格式合同告知义务的立法完善
|
摘要
格式合同主要是指由一方当事人事先拟定好的、未经当事人协商订立的合同。由于其具有可以大规模、重复使用的特征,极大地降低了交易成本和费用,因此在现代商业活动中得到广泛使用。然而由于格式合同双方经济地位的不平等性或法律地位上的不对等性,导致很多占据主导地位的格式合同提供人通过隐瞒或者不告知已设定的格式合同条款风险的手段,损害合同相对人的合法权益、攫取不正当利益。由于我国尚无专门的格式合同法,现有的法律对格式合同提供人告知义务的规定过于笼统,缺乏系统性和操作性,这使得格式合同纠纷案件的解决难上加难。而在格式合同中最关键的问题就是通过格式合同提供人的告知义务保障合同相对人的知情权。由本文分四章对格式合同提供人告知义务进行了阐述。希望能够在实践中给出完善我国格式合同提供人告知义务的法律建议和对策。
At the present time, the existence of model contract has some positive meanings, but at the same time it brings some lawful problems to settle. For example, model contract providers carry out duty to disclosure improperly, which leads in disputes. However, the stipulation on duty to disclosure of model contract provider in current law is excessively general, shortage of systematicness and operability, which makes the settlement of law case on disputes of model contract heap Pelion upon Ossa. One key to settle this problem lies in whether model contract provider can totally fulfill all his duty to disclosure.
This thesis is divided into 4 parts.
Part-1 is about the lawful issues on duty to disclosure of model contract providers. In this part, the author starts with the existent problems of model contract. Model contract is substantively used in contract of transactions, labor, insurances, banking, finance etc.. At the present time, there is no systematic stipulations specialized in duty to disclosure of model contract providers, e. g. the scope of duty to disclosure of model contract providers, the exercised time of disclosure, the manner of disclosure, the degree of disclosure, legal responsibility of not fulfilling duty to disclosure etc., which leads in some difficulties in settling the law case of disputes caused by model contract in practice.
Also in this part, the author introduces different viewpoints on duty to disclosure of model contract providers in circles of law. Concerning duty to disclosure of exceptions clause, someone regards that it only stipulates that model clause users are ought to explain the clauses of avoiding and limiting their responsibilities, while some others point out that we can not consider that model clause providers just have responsibilities to informing the other party of exceptions clause for this reason but the general model clauses can be brought into contract directly once drafted.
The discussions of scholars focus on 4 aspects: insurance contract, finance contract signed between banks and clients, consumption contract and labor contract. In aspect of insurance contract, directed towards indispensable elements of violating duty to disclosure, scholars hold two main theories as subjective indispensable elements and objective indispensable elements.
As regard to contract signed between commercial bank and clients, scholars regard that when the bank recommends financial products to clients, it is ought to fulfill duties as follows: duties to explaining the clauses of model contract, informing duties in the process of fulfilling the contract, illuminating duties to choosing and using the product, and duties to disclosing the risk of clients’property security. As to consumption contract, scholars hold that application and protection of right to know is still ought to be definitely stipulated in model contract. Concerning labor contract, scholars believe that there is ought to be concrete stipulations on actual duty to disclosure between unit employers and laborers.
Part-2 introduces the deficiency and shortage of legislation on duty to disclosure of model contract providers in our country. Stipulations on duty to disclosure of model contract providers disperse in section laws like Contract Law, Law of Insurance, Law on Protection of the Rights and Interests of Consumers, Labor Contract Law etc.. The deficiency and shortage of legislation are mainly reflected in the following aspects: no oneness on the content of model contract; indefinite content of duty to disclosure of model contract provider; indefinite manner of duty to disclosure of model contract provider; indefinite legal responsibility of model contract provider for not fulfilling duty to disclosure.
Part-3 is to use duty to disclosure of model contract provider in foreign laws as a source of reference. By introducing stipulations on duty to disclosure of model contract provider in Germany, Japan and Korea, the author proposes content that we can take as a source of reference.
In German law, model clause in contract is called general trading condition. Duty to disclosure of model contract provider is stipulated mainly in form of legislation specialized in certain chapter in Germany. Civil Law of Germany in effect stipulates applicable conditions of the general trading condition, namely model contract. In laws of Germany, the general trading condition can not be brought into contract if its provider fails to take duty to informing the other party. There are two points that we can specially take as a source of reference in Civil Law of Germany: firstly, making clearness and detail in the applicable scope and field of duty to disclosure; secondly, bringing labor contract into the applicable scope of duty to disclosure of model contract.
