ACCA F4 B2(2009)

*,*,单击此处编辑母版标题样式,单击此处编辑母版文本样式,第二级,第三级,第四级,第五级,Chapter 5 Formation of contracts II,1.Consideration对价，又可称为约因，其含义为“法律意义上的对价既可以由属于某一方当事人的权利、利益、利润或收益所构成，也可以由另一方所遭受或承担的忍耐、损害、损失或责任、义务所构成”，或“一方之行为，或容忍或所为之诺言，乃换取对方诺言之代价，此项诺言既有对价关系，自属有效。”,对价的意义在于：一般来说，一项允诺须有对价支持才具有法律约束力，或一项合同须有对价支持才可成立生效。,简单地说,对价是”,将欲取之,必先予之,”,或为获得某种利益所应付出的代价，这种代价可以是作为（积极的行为，如承诺支付货款）或不作为（消极的行为，如承诺不从事某种行为）,对价也可以视为“为购买允诺所支付的成本”。对价是相对于允诺而言的。,1,Formation of contracts II,1.1 valid consideration,Executed consideration 已履行的对价（有效之对价，以某一行为如付款来交换一项作为回报的允诺） illustration,Executory consideration 待履行的对价（有效之对价，以一项允诺来交换另一项允诺）illustration,Key terms,1.1.1 four additional rules for valid consideration,Promisee 受允诺人 Promisor允诺人,1.2 Past consideration 过去的对价(在允诺作出之前已完成的行为一般不能作为允诺的对价，因为这不是对新允诺的交换，但也有例外).,Case,Re McArdle 1951 遗嘱问题；遗嘱作出之前已实施的行为，过去的对价。,2,Formation of contracts II,Case,Roscorla v Thomas 1842 购买马匹；,合同订立后所作的新允诺若无新对价支持，也无法律约束力。,Three exceptions:,Bill of exchange（票据是对过去债务允诺付款）; acknowledgement of previous debt（债务人对超过诉讼时效的债务予以书面承认，该允诺仍有法律约束力）;,service （要求对方提供服务的要求隐含着一项付款的允诺implied promise） Case,Lampleigh v Braithwaite 1615,Case,Re Caseys Patent 1892,Read the question and answer.,2. Adequacy and sufficiency of consideration 对价的适当性与充分性；对价应该是充分的，但无须是适当的。,法官在确认对价是否有效存在时要考察两个要素。Consideration need not be adequate. Consideration must be sufficient.,3,Formation of contracts II,2.1 Adequacy,Case,Thomas v Thomas 1842对允诺与对价之间的价值是否相等，法律一般不予干预，除非两者极度不公平（如因不当影响、胁迫、欺诈等原因而订立的合同）,2.2 Sufficiency：对价只要具有一定的价值即可视为充分。,Case,Chappel & Co v Nestle Co 1960 版税（使用费）的计算；巧克力的包装纸也作为对价的一部分，因为其对被告具有商业利益。,Case,Horton v Horton 1961 忍耐或承诺忍耐（不做某件事）也可构成一项充分的对价。Forbearance,该价值应从广义上理解，并不局限于经济价值，在精神上或心理上具有价值也可。,4,Formation of contracts II,2.2.1 performance of existing contractual duties对现有合同义务的履行,Case,Collins v Godefory 1831,对法定义务的履行不构成一项允诺的对价,Case,Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan CC 1925,但若法定义务之外还提供了额外的服务，则是一项充分的对价。或由于一方当事人的行为导致警力须增强，则警察也有权得到报酬。,2.2.2 Promise of additional reward,Case,Stick v Myrick 1809,若一方当事人对另一当事人履行现有的义务而允诺支付额外的酬劳，则该允诺无对价支持。,5,Formation of contracts II,Case,Hartley v Ponsonby 1857,若若一方当事人对另一当事人履行额外的义务(现有合同以外的义务)而允诺支付额外的酬劳，则该允诺有对价支持（额外的义务）。,NOTES：以上两个案例很有名，需注意。两案的差别在于逃跑船员的人数不同，对正常航运的影响也不同。,对于additional reward，晚近的判例倾向于认定为存在有效的对价，只要作出additional reward的允诺人确实收到了某项practical benefit，即使该利益并未超出原合同的范围。可以说，英国相关判例已经有了一定程度的发展，须注意下列判例。,Case,Williams v Roffey Bros 1990,不过晚近的另一判例的裁决却又不同。Case,Re Selectmove 1994,6,Formation of contracts II,2.2.3 performance of existing contractual duty to third party 向第三人履行现有合同的义务,Case,Shadwell v Shadwell 1860,有充分的对价,Barrister 出庭律师,2.2.4 waiver of existing rights,有关债权人同意债务人分期付款或部分付款或免于利息的允诺（统称为“现有权利的放弃”），若未获债务人的对价，则该允诺无约束力，债权人可反悔，要求债务人履行全部债务。Case,Foakes v Beer 1884 对于权利的放弃没有对价支持；被告有权获得利息。,该规则有4种例外：替代性对价（如以货物代替现金）；债权人之间的交易（若有一债权人反悔则可能构成对其他债权人的欺诈）；第三人代为支付（创造了新的对价）；禁止反言。,7,Formation of contracts II,3. Promissory estoppel 禁止反言；其意义在于使得某些缺乏对价支持的允诺具有法律约束力。理论依据：衡平双方利益；保护诚信，信赖利益,Important cases: Central London Property Trust v High Trees House 1947（常称为“高树”案）,1939.9， 2500/年,1940.1，1250/年，减价并无对价支持，有关协议也无时间限制，但显然只适用于战争时期；实际支付了到了1945年，后原告要求被告支付5年间的差额，同时将来也按2500/年支付租金。法院拒绝该差额，但支持将来按2500/年执行。,8,Formation of contracts II,禁止反言原则的适用应注意：,该原则只能用于抗辩，而不能用作起诉的理由；Combe v Combe 1951,decree nisi,(non-absolute ruling，离婚暂准判令) is a ruling by a court that does not have any force until such time that a particular condition is met. Once the condition is met the ruling becomes decree absolute and is binding. Typically, the condition is that no new evidence or further petitions with a bearing on the case are introduced to the court.,9,Formation of contracts II,This form of ruling has become a rarity in recent times, with one exceptionin some jurisdictions it is still a standard stage of,divorce,proceedings.This allows time for any party who objects to the divorce to come forward with those objections.,只适用于有关,完全自愿,放弃权利的允诺；,D and C Builders v Rees 1966,该原则之适用必须有既存法律关系存在为前提（如存在合同法律关系）。