F4学习笔记2.docx
- 文档编号:28386039
- 上传时间:2023-07-10
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:19
- 大小:26.82KB
F4学习笔记2.docx
《F4学习笔记2.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《F4学习笔记2.docx(19页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
F4学习笔记2
2011年F4学习笔记
PartICases
1.CarlillvCarbolicSmokeBallCo1893
Thefacts:
Themanufacturersofapatentmedicinepublishedanadvertisementbywhichtheyundertooktopay£100reward....toanypersonwhocontracts....influenza....afterhavingusedthesmokeballthreetimesdailyfortwoweeks.Theadvertisementaddedthat£1,000hadbeendepositedatabank”showingoursincerityinthismatter”.Theeclaimantreadtheadvertisement,purchasedthesmokeballanduseditasdirected.Shecontractedinfluenzaandclaimedher£100reward.Intheirdefensethemanufacturersarguedagainstthis.
(a)Theofferwassovaguethatitcouldnotformthebasisofacontract,asnotimelimitwasspecified.
(b)Itwasnotanofferwhichcouldbeacceptedsinceitwasoffertothewholeworld.
Decision:
Thecourtdisagreed.
(a)Thesmokeballmustprotecttheuserduringtheperiodofuse-theofferwasnotvague.
(b)Suchanofferwaspossible,asitcouldbecomparedtorewardcases.
2.ButlerMachineToolCovex-cell-OCorp(England)1979
Thefacts:
Theclaimantofferedtoselltoolstothedefendant.Theirquotationincludeddetailsoftheirstandardterms.Thedefendant'accepted'theoffer,enclosingtheirownstandardterms.Theclaimantacknowledgedacceptancebyreturningatear-offslipfromtheorderform.
Decision:
Thedefendant'sorderwasreallyacounter-offer.Theclaimanthadacceptedthisbyreturningthetear-offslip.
3.BritishSteelCorpsvClevelandBridgeandEngineeringCoLtd1984
Thefacts:
Thedefendantsaskedtheclaimantstosupplynodesforacomplexsteellattice-workframe,andsenttheclaimantsaletterofintent,startingtheirintentiontoplaceanorderontheirstandardterms.Theclaimantsstatedthattheywereunwillingtocontractonsuchterms,butstartedwork,andeventuallycompletedanddeliveredallthenodes.Theysuedforthevalueofthenodesandthedefendantscounter-claimedfordamagesforlatedelivery.
Decision:
Sincethepartieshadnotreachedagreementoversuchmattersaslatedelivery,therewasnocontract,andsotherecouldbenoquestionofdamagesforlatedelivery.However,sincetheclaimantshadundertakenworkattherequestofthedefendantsandthedefendantshadacceptedthiswork,theclaimantswereentitledtoareasonableremunerationforservicesrendered.
4.GreatNorthernRailwaysvWitham1873
Thefacts:
Thedefendanttenderedsuccessfullyforthesupplyofstorestotheclaimantoveraperiodofoneyear.Inhistenderheundertook‘tosupply...suchquantitiesasthecompanymayorderfromtimetotime’.Aftermakingsomedeliveriesherefusedtofulfillanorderwhichtheclaimanthadgiven.
Decision:
Hewasinbreachofcontractinrefusingtofulfilltheordergivenbutmightrevokehistenderandneednotthenfulfillanyfutureorderswithintheremainderofthe12monthperiod.
5.EdwardsvSkywaysLtd1964
Thefacts:
Innegotiationsoverthetermsformakingtheclaimantredundant,thedefendantsgavehimthechoiceeitherofwithdrawinghistotalcontributionsfromtheircontributorypensionfundorofreceivingapaid-uppension.Itwasagreedthatifhechosethefirstoption,thedefendantswouldmakeanexgratiapaymenttohim.Hechosethefirstoption;hiscontributionswererefundedbuttheexgratiapaymentwasnotmade.Hesuedforbreachofcontract.
Decision:
Althoughthedefendantsarguedthattheuseofthephraseexgratiashowednointentiontocreatelegalrelations,thiswasacommercialarrangementandtheburdenofrebuttingthepresumptionoflegalrelationhadnotbeendischargedbythedefendants.
6.Hillas&CoLtdvArcosLtd1932
Thefacts:
Theclaimantsagreedtopurchasefromthedefendants"22,000standardsofsoftwoodgoodsoffairspecificationovereseason1930".Theagreementcontainedanoptiontobuyafurther100,000standardsin1931,withouttermsastothekindorsizeoftimberbeingspecified.The1930transactiontookplace,butthesellersrefusedtosupplyanywoodin1931,sayingthattheagreementwastoovague.
Decision:
Themissingtermsoftheagreementcouldbeascertainedbyreferencetotheprevioustransactions.
7.RamsgateVictoriaCovMontfort1866
Thefacts:
ThedefendantappliedtothecompanyinJuneforsharesandpaidadeposit.AttheendofNovemberthecompanysenthimanacceptancebyissueofallotmentandrequestedpaymentofthebalancedue.Thedefendantcontendedthathisofferhadexpiredandcouldnolongerbeaccepted.
Decision:
Theofferwasvalidforareasonabletimeonlyandfivemonthswastoolong.
8.DickinsonvDodds1876
theacts:
thedefendant,on10June,wrotetotheclaimanttoofferpropertyforsaleat800,adding'thisoffertobeleftopenuntilFriday12June,9.00am.'on11Junethedefendantsoldthepropertytoanotherbuyer,A.B,whohadbeenanintermediarybetweenDickinsonandDodds,informedDickinsonthatthedefendanthadsoldtosomeoneelse.OnFriday12June,before9.00am,theclaimanthandedtothedefendanttoaformalletterofacceptance.