In Japan, the mode of legislative restriction of model clause is a comprehensive use of Civil Law of Japan and various special laws, which focus on field of Law on Protection of the Rights and Interests of Consumers. Request of consumers’compensation is supported in laws in Japan when the producers and operators violate to explain duty to disclosure.
In Korea, duty to disclosure of model contract provider is mainly reflected in Rules and Regulations on Clauses of Contract, stipulating it is ought to follow rules of expressing and explaining duty clearly. The legislation in Korea ascertains legal responsibility of model contract provider for not fulfilling duty to disclosure in manners of administrative restrictions and judicial restrictions.
Part-4 presents some suggestions to complete duty to disclosure of model contract provider in our country. In this part, the author suggestively elaborates on the following aspects: the applicable scope of duty to disclosure of model contract provider, the content of duty to disclosure, the fulfilled time of duty to disclosure, the fulfilled manner of duty to disclosure, the fulfilled degree of duty to disclosure, the lawful aftermath of model contract provider for not fulfilling duty to disclosure etc.
Suggestions mainly contain the following aspects: definitely stipulating the applicable scope of model contract in Contract Law in our country and bringing labor contract into the applicable scope of model contract. It is extremely necessary for model contract provider to inform the other party about content of the contract, especially about the exceptions clause of model contract provider himself and the actual meaning of clauses that may cause different understandings. The time for model contract provider to exercise duty to disclosure must be before or in process of signing the contract. Model contract providers can fulfill duty to disclosure in manner of combining general disclosure and individual disclosure, namely marking model clauses in a way that distinguishes them obviously from other clauses in model contract. Model contract providers must take a manner of written, individual disclosure to exercise his duty to disclosure. The degree for model contract provider to exercise duty to disclosure is limited to reasonableness. The clauses about the model contract provider not fulfilling duty to disclosure produces illegal effect, but it will not influence other clauses. When model contract providers fail to fulfill their duty to disclosure, look into their legal responsibility: responsibility on purpose or responsibility by fault according to their subjective state.
Duty to disclosure of model contract provider is one most significant step in exercising model contract and it is actual realization of principle of honesty and credit. Therefore, it is essential to complete the relevant rules and regulations.
At the present time, the existence of model contract has some positive meanings, but at the same time it brings some lawful problems to settle. For example, model contract providers carry out duty to disclosure improperly, which leads in disputes. However, the stipulation on duty to disclosure of model contract provider in current law is excessively general, shortage of systematicness and operability, which makes the settlement of law case on disputes of model contract heap Pelion upon Ossa. One key to settle this problem lies in whether model contract provider can totally fulfill all his duty to disclosure.
This thesis is divided into 4 parts.
Part-1 is about the lawful issues on duty to disclosure of model contract providers. In this part, the author starts with the existent problems of model contract. Model contract is substantively used in contract of transactions, labor, insurances, banking, finance etc.. At the present time, there is no systematic stipulations specialized in duty to disclosure of model contract providers, e. g. the scope of duty to disclosure of model contract providers, the exercised time of disclosure, the manner of disclosure, the degree of disclosure, legal responsibility of not fulfilling duty to disclosure etc., which leads in some difficulties in settling the law case of disputes caused by model contract in practice.
Also in this part, the author introduces different viewpoints on duty to disclosure of model contract providers in circles of law. Concerning duty to disclosure of exceptions clause, someone regards that it only stipulates that model clause users are ought to explain the clauses of avoiding and limiting their responsibilities, while some others point out that we can not consider that model clause providers just have responsibilities to informing the other party of exceptions clause for this reason but the general model clauses can be brought into contract directly once drafted.
The discussions of scholars focus on 4 aspects: insurance contract, finance contract signed between banks and clients, consumption contract and labor contract. In aspect of insurance contract, directed towards indispensable elements of violating duty to disclosure, scholars hold two main theories as subjective indispensable elements and objective indispensable elements.