,10,Formation of contracts II,4. Intention to create legal relations,Without express statement, the courts apply one of the two,rebuttable,presumption to a case:,Social, domestic and family arrangements are not usually intended to be binding .,Commercial agreements are usually intended by the parties involved to be legally binding.,The definition of intention to create legal relation,注意上述推论均可依据特定案件的事实而被推翻,法院应根据当事人的语言，文字和行动来合理地推论出是否设立法律关系的意图,4.1 domestic arrangements,11,Formation of contracts II,4.1.1 Husband and wife,Case,Balfour v Balfour 1919：,丈夫和妻子之间的争议；认定无设立法律关系的意图,Case,Merritt v Merritt 1970:,丈夫与妻子之间关于,房地产,的争议；认为存在设立法律关系的意图;,4.1.2 relatives,Case,Jones v Padavatton,1969:母女之间的争议,4.1.3 other domestic arrangement,Case,Simpkins v Pays 1955 相互有密切关系(但并非亲戚)的人订立的合同,12,Formation of contracts II,4.2 Commercial agreements,商业协议通常被推定具有设立法律关系的意图，除非有明确的否认，或从事实中可作出相反的认定,Case,Rose and Frank v Crompton 1923: expressly disclaimed or rebutted.,Case,Edwards v Skyways Ltd 1964:burden of proof举证责任由试图免除自己责任的一方承担.,4.3 Statutory provisions,Procedural agreements between employers and trade union; no intention,13,Formation of contracts II,4.4 letters of comfort 安慰函,Not to be legally binding,4.5 Transactions binding in honor only,Not to be legally binding,Notes: 注意法律中的原则,+例外；推定+反证的模式,14,Formation of contracts II,5.Privity of contract 合同相对性原则,主体的相对性；效力的相对性；责任的相对性,Key terms,Important cases:,Tweddle v Atkinson 1861,consideration must move from the promisee; only a party to a contract can enfore it.,Dunlop Tyre Co v Selfridge1915,存在两个独立的合同关系,Dunlop Dew & Co,Dew & Co- Selfridge,5.1 Exceptions:,第三人以其他 名义起诉,Beswick v Beswick 1968,15,Formation of contracts II,Implied trust,信托是委托人基于对受托人的信任,将其财产权委托给受托人,由受托人按委托人的意愿以自己的名义,为受益人的利益或特定目的,进行管理或处分的行为。它是一种以资财为核心，信任为基础，委托为方式的财产管理制度，涉及委托人、受托人、受益人三方之间的关系。如张三有一笔钱财，自己无暇经营。但为了资助其子女上学，他便可把钱财委托给信托公司管理。在信托期间内，其子女便可从受托人信托公司那里得到收益作为上学的费用。在这个信托关系中，张三是委托人，信托公司是受托人，其子女是受益人。,16,Formation of contracts II,5.2 Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999,合同（第三方权利）法；某一合同的第三方（不是合同的当事人）在符合特定条件的情况下可以强制执行合同的条款；第三方可获得与合同当事人一样的救济；,该法对普通法中的合同相对性原则进行了修正。,该法不适用于公司章程或劳动合同。,17,Formation of contracts II,6.Contract formation checklist,7.the electronic contract,相关法律还不完善，因此考案例题的可能性很小。,Exam focus point,Certain legal issues should be noted.,18,Chapter 6 terms of contract,1.contract terms,Statements may be classified as terms or as representation.,The significance of distinguishing terms and representation is different remedy of misled party.,terms-主张breach of contract,Representation-主张misrepresentation,It was established that intention is the overall guide as to whether a statement is a term of the contract. In seeking to implement the parties intentions and decide whether a statement is a term or a mere representation, the courts will consider the following four factors: 法院通常考察以下要素,19,terms of contract,(A) TIMING(WHEN) The court will consider the lapse of time between the making of the statement and the contracts conclusion: if the interval is short the statement is more likely to be a term.,Routledge v McKay,1954,(B) IMPORTANCE OF THE STATEMENT The court will consider the importance of the truth of the statement as a pivotal factor in finalising the contract. The statement may be of such importance that if it had not been made the injured party would not have entered into the contract at all. Bannerman,v White,(1861),20,terms of contract,(C) REDUCTION OF TERMS TO WRITING The court will consider whether the statement was omitted in a later, formal contract in writing. If the written contract does not incorporate the statement, this would suggest that the parties did not intend the statement to be a contractual term.,Routledge v McKay,1954,当然没写入合同的内容并非绝对地不是合同条款。,Birch v Paramount Estates,(1956),21,terms of contract,(D) SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE/SKILLS The court will consider whether the maker of the statement had specialist knowledge or was in a better position than the other party to verify the statements accuracy.,D,ick Bentley Productions v Arnold Smith Motors 1965;,Oscar,Chess v Williams 1957,22,terms of contract,以上要素中，ABD更为重要。