新浪博客

HND 商法导论 Business law outcome2

2011-11-27 16:04阅读：

http://blog.sina.cn/dpool/blog/u/1764480570

HND
Case 1:
1. Does Samir have a legally enforceable contract with Fairways for the purchase for the Matsumoto golf clubs for 150?
首先，Smair并没有与Fairways公司就购买Matsumoto golf成立合同，假使他想要购买那套高尔夫球具，那么他必须支付1，500，这是因为橱窗展示仅仅是一个要约邀请而不是要约。
Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Co (1893)

Harvey v Facey (1893)
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (1953)
Fisher v Bell (1961)
First, Smair has not purchased Matsumoto with Fairways Corporation the golf establishment contract, if he wants to purchase that set of golf to have, then he must pay 1,500, this is because the display window demonstration is an important contract invitation merely, but is not the important contract. Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Co (1893) Harvey v Facey (1893) Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (1953) Fisher v Bell (1961)
2. What are the chances of Susan being successful if she goes ahead and sues Samir for the cost of her new designer outfit, the cost of her taxi fare and the disappointment caused?
Susan 假使决定要起诉Samir并要求赔偿他的服装费用，乘坐出租车的费用以及精神损失费用的话，那么Susan将不可能获得胜诉。这是因为Susan与Samir的晚餐约定属于一个社会交往关系（social agreement）而不是合同关系、
合同关系是当双方要约与承诺结合的时候，是成立一种对双方有效地并有约束力的关系。更因为Susan与Samir的约定不属于合同关系，自然地，Susan就不能从Samir那边得到法律救济（Legal remedy）。
类似Susan与Samir的约定的关系有：
Agreement binding in honour only 授予荣誉称号的约定
Domestic agreements 家庭协议
Gambling or wagering agreements 打赌或赌博的合同
Social agreements 社会交往的承诺
Jones v Vernon's Pools (1938)
Robertson v Balfour (1938)
Spellman v Spellman (1961)
Ferguson v Littlewoods Pools Ltd (1997)
If Susan decided that must sue Samir and the seek redress his clothing expense, rides rental car's expense as well as the spiritual loss expense words, then Susan will be impossible to obtain wins. This is because Susan and the Samir supper agreement belongs to social interaction relations (social agreement), but is not the congruent relationship, the congruent relationship is when the bilateral important contract and the pledge unify, is establishes one kind effectively and has the binding force relations to both sides. Because Susan and the Samir agreement does not belong to the congruent relationship, the natural place, Susan cannot obtain the legal relief from the Samir that side (Legal remedy). similar Susan and the Samir agreement's relations include: Agreement binding in honour only awards the title of honor agreement Domestic agreements family agreement Gambling or wagering agreements to make a bet or gambling contract Social agreements social interaction pledge Jones v Vernon's Pools (1938) Robertson v Balfour (1938) Spellman v Spellman (1961) Ferguson v Littlewoods Pools Ltd (1997
3. Is Dougie Campbell entitled to cancel its offer to build a conservatory and patio for Samir?
Dougie Campbell 可以向Samir取消这个要约，这是因为一个合同的成立必须是承诺人讲承诺的通知有效的通知到要约人的手里才能成立。特别是当使用instantaneous methods (瞬间)的方式通知对方的时候，例如使用了传真，电报，e-mail或者电话等方式去发出承诺时，必须确认对方已经收到了你的信息才能成立。本案当中，Samir并没有将承诺的通知有效的通知到Dougie Campbell，导致了要约人没有收到承诺，双方因此并不成立合同。
Verdin Brothers v Robertson (1871)
Entores Ltd v Miles Far Eastern Corpn (1955)
Brin Ribon v Stahag Stahl (1982)
Dougie Campbell may cancel this important contract to Samir, this is because a contract's establishment must be pledged the human speaks the pledge in the notice effective notice important contract person's hand can establish. When specially uses instantaneous methods (instantaneous) the way informs opposite party time, for example has used the facsimile, the telegram, when ways and so on e-mail or telephone send out the pledge, must confirm that opposite party already received your information to be able to establish. This case, Samir will not have pledged notice effective notice Dougie Campbell, caused the important contract person not to receive the pledge, the bilateral therefore untenable contract. Verdin Brothers v Robertson (1871) Entores Ltd v Miles Far Eastern Corpn (1955) Brin Ribon v Stahag Stahl (1982)
4. Can Samir insist that Stuart sell the car to him fo 4,500?
Samir没有权利要求Stuart将汽车以4，500的价格卖给他。这是因为当Samir给Stuart发出4000元的反要约的时候，实际上已经对原先的要约产生了一个撤销的作用。（新要约或反要约会对原要约产生撤销的作用）并且这个要约已经被Stuart拒绝，所以，双方并没有成立合同，Stuart可以另外寻找买家。
Hyde v Wrench (1840)
Wolf & Wolf v Forfar Potato Co Ltd (1984)
Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corpn(England) Ltd (1979)
Samir did not have claim of right Stuart to sell to the automobile by 4,500 prices he. This is when because Samir sends out 4000 Yuan counter-important contracts to Stuart time, in fact to the original important contract had already had a cancellation function. (new important contract or instead wants appointment to have cancellation function to original important contract), and this important contract already by the Stuart rejection, therefore, both sides have not established the contract, Stuart may seperately seek for the buyer. Hyde v Wrench (1840) Wolf & Wolf v Forfar Potato Co Ltd (1984) Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corpn(England) Ltd (1979)
Case 2:
1. How would you classify Robert's statement to Christine in relation to the condition of the car?
Robert 对Christine的行为属于一个虚假陈述（misleading statement）其目的是为了让Christine购买这辆汽车，而虚假陈述分为三种情况：innocent, negligent, fraudulent.
而Robert的虚假陈述属于fraudulent misrepresentation, 这种诈欺行为通常是指有意识的诈欺，因为，Christine可以起诉Robert的虚假陈述，相反地，假使Robert可以举证说明自己的错误陈述并没有给Christine造成影响时，那么Robert就可以免除责任，否则，就必须承担责任。
Boyd & Forrest v Glasgow & South-western Railway Co (1915)
Smith v Sim (1954)
Robert belongs to a false statement to the Christine behavior (misleading statement) its goal is to let Christine purchase this automobile, but the false statement divides into three kind of situations: i

我的更多文章

下载客户端阅读体验更佳

APP专享