As regard to contract signed between commercial bank and clients, scholars regard that when the bank recommends financial products to clients, it is ought to fulfill duties as follows: duties to explaining the clauses of model contract, informing duties in the process of fulfilling the contract, illuminating duties to choosing and using the product, and duties to disclosing the risk of clients’property security. As to consumption contract, scholars hold that application and protection of right to know is still ought to be definitely stipulated in model contract. Concerning labor contract, scholars believe that there is ought to be concrete stipulations on actual duty to disclosure between unit employers and laborers.
Part-2 introduces the deficiency and shortage of legislation on duty to disclosure of model contract providers in our country. Stipulations on duty to disclosure of model contract providers disperse in section laws like Contract Law, Law of Insurance, Law on Protection of the Rights and Interests of Consumers, Labor Contract Law etc.. The deficiency and shortage of legislation are mainly reflected in the following aspects: no oneness on the content of model contract; indefinite content of duty to disclosure of model contract provider; indefinite manner of duty to disclosure of model contract provider; indefinite legal responsibility of model contract provider for not fulfilling duty to disclosure.
Part-3 is to use duty to disclosure of model contract provider in foreign laws as a source of reference. By introducing stipulations on duty to disclosure of model contract provider in Germany, Japan and Korea, the author proposes content that we can take as a source of reference.
In German law, model clause in contract is called general trading condition. Duty to disclosure of model contract provider is stipulated mainly in form of legislation specialized in certain chapter in Germany. Civil Law of Germany in effect stipulates applicable conditions of the general trading condition, namely model contract. In laws of Germany, the general trading condition can not be brought into contract if its provider fails to take duty to informing the other party. There are two points that we can specially take as a source of reference in Civil Law of Germany: firstly, making clearness and detail in the applicable scope and field of duty to disclosure; secondly, bringing labor contract into the applicable scope of duty to disclosure of model contract.
In Japan, the mode of legislative restriction of model clause is a comprehensive use of Civil Law of Japan and various special laws, which focus on field of Law on Protection of the Rights and Interests of Consumers. Request of consumers’compensation is supported in laws in Japan when the producers and operators violate to explain duty to disclosure.
In Korea, duty to disclosure of model contract provider is mainly reflected in Rules and Regulations on Clauses of Contract, stipulating it is ought to follow rules of expressing and explaining duty clearly. The legislation in Korea ascertains legal responsibility of model contract provider for not fulfilling duty to disclosure in manners of administrative restrictions and judicial restrictions.
Part-4 presents some suggestions to complete duty to disclosure of model contract provider in our country. In this part, the author suggestively elaborates on the following aspects: the applicable scope of duty to disclosure of model contract provider, the content of duty to disclosure, the fulfilled time of duty to disclosure, the fulfilled manner of duty to disclosure, the fulfilled degree of duty to disclosure, the lawful aftermath of model contract provider for not fulfilling duty to disclosure etc.
Suggestions mainly contain the following aspects: definitely stipulating the applicable scope of model contract in Contract Law in our country and bringing labor contract into the applicable scope of model contract. It is extremely necessary for model contract provider to inform the other party about content of the contract, especially about the exceptions clause of model contract provider himself and the actual meaning of clauses that may cause different understandings. The time for model contract provider to exercise duty to disclosure must be before or in process of signing the contract. Model contract providers can fulfill duty to disclosure in manner of combining general disclosure and individual disclosure, namely marking model clauses in a way that distinguishes them obviously from other clauses in model contract. Model contract providers must take a manner of written, individual disclosure to exercise his duty to disclosure. The degree for model contract provider to exercise duty to disclosure is limited to reasonableness. The clauses about the model contract provider not fulfilling duty to disclosure produces illegal effect, but it will not influence other clauses. When model contract providers fail to fulfill their duty to disclosure, look into their legal responsibility: responsibility on purpose or responsibility by fault according to their subjective state.
Duty to disclosure of model contract provider is one most significant step in exercising model contract and it is actual realization of principle of honesty and credit. Therefore, it is essential to complete the relevant rules and regulations.