,Case,Bannerman v White 1861(terms of contract),Case,Routledge v Mckay 1954(representation),If the statement is made by a person with special knowledge it is likely to be treated as a contract.,Case D,ick Bentley Productions v Arnold Smith Motors 1965,Case Oscar,Chess v Williams 1957,两案结果不同的关键在于，卖方（the party who make the certain statement）是否为专家(with special knowledge).,23,terms of contract,2.Express terms and implied terms,2.1 express terms 明示条款,In examining a contract, the courts will look first at the terms expressly agreed by the parties.,Case,Scammell v Ouston 1941,Case,Hillas & Co ltd v Arcos Ltd 1932,In this case, The contract was to buy 22,000 standards of softwood of fair specification. The court ruled that fair specification was not sufficiently vague to void the contract, as the companies had done business before and each would have known the others intentions.,24,terms of contract,this case demonstrates that a court has the option to infer terms in a contract from the parties previous dealings, rather than allow a contract to be voided.,Case,Nicolene v Simmons (1953),This case demonstrates how a court may choose to allow a contract to stand, even if parts of it are meaningless. Here a contract contained the words subject to the usual conditions of acceptance. The parties had not done business before, so it was impossible to tell what the usual conditions were. However, the court ruled that this phrase should simply be ignored, and the rest of the contract left to stand.,25,terms of contract,NOTES: 以上案例体现了当代合同法鼓励交易的立法精神。,2.2Implied terms 默示条款；暗示条款,Terms may be implied by the courts, by statute or by custom.,2.2.1 Terms implied by custom,The parties may enter into a contract subject to customs of their trade. Any express term overrides效力优先于 a term which might be implied by custom.,体现了合同自由原则.,Case,Hutton v Warren 1836,Case,Les Affreteurs v Walford 1919,26,terms of contract,2.2.2 terms implied by statute,例如物之瑕疵担保；权利之瑕疵担保.法定条款,即使没有写入合同,当事人也应遵守.,2.2.3 terms implied by the courts,Case,The Moorcock 1889,The court held that honesty of business required an implied undertaking on the part of the wharf owner that it was a reasonably safe place to moor a ship. The wharf owner had broken his implied undertaking and was, therefore, liable in damages to the ship owner.,27,terms of contract,Case,Liverpool City Council v Irwin 1977电梯与楼梯可以正常使用是被告租赁高层公寓的前提条件,是租赁合同得以正常履行的必要条件.,3.conditions and warranties 条件与担保,Contract terms may be further classified as conditions or warranties. The remedies for breach of conditions and warranties are different. 一方违反条件的,另一方有权解除合同并主张损害赔偿,当然他也可以要求继续履行合同并主张损害赔偿;一方违反担保的,另一方无权解除合同,但有权主张损害赔偿.,Read the Key Terms.,Important cases are as follows:,Poussard v Spiers (1876),The obligation to perform from the first night,28,terms of contract,was a condition of the contract. Failure to carry out this term entitled the producers to repudiate Poussards contract.,Bettini v Gye (1876),The promise to appear for rehearsals was a less important term of the contract. The defendant could claim compensation for a breach of warranty but he could not repudiate Bettinis contract.,Schuler v Wickman Machine Tools (1973),The House of Lords held that the parties could not have intended that Schuler should have the right to terminate the agreement if Wickman failed to make one of the obliged number of visits, which in total amounted to nearly 1,500.,29,terms of contract,Classification may depend on the following issues:,(a)statute,(b)case law: 如readiness 适航性,(c)the intention of the parties,Please read the question and answer.,3.1 innominate terms 无名条款;某些条款难以区分为条件或担保，则以违反该条款之后果（对于合同基础与目的造成的危险）来确定其救济方式。