Decision:
Thedefendantwasfreetorevokehisofferandhaddonesobysaletoathirdparty;theclaimantcouldnotaccepttheofferafterhehadlearntfromareliableinformantoftherevocationofoffertohim.
however,thiscaseshouldbetreatedwithcautionanditmaybethatonlyanagentcanremoveanoffer.
9.FinancingsLtdvStimson1962
Thefacts:
Thedefendantwishedtopurchaseacar,andon16Marchsignedahire-purchaseform.Theform,issuedbytheclaimants,statedthattheagreementwouldbebindingonlyuponsignaturebythem.On20Marchthedefendant,notsatisfiedwiththecar,returnedit.On24Marchthecarwasstolenfromthepremisesofthedealer,andwasrecoveredbadlydamaged.On25Marchtheclaimantssignedtheform.Theysuedthedefendantforbreachofcontract.
Decision:
Thedefendantwasnotboundtotakethecar.Hissigningoftheagreementwasactuallyanoffertocontractwiththeclaimant.Therewasanimpliedconditioninthisofferthatthecarwouldbeinareasonablecondition.
10.RoseandfrankvCrompton1923
Thefacts:
acommercialagreementbywhichthedefendantsappointedtheclaimanttobeitsdistributorintheUSAcontainedaclausedescribedas‘theHonorablePledgeClause’whichexpresslystatedthatthearrangementwas‘notsubjecttolegaljurisdiction’inethercounty.thedefendantsterminatedtheagreementwithoutgivingnoticeasrequired,andrefusedtodelivergoodsorderedbytheclaimantsalthoughtheyhadacceptedtheseorderswhenplaced.
Decision:
Thegeneralagreementwasnotlegallybindingastherewasnoobligationtostandbyantclauseinit.Howevertheordersforgoodswereseparateandbindingcontracts.Theclaimfordamagesforbreachoftheagreementfailed,buttheclaimfordamagesfornon-deliveryofgoodsorderedsucceeded.
11.HarveyvFacey1893
Thefacts:
Theclaimanttelegraphedtothedefendant.“WillyousellusBumperHallPen?
Telegraphlowestcashprice”.Thedefendanttelegraphedinreply"LowestpriceforBumperHallPen,£900".Theclaimanttelegraphedtoacceptwhatheregardedasanoffer;thedefendantmadenofurtherreply.
Decision:
Thedefendant’stelegramwasmerelyastatementofhisminimumpriceifasaleweretobeagreed.Itwasnotanofferwhichtheclaimantcouldaccept.
12.BiggvBoydGibbons1971
Thefacts:
Inthecourseofcorrespondencethedefendantrejectedanofferof£20,000bytheclaimantandadded"foraquicksaleIwouldaccept£26,000....ifyouarenotinterestedinthispricewouldyoupleaseletmknowimmediately".Theclaimantacceptedthispriceof£26,000andthedefendantacknowledgedhisacceptance.
Decision:
Inthiscontextthedefendantmustbetreatedasmakinganofferwhichtheclaimanthadaccepted.
13.PartridgevCrittenden1968
Thefacts:
Mr.Partridgeplacedanadvertisementfor‘Bramblefinchcocks,bramblefinchhens,25seach’.TheRSPCAbroughtaprosecutionagainsthimforofferingforsaleabramblingincontraventionoftheProtectionofBirdsAct1954.ThejusticeconvictedPartridgeandheappealed.
Decision:
Theconvictionwasquashed.AlthoughtherehadbeenasaleincontraventionoftheAct,theprosecutioncouldnotrelyontheoffenceof‘offeringforsale’,astheadvertisementonlyconstitutedaninvitationtotreat.
14.PharmaceuticalSocietyofGreatBritainvBootsCashChemists(Southern)1952
Thefact:
Certaindrugscouldonlybesoldunderthesupervisionofaregisteredpharmacist.TheclaimantclaimedthisrulehadbeenbrokenbyBootswhodisplaythesedrugsinaself-serviceshop.Bootscontendedthattherewasnosaleuntilacustomerbroughtthegoodstothecashdeskandofferedtobuythem.Aregisteredpharmacistwasstationedatthispoint.
Decision:
ThecourtfoundforBootsandcommentedthatifitweretruethatacustomeracceptedanoffertosellbyremovinggoodsfromitself,hecouldnotthenchangehismindandputthembackasthiswouldconstitutebreachofcontract.
15.ByrnevVanTienhoven1880
Thefacts:
thedefendantswereinCardiff:
theclaimantsinNewYork.Thesequenceofeventswasasfollows.
1OctoberLetterpostedinCardiff,offeringtosell1000boxesoftinplates.
8OctoberLetterofrevocationofofferpostedinCardiff.
11OctoberLetterofofferreceivedinNewYorkandtelegramofacceptancesent.
15OctoberLetterconfirmingacceptancepostedinNewYork.
20OctoberLetterofrevocationreceivedinNewYork.theoffereehadmeanwhileresoldthecontractgoods.
Decision:
Theletterrevocationcouldnottakeeffectuntilreceived(20October);itcouldnotrevokethecontractmadebythetelegramacceptanceoftheofferon11October.
PartIIquestions.
1.Stateandexplainthefactorsaffectingthevalidityofacontract.
a.Capa
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- F4 学习 笔记