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.
中文譯文
due diligence譯作 "恪盡職守"或"謹慎處理"。與之相反則是negligence，沒有做到due care或due diligence即構成negligence（過失）。有的辭典將due diligence譯為"克盡職責"或”盡職調查”，是因為在投資領域上，due diligence即是為投資決策而做出的一系列事前調查。
"Due Diligence",作為海商法中的專有名詞，最早出現於美國1893年哈特法，隨著中國海商法的頒布被引入中國。"Due Diligence"一般被譯為"恪盡職守"或"謹慎處理",它要求承運人作為一名具有通常要求的，並謹慎行事的船舶所有人，採取各種為特定情況所合理要求的措施。如同在它的發源地一樣，有關"Due Diligence"的很多問題在中國海商法學界並沒有達成一致的見解。
含義
通常意義上說，Due Diligence類似於侵權法中的過錯適用原則，即對一般侵權行為來說，只要行為人盡到了一個合理、謹慎的人應盡的注意義務，即使發生了損害，行為人也應該被免除責任。對此，英國法律也持相同觀點，認為Due Diligence的義務與普通法中所規定的謹慎義務大體相當。但是兩者最大的區別在於，Due Diligence是一種個人義務，不能因委託行為而發生轉移。承運人可以僱傭一些人來謹慎處理船舶，使之適航，但是責任並沒有因此而轉移，還要由承運人來承擔。一旦由承運人選派謹慎處理船舶的人在謹慎處理中發生了疏忽，這樣的人可能是承運人的僱傭人、獨立契約人或驗船師等，承運人可能會舉證自己並不具備從事謹慎處理的專業技能，同時僱傭了一個具有豐富經驗、合格能力的專業人士來從事此項業務，此時他已沒有過錯可言。但這並不足夠，承運人同時還要舉證實際從事該項業務的人也沒有過錯可言，正如上文所述，Due Diligence義務不可轉移。
條款歷史
"Due Diligence",起源於1893年的哈特法（USHARTZR ACT），對其完整的詮釋是在THE MUNCASTER CASTLE一案中，該定義已被大多數海運國家所接受。在該案中，貨物在航程中因防浪閥漏入海水而遭受損害。因為該船在數月前進行過檢驗，檢驗師對防浪閥也進行了檢查，但檢查之後，由於鉗工的疏忽未將螺絲擰緊，導致此次航行途中海水進入貨艙。儘管承運人在此案中並無疏忽，法官還是認定他要對貨損負責，因為他的受僱人違反了謹慎處理（due diligence）的義務。當然，承運人可以向疏忽過錯的一方追償其損失，但不能讓收貨人向一個與他無關的疏忽方提出賠償，收貨人向承運人提出索賠的要求不會因運輸之外的原因而受影響。
同時承運人也不會因非他掌握期間內發生的不適航負責，如承運人剛買了一艘新船或期租了一艘船舶，如他已對船舶進行了謹慎處理仍未發現有缺陷，那么他就應該被免除責任，而不必對造船廠或原船東，以及他們的代理人的疏忽負責。但如果該缺陷經"Due Diligence"就能夠發現的話，承運人就不能免責。這也是THE AMSTEISLOT一案所確立的原則。
舉證責任
⒈海牙規則中（HAUGE RULES）第四條第⑴款規定，"除非承運人未按第三條第⑴款的規定，作到謹慎處理（Due Diligence）使船舶適航，他對因船舶不適航所造成的滅失或損壞不負責任","由於船舶不適航所引起的滅失或損害一旦發生，對於謹慎處理的舉證責任，便應由根據本條規定要求免責的承運人或其他人承擔"。從中我們不難看出，在收貨人（或其他索賠方）證明滅失或損壞是由於船舶不適航原因造成之前，承運人對於Due Diligence是無證明義務的。這樣的舉證責任對收貨人可能會產生不公，因為船舶是掌握在承運人手中的，有關的一切情況、細節，只有承運人最清楚。但這一舉證責任已被法院認可，如THE HELLENIC DOLPHIN一案中，由於收貨人無法證明船舶存在的缺陷是在裝船前還是裝船後發生的，也就是說無法證明船舶在開航時是不適航的，法院判決承運人可以依據海上特有風險免責。
⒉《中華人民共和國海商法》中有關Due Diligence的舉證責任與《海牙規則》有所不同。雖然海商法第51條有關承運人免責的規定完全是照搬《海牙規則》第4條第⑵款的規定，只是形式上做了某些調整，但是由於缺少了第4條第⑴款關於適航義務及Due Diligence舉證責任的規定，僅以"經謹慎處理仍未發現的船舶潛在缺陷"作為免責事項，使有關舉證義務含混不清。此處的潛在缺陷免責是對適航義務的補充，因潛在缺陷的存在就意味著不適航。
