to the Exclusive VIP account did not constitute a variation of the contract; concerning that the Claimant had not made any promise to this, it did not constitute a violation of the promissory estoppel. In summary, Neteller's behavior constituted a breach of contract and the plaintiff should be compensated for the corresponding damages.

7   As for the third issue of the unilateral notice, Neteller contended that the mail sent to the plaintiff on 31 July 2014 constituted a unilateral notice to amend the terms of the contract 60 days in advance. The Claimant claimed that the notice did not obtain the consent of the Claimant and was therefore invalid; even if the unilateral notice was valid, Neteller had withdrew thenotice on 25 September, so the contract applicable to the case was the final contract signed from the beginning to the end. In view of the validity of the unilateral notice, the Claimant succeeded in this issue.

8 As for the fourth issue of the daily reporting, according to the affiliate agreement between the two parties, the Defendant was obliged to provide the Claimant with a daily report on the management of his commission. However, after the termination of the contract, the Defendant fulfilled this obligation by providing monthly reports. The Claimant declared that the Defendant’s conduct constituted a breach of contract. Given the purpose and background of the contract, providing daily reports was significant for the Claimant to manage his assets, and the court also supported the Claimant in this issue.

By Shuangshuang Chen

                                                                                                             来源：微信公众号 临时仲裁ADA