引文
1.参见李红润:《论保险告知义务及其产生依据》,《淮阳职业技术学院学报》2009年4月,第5-8页。
2.参见师帅:《对我国保险合同告知义务的法条解析》,《法制与经济》2008年8月,第32-34页。
3.参见卜祥瑞:《商业银行的告知义务》,《银行家》2008年6月,第14-17页。
4.参见李玉贤:《浅析格式合同对消费市场的影响》,《法制与社会》2008年第3期,第29-30页。
5.参见周湖勇:《试论劳动者的知情权——从<劳动合同法>第八条规定谈起》,《重庆交通大学学报》(社科版)2008年8月,第3-6页。
6.参见任秀洁:《格式合同免责条款的提请注意义务》,《商场现代化》2007年3月,第9-10页。
7.参见邱云:《格式合同中的“霸王条款”及其规制》,《时代经贸》2008年5月,第12-15页。
8.参见阮方:《浅析保险合同告知义务》,《今日南国》2008年12月,第7-10页。
9.参见韩守莹等:《保险法上如实告知义务的范围》,《企业导报》2008年8月,第8-11页。
10.参见莫小春:《消费合同中格式条款的立法规制》,《商场现代化》2009年1月,第25-28页。
11.参见刘剑楠:《格式合同条件下消费者权益保护问题》,《合作经济与科技》2007年4月,第9-13页。
12.参见周湖勇:《试论劳动者的知情权——从劳动合同法第八条规定谈起》,《重庆交通大学学报》(社科版)2008年8月,第6-7页。
13.参见秦铁铮:《论用人单位之告知义务》,《中国人力资源开发》2009年2月,第11-13页。
14.参见王全弟等:《德国法上对格式条款的规制——<一般交易条件法>及其变迁》,《比较法研究》2004年第1期,第23-27页。
15.参见苏号朋:《格式合同条款研究》,中国人民大学出版社2004年第1版,第125-127页。
16.参见王绍曾:《日本保险法概述》,《知识经济》2009年8月,第34-37页。
1.韩薇:《浅议格式条款制作人义务》,《法制与社会》2007年第7期。
2.任秀洁:《格式合同免责条款的提请注意义务》,《商场现代化》2007年第5期。
3.鄢明定:《知情权与格式合同的写作》,《法制与社会》2007年第9期。
4.丁建安、张秋华:《格式合同的规制与消费者权利的保护》,《行政与法》2005年第6期。
5.刘辉、周辉:《格式合同的理论基础》,《法制与社会》2007年第3期。
6.张毫:《格式合同及其法律规制》,《理论观察》2007年第1期。
7.邱云:《格式合同中的“霸王条款”及其规制》,《时代经贸》2008年第5期。
8.俞世峰:《格式条款订入合同的法律效力和立法建议》,《湖北函授大学学报》2008年第4期。
9.罗先斌:《格式条款价值之评判》,《山西财经大学学报》2008年第2期。
10.张颖:《论〈合同法〉对格式条款效力的规制问题》,《法制与社会》2008年第1期。
11.耿杰圣、杨飞:《关于格式合同中霸王条款的几点思考》,《安徽文学》2008年第3期。
12.王微微:《论格式合同之利》,《法制与社会》2009年第2期。
13.彭奎焱:《论格式条款解释的三大规则》,《新学术》2008年第3期。
14.侯国良:《论合同自由原则的必要限制——以格式合同为例》,《包头职业技术学院学报》2008年第2期。
15.常爱芳:《论我国格式合同的现状及规制》,《工会论坛》2008年第1期。
16.蒋剑伟:《美国格式合同中管辖权条款效力评析——以“根本公平规则”为中心》,《法学评论》(双月刊)2006年第1期。
17.李玉贤:《浅析格式合同对消费市场的影响》,《法制与社会》2008年第3期。
18.秦伟:《善意:格式条款可执行性之前提——以美国法为视角》,《比较法研究》2008年第3期。
19.莫小春:《消费合同中格式条款的立法规制》,《商场现代化》2009年第2期。
20.党璞、李岩鑫:《谈格式合同中的“最终解释权”条款》,《法制与社会》2009年第2期。
21.姚华:《试论格式合同的效力》,《法制与社会》2009年第1期。
22.祝维娜:《中法格式合同立法规制比较及其启示》,《重庆工商大学学报》(社会科学版)2005年第2期。