,30,terms of contract,4. Exclusion clause 免责条款,The aim of exclusion clause is to exclude liability of one party or restrict it .,The court may determine (a) whether it has been validly incorporated (b) how interpreted.,The principle is to restrain their effect.,Remember that certain case law and statute relate to exclusion clause.,4.1 incorporation of exclusion clause,Uncertainty arises over which terms have actually been incorporated into a contract.,31,terms of contract,4.1.1 contractual documents,When the exclusion clause is contained in a unsigned document.,Case,Chapelton v Barry UDC 1940,The clause was held to be ineffective. The ticket was a mere receipt; its object was that the hirer might produce it to prove that he had paid and to show him how long he might use the chair.,Case,Thompson v LMS Railway 1930,The plaintiff stepped out of a train before it reached the platform and was injured. The court thought that anyone who took the ticket was conscious that there were some,32,terms of contract,conditions and it was obvious that the company did not provide for the price of an excursion ticket what it provided for the usual fare. Having regard to the condition of education in this country, it was irrelevant that the plaintiff could not read.,本案的关键在于：铁路公司已经以合理的方式提醒旅客注意车票背面的免责条款，至于原告无法阅读并不影响案件的裁决，因为不能要求公司预见到这一点。,33,terms of contract,4.1.2 signed contracts,If the plaintiff signs a document having contractual effect containing an exclusion clause, it will automatically form part of the contract, and he is bound by its terms. This is so even if he has not read the document and regardless of whether he understands it or not.,Case,LEstrange v Graucob,1934,However, even a signed document can be rendered wholly or partly ineffective if the other party has made a misrepresentation as to its effect.,34,terms of contract,Case,Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co,1951 In this case it was held that the cleaners could not escape liability for damage to the material of the dress by relying on the exemption clause because its scope had been misrepresented by the defendants assistant.,4.1.3 unsigned contracts,The exclusion clause may be contained in an unsigned document such as a ticket or a notice. In such a case, reasonable and sufficient notice of the existence of the exclusion clause should be given.,e.g. Case,Thompson v LMS Railway 1930,35,terms of contract,For this purpose requirements to be satisfied:,(i) The clause must be contained in a contractual document, ie one which the reasonable person would assume to contain contractual terms, and not in a document which merely acknowledges payment such as a receipt.,(ii) The existence of the exclusion clause must be brought to the notice of the other party before or at the time the contract is entered into.,36,terms of contract,(iii) Reasonably sufficient notice of the clause must be given. What is reasonable is a question of fact depending on all the circumstances and the situation of the parties. The courts have repeatedly held that attention should be drawn to the existence of exclusion clauses by clear words on the front of any document delivered to the plaintiff, eg For conditions, see back.,37,terms of contract,Case,Olley v Marlborough Court,1949,Case Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking,1971,The exceptions: previous dealing,Even where there has been insufficient notice, an exclusion clause may nevertheless be incorporated where there has been a previous consistent course of dealing between the parties on the same terms.,Case,J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw 1956,38,terms of contract,In this case It was held that although the defendants did not receive the document containing the exclusion clause until after the conclusion of the contract, the clause had been incorporated into the contract as a result of a regular course of dealings between the parties over the years. The defendant had received similar documents on previous occasions and he was now bound by the terms contained in them.,39,terms of contract,However, the previous dealing should be consistent. As against a private consumer, a considerable number of past transactions may be required.,Case,Hollier v Rambler Motors 1972,It was held that there was not a regular course of dealing, therefore the defendants were liable. The court referred to Hardwick Game Farm v Suffolk Agricultural Poultry Producers Association (1969) in which more than 100 notices had been given over a period of three years, which did amount to a course of dealing.,40,terms of contract,4.1.4 onerous term 过于苛刻的条款；对另一方责任过重的条款；应提醒对方注意。