首先根據《中華人民共和國民事訴訟法》第64條，及《最高法院關於適用民訴法若干問題的意見》第74條之規定，當事人對自己提出的主張，有責任提供證據，即"誰主張，誰舉證"。收貨人慾使承運人對運輸的貨物滅失損壞承擔責任，他必須先證明滅失損壞是在運輸期間由船舶不適航原因造成的；之後由承運人舉證其是否已盡Due Diligence義務，即該不適航原因是否是潛在缺陷，否則就要承擔敗訴風險。
然而，按照海商法第51條第2款的規定："承運人按照前規定免除賠償責任的，除第（二）項規定的原因外，應當負舉證責任。"它要求承運人對涉及Due Diligence的全部情況負舉證責任，首先是貨物滅失損壞由船舶不適航造成；其次是該不適航原因經謹慎處理無法發現。海商法中的規定應視為一種過錯推定，類似於《漢堡規則》的規定，但該原則沒有在民事訴訟法中得以體現，造成了舉證義務不明。但最新頒布的《中華人民共和國契約法》對此應有指導作用,按契約法第107條規定，當事人一方不履行契約或者履行契約義務不符契約定的，應當承擔繼續履行、採取補救措施或者賠償損失等違約責任。該規定在違約責任構成上只規定了違約行為，一旦出現違約行為並經原告證明，被告就要承擔違約責任，除非他能證明有免責事由的存在。將此推廣至海上運輸契約中來也是一樣，原告（收貨人）只要明證明貨物滅失損壞在運輸過程中發生（違約行為），被告（承運人）必須證明其違約行為符合免責事項（經謹慎處理仍未發現的船舶潛在缺陷）的規定。
認定標準
由於《契約法》的出台，使違約責任的構成要件簡化，只要有違約行為存在，當事方就得承擔違約責任，不論其主觀上是否有過錯。同時免責事由都屬於客觀事實，證明起來相對容易。但是海商法中的Due Diligence免責事項實際上是一種過錯責任，如前述，它要求考慮當事人的主觀心理狀態，強調行為人是否具有一種應受非難的心理狀態。
過錯是一種主觀狀態，其表現為受行為人主觀支配的外部行為，大多數學者認為是一種主客觀因素結合的產物。應採用何種標準來確定Due Diligence所要求達到的程度，實際上是採用何種標準來確定違約責任中的過錯問題。對此中國立法中沒有明確，學者也有不同看法。我認為，應借鑑國外判例和學說的經驗，採用客觀標準加以確定過錯。
Due Diligence所追求的雖然是一種主觀上的無過錯，但採用主觀標準不利於正確認定過錯，它要求對當事人的預見能力作準確判斷，這對於法官和違約方來說都十分困難，特別是許多承運人都是法人，而法人畢竟不像自然人那樣能夠思考。同時，對於自然人來說，由於個人的認識能力、專業知識、業務技能等諸多因素不同，對後果的預見能力各不相同，因此主觀標準勢必給民事歸責帶來困難。而客觀標準則較好地解決了上述問題，同時也符合行為是當事人主觀意志體現的基本原則。其實,早在羅馬法中就出現了"良家父"這樣的客觀過錯標準，Due Diligence正是"良家父"標準在海商法中的具體體現。當然這是一種抽象標準，不是一個統一的模式，而應根據當時的情況來考慮。
應當指出的是，客觀標準較之於主觀標準更為合理，前提是客觀所確定的標準必須合理，它要求考慮到交易的性質，如從事遠洋運輸的船舶比沿海運輸要遭受更大的風險，也要考慮到當事人的職業，如專業檢驗師對船舶的熟悉程度要遠遠超過承運人等等情況。總之，過錯概念的客觀化不僅使過錯的認定更為容易，而且也會大大促進過錯推定的發展。另外，把Due Diligence作為違約責任也排除了因第三人原因導致違約的免責可能。
由於中國海商法中Due Diligence的概念完全是"舶來品",對它的理解目前還存在不同看法，法律用語上也存在不足之處。如《海牙規則》對潛在缺陷檢查中涉及的Due Diligence不要求實際進行，只要承運人能證明即使他進行了謹慎處理仍不能發現潛在缺陷時，就可以免責。中國海商法英文版中的定義與之相同，即"Latent defect of the ship not discoverable by due diligence."而中文"原文"(更確切地說是對公約的翻譯）卻是"經謹慎處理仍未發現的船舶潛在缺陷",它所表達的意思是----承運人實際上進行了謹慎處理，但沒有發現潛在缺陷。這一規定與公約原文和海商法英文中discoverable"的意思相左。
由此可見，Due Diligence的概念及相關標準是解決承運人適航責任的關鍵，而中國海商法對它的正確理解還缺乏全面的探討及系統的歸類，與之相關的許多知識還有待於我們消化吸收，這樣在具體案件的處理上才能做到公正與統一。
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 reports
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.