23.李红润:《论保险告知义务及其产生依据》,《淮阳职业技术学院学报》2009年第2期。
24.卜祥瑞:《商业银行的告知义务》,《银行家》2008年第6期。
25.周湖勇:《试论劳动者的知情权——从〈劳动合同法〉第八条规定谈起》,《重庆交通大学学报》(社科版)2008年第3期。
26.王全弟、陈倩:《德国法上对格式条款的规制——〈一般交易条件法〉及其变迁》,《比较法研究》2004年第1期。
27.田龙:《保险合同告知义务制度研究》,《中国政法大学》2009年第3期。
28.师帅:《对我国保险合同告知义务的法条解析》,《法制与经济》2008年第15期。
29.阮方:《浅析保险合同告知义务》,《今日南国》2008年第12期。
30.盖琳:《保险合同告知义务研究》,《华东政法学院》2007年第4期。
31.隋祎宁:《日本伤害保险复保险合同告知义务研究》,吉林大学2007年硕士学位论文。
32.王绍曾:《日本保险法概述》,《知识经济》2009年第8期。
33.刘剑楠:《格式合同条件下消费者权益保护问题》,《合作经济与科技》2007年第8期。
34.邹强:《论网上银行格式合同中客户权益的保护》,《金融发展研究》2009年第8期。
35.邓静雯:《浅析我国格式合同》,《牡丹江大学学报》2009年第8期。
36.毛冬梅:《弱势方在格式合同中利益的保护》,《法制与社会》2009年第8期。
37.陈长明、曾妮娜:《格式合同要论》,《广东省社会主义学院学报》2009年第1期。
38.叶秀:《格式合同的价值冲突:效率与公平》,《法制与社会》2009年第7期。
49.王丽美:《格式条款存在的历史必然性》,《青年科学》2009年第9期。
40.杨琼芳:《消费服务中格式条款显失公平拾掇》,《经济研究导刊》2009年第13期。
41.韩守莹、余静:《保险法上如实告知义务的范围》,《企业导报》2009年第8期。
42.秦铁铮:《论用人单位之告知义务》,《中国人力资源开发》2009年第2期。
1.苏号朋:《格式合同条款研究》,中国人民大学出版社2004年第1版。
2.杜军:《格式合同研究》,群众出版社2001年版。
3.王卫国:《民法》,中国政法大学出版社2007年10月版。
2.参见师帅:《对我国保险合同告知义务的法条解析》,《法制与经济》2008年8月,第32-34页。
3.参见卜祥瑞:《商业银行的告知义务》,《银行家》2008年6月,第14-17页。
4.参见李玉贤:《浅析格式合同对消费市场的影响》,《法制与社会》2008年第3期,第29-30页。
5.参见周湖勇:《试论劳动者的知情权——从<劳动合同法>第八条规定谈起》,《重庆交通大学学报》(社科版)2008年8月,第3-6页。
6.参见任秀洁:《格式合同免责条款的提请注意义务》,《商场现代化》2007年3月,第9-10页。
7.参见邱云:《格式合同中的“霸王条款”及其规制》,《时代经贸》2008年5月,第12-15页。
8.参见阮方:《浅析保险合同告知义务》,《今日南国》2008年12月,第7-10页。
9.参见韩守莹等:《保险法上如实告知义务的范围》,《企业导报》2008年8月,第8-11页。
10.参见莫小春:《消费合同中格式条款的立法规制》,《商场现代化》2009年1月,第25-28页。
11.参见刘剑楠:《格式合同条件下消费者权益保护问题》,《合作经济与科技》2007年4月,第9-13页。
12.参见周湖勇:《试论劳动者的知情权——从劳动合同法第八条规定谈起》,《重庆交通大学学报》(社科版)2008年8月,第6-7页。
13.参见秦铁铮:《论用人单位之告知义务》,《中国人力资源开发》2009年2月,第11-13页。
14.参见王全弟等:《德国法上对格式条款的规制——<一般交易条件法>及其变迁》,《比较法研究》2004年第1期,第23-27页。
15.参见苏号朋:《格式合同条款研究》,中国人民大学出版社2004年第1版,第125-127页。
16.参见王绍曾:《日本保险法概述》,《知识经济》2009年8月,第34-37页。
1.韩薇:《浅议格式条款制作人义务》,《法制与社会》2007年第7期。
2.任秀洁:《格式合同免责条款的提请注意义务》,《商场现代化》2007年第5期。