,Case,Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto Ltd 1988,Interfoto had not taken reasonable steps to bring such an unusual, unreasonable and onerous term to Stilettos notice.,Notes: this case related to unsigned contract since the clause was contained in the delivery note.,41,terms of contract,4.2 interpretation of exclusion clauses,一般的做法是，法院对模糊的免责条款的解释应不利于其提供者（contra proferentem rule）。但法院并非必须这样做，因为只有当免责条款存在多个合理的解释时，法院才可采用那个对提供者不利的解释。只存在一个合理的解释时，只要采用该解释，无论其对提供者是否有利。,一般来说，免除或限制责任只能通过明确的用词来实现。,4.2.1 the “main purpose” rule在解释免责条款时，法院应推定该条款的目的并不在于损害合同的主,42,terms of contract,要目的，也就是说其解释不能与合同的主要目的相违背。合同的主要目的的效力要优于免责条款。,Glynn v Margetson 1893,Carriers agreed to take oranges from Malaga to Liverpool under a contract which allowed the ship to call at any port in Europe or Africa. The ship sailed 350 miles east from Malaga to pick up another cargo. When it arrived in Liverpool the oranges had gone bad. The defendants attempted to rely on an exclusion clause.,43,terms of contract,The House of Lords held that the main purpose was to deliver a perishable cargo of oranges to Liverpool and in the light of this the wide words of the clause could be ignored and the ship could only call at ports en route. Therefore the carriers were liable.,44,terms of contract,4.2.2 Fundamental breach,Fundamental breach, sometimes known as a repudiatory breach, is a,breach,so fundamental that it permits the aggrieved party to terminate performance of the contract, in addition to entitling that party to sue for damages.,Case,Photo Productions v Securicor Transport 1980,In this case, At the Court of Appeal,Lord Denning,held that the doctrine of fundamental breach did apply, and that Securicor was liable. House of Lords,45,terms of contract,overturned Denning and found that the exclusion clause could be relied upon. Lords Wilberforce explicitly rejected Dennings application of the doctrine of fundamental breach and opted for a rule of construction approach. Exemption clauses are to be interpreted the same as any other term regardless of whether a breach has occurred. The scope of the exclusion is determined by examining the construction of the contract. On the facts, Wilberforce found that the exclusion clause precluded all liability even when harm was caused intentionally.,46,terms of contract,5. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977,The basic purpose,of UCTA 1977 is to restrict the extent to which liability in a contract can be excluded for breach of contract and negligence, largely by reference to a reasonableness requirement, but in some cases by a specific prohibition (being void), in order to protect consumers.,When considering the validity of exclusion clauses the courts have had to strike a balance between freedom to contract and the need to protect the public.,47,terms of contract,The scope of UCTA,Two techniques to control exclusion clauses: being void; reasonableness test 该法将免责条款分为两类：一类直接规定其无效；另一类要视其是否通过合理性检测。,The main provisions can be summarized: three kinds,5.1 clauses which are void,5.2 clauses which subject to a test of reasonableness,5.3 exclusion of liability for negligence(s2),48,terms of contract,* Under s2(1) no one acting in the course of a business can exclude or restrict his liability in negligence for death or personal injury by means of a term in a contract or by way of notice.* Under s2(2) liability for negligence for any other kind of loss or damage can be excluded provided the term or notice satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.,5.4 sta