3.鄢明定:《知情权与格式合同的写作》,《法制与社会》2007年第9期。
4.丁建安、张秋华:《格式合同的规制与消费者权利的保护》,《行政与法》2005年第6期。
5.刘辉、周辉:《格式合同的理论基础》,《法制与社会》2007年第3期。
6.张毫:《格式合同及其法律规制》,《理论观察》2007年第1期。
7.邱云:《格式合同中的“霸王条款”及其规制》,《时代经贸》2008年第5期。
8.俞世峰:《格式条款订入合同的法律效力和立法建议》,《湖北函授大学学报》2008年第4期。
9.罗先斌:《格式条款价值之评判》,《山西财经大学学报》2008年第2期。
10.张颖:《论〈合同法〉对格式条款效力的规制问题》,《法制与社会》2008年第1期。
11.耿杰圣、杨飞:《关于格式合同中霸王条款的几点思考》,《安徽文学》2008年第3期。
12.王微微:《论格式合同之利》,《法制与社会》2009年第2期。
13.彭奎焱:《论格式条款解释的三大规则》,《新学术》2008年第3期。
14.侯国良:《论合同自由原则的必要限制——以格式合同为例》,《包头职业技术学院学报》2008年第2期。
15.常爱芳:《论我国格式合同的现状及规制》,《工会论坛》2008年第1期。
16.蒋剑伟:《美国格式合同中管辖权条款效力评析——以“根本公平规则”为中心》,《法学评论》(双月刊)2006年第1期。
17.李玉贤:《浅析格式合同对消费市场的影响》,《法制与社会》2008年第3期。
18.秦伟:《善意:格式条款可执行性之前提——以美国法为视角》,《比较法研究》2008年第3期。
19.莫小春:《消费合同中格式条款的立法规制》,《商场现代化》2009年第2期。
20.党璞、李岩鑫:《谈格式合同中的“最终解释权”条款》,《法制与社会》2009年第2期。
21.姚华:《试论格式合同的效力》,《法制与社会》2009年第1期。
22.祝维娜:《中法格式合同立法规制比较及其启示》,《重庆工商大学学报》(社会科学版)2005年第2期。
23.李红润:《论保险告知义务及其产生依据》,《淮阳职业技术学院学报》2009年第2期。
24.卜祥瑞:《商业银行的告知义务》,《银行家》2008年第6期。
25.周湖勇:《试论劳动者的知情权——从〈劳动合同法〉第八条规定谈起》,《重庆交通大学学报》(社科版)2008年第3期。
26.王全弟、陈倩:《德国法上对格式条款的规制——〈一般交易条件法〉及其变迁》,《比较法研究》2004年第1期。
27.田龙:《保险合同告知义务制度研究》,《中国政法大学》2009年第3期。
28.师帅:《对我国保险合同告知义务的法条解析》,《法制与经济》2008年第15期。
29.阮方:《浅析保险合同告知义务》,《今日南国》2008年第12期。
30.盖琳:《保险合同告知义务研究》,《华东政法学院》2007年第4期。
31.隋祎宁:《日本伤害保险复保险合同告知义务研究》,吉林大学2007年硕士学位论文。
32.王绍曾:《日本保险法概述》,《知识经济》2009年第8期。
33.刘剑楠:《格式合同条件下消费者权益保护问题》,《合作经济与科技》2007年第8期。
34.邹强:《论网上银行格式合同中客户权益的保护》,《金融发展研究》2009年第8期。
35.邓静雯:《浅析我国格式合同》,《牡丹江大学学报》2009年第8期。
36.毛冬梅:《弱势方在格式合同中利益的保护》,《法制与社会》2009年第8期。
37.陈长明、曾妮娜:《格式合同要论》,《广东省社会主义学院学报》2009年第1期。
38.叶秀:《格式合同的价值冲突:效率与公平》,《法制与社会》2009年第7期。
49.王丽美:《格式条款存在的历史必然性》,《青年科学》2009年第9期。
40.杨琼芳:《消费服务中格式条款显失公平拾掇》,《经济研究导刊》2009年第13期。
41.韩守莹、余静:《保险法上如实告知义务的范围》,《企业导报》2009年第8期。
42.秦铁铮:《论用人单位之告知义务》,《中国人力资源开发》2009年第2期。
1.苏号朋:《格式合同条款研究》,中国人民大学出版社2004年第1版。
2.杜军:《格式合同研究》,群众出版社2001年版。
3.王卫国:《民法》,中国政法大学出版社2007年10月版。