学习この友🧑‍🤝‍🧑🧑‍🤝‍🧑: case
显示标签为“case”的博文。显示所有博文
显示标签为“case”的博文。显示所有博文

2022年5月13日星期五

Case business law chapter 2.3,2.4

2.3: Effect of contract

Voidable Contract

1.Coercion (Case Kersamal S/O Letchman Das V Valiappa Chettiar )

💜Sec 15 of the CA 1950 – coercion is the committing, or threatening to commit any act, forbidden by the Penal Code, or the unlawful detaining or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.

👀Fact:财产的转移是根据苏丹的命令进行的,该命令是在日本占领马来亚期间在两名日本军官的行为逼迫下发出的。

👀Held:contract is voidable(可以选择是否要作废)

2.Undue Influence (Case Inche Noriah V Shaik Allie Bin Omar )

💜Sec 16(1) of CA 1950 – a contract is said to be induced by “undue influence” where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.
💜Sec 16(2) (a) of CA 1950 – where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other, or where he stands in a fiduciary relation to the other.
💜Sec 16 (2) (b) of CA 1950 – where he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age, illness or mental or bodily distress.
💜Sec 16 (3) (a) of CA 1950 – where a person who is in a position to dominate the will of another, enters into a contract with him, and the transaction appears, on the face of it or on the evidence adduced, to be unconscionable, the burden of proving that the contract was not induced by undue influence shall lie upon the person in a position to dominate the will of the other.
💜Sec 20 of the CA 1950 -  when consent to an agreement is caused by undue influence, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused.

👀Fact:据称,一名侄子对他年迈的姨妈用undue influence让姨妈转财产给他。一名律师起草了赠与契约,律师没有证明这几乎是姨妈的全部遗产,也没有建议她实现结果的更好方法是通过意愿。
👀Held:可撤销

3.Fraud (Case Letchemy Arumugam v Annamaly )

💜Sec 17 of CA 1950 – fraud includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his convenience, or by his agent, with intent to deceive another party thereto or his agent, or to induce him to enter into a contract.

👀Fact: Letchemy Arumugam是一名不识字的印度妇女,是一名橡胶采伐者,Letchemy Arumugam对Annamaly在波德申港的土地有虚假或欺诈性的虚假陈述为由,向Annamaly声称声明并撤销了她签署的销售协议和其他文件。Letchemy Arumugam要求赔偿损失和利息. Annamaly是一家房屋开发商,不愿意赔偿,并就具体性能和损害赔偿进行了反诉。

👀Held:法院允许索赔,因为Letchemy Arumugam已经证明Annamaly的欺诈性虚假陈述。

4.Mispresentation (Case Bisset V Wilkinson )

👀Fact:Bisset和Wikinson购买了一块农田作为养羊场。Bisset问Wikinson,这片土地上能养多少只羊。Wikinson估计它将运载2000只羊。估计结果证明是错误的,Bisset提起了虚假陈述诉讼。

👀Held:该声明只是一种意见,而不是事实,因此不是可起诉的虚假陈述。因此,索赔人的诉讼没有成功。

5..Mistake (Case Raffles V Wichelhaus )

💜Sec 21 of the CA 1950 – where both the parties to an agreement are under a mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement, the agreement is void.

👀Fact:Raffles同意出售Wichelhaus的 125包苏拉特棉花,用船运去Peerless from Bombay。Wichelhaus相信这批货物将于10月从运抵Peerless from Bombay。然而,Raffles并不知道这些船只几时到达。当12月的棉花到达Peerless,Raffles已经准备好并愿意将棉花交付给Wichelhaus,但Wichelhaus拒绝接受棉花,也拒绝支付Raffles。

👀Held:合同无效,因为没有共识

Void Contract

1. Case Wrigglesworth V Wilson Anthony

👀Fact: Wilson Anthony是一名律师,与Wrigglesworth的律师事务所签订了服务协议。该协议第8条规定,Wilson Anthony在合同终止2年后,若要在Kota Bharu的5英里范围内工作必须要得到Wrigglesworth的书面同意。Wilson Anthony于12月7日停止与Wrigglesworth合作,并于12月31日在新公司开始新工作,但是,他没有征求Wrigglesworth的书面同意,Wrigglesworth也没有给予任何同意。因此,Wrigglesworth起诉Wilson Anthony要求禁令,限制Wilson Anthony执业或开展业务。

👀Held: 该协议无效,因为没有人有权被限制从事合法的职业,贸易或业务。
2. Case Manang Lim Native Sdn Bhd V Manang Selaman
👀Fact:非本地人试图在本地土地上进行交易,这违反了砂拉越土地法,除非交易得到Yang di-Pertua Negeri Sarawak的授权。

👀Held:违反砂拉越土地法的协议是出于非法考虑而签订的,因此是无效的协议。
3. Case Tunku Kamariah Aminah Maimunah Iskandariah Bte Sultan Iskandar V Dato James Ling Beng King
👀Fact: 本案涉及购买股份的协议。根据《银行法》第23A条,如果购买的股份超过银行总股份的5%,则需要财政部长的同意。Tunku Kamariah Aminah Maimunah Iskandariah Bte Sultan Iskandar没有获得财政部长的同意。

👀Held: 该协议无效,理由是它违反了公共政策,因为财政部长的事先批准没有按要求获得。

4. Case Pearce V Brooks

👀Fact:Pearce 同意为 Brooks 雇用一名妓女,因为Pearce知道Brooks将用它来做生意。Brooks没有支付帮忙雇佣费用,Pearce声称应付款项。

👀 Held: 法院裁定,P未能就claim hire charge,因为该协议是非法且不道德的。

5. Case Aroomogum V Lim Ah Hang

👀Fact: Arromogum借钱给Lim Ah Hang,目的是经营一家妓院. Lim Ah Hang之后不愿还钱

👀Held:Aroomogum无法从Lim Ah Hang那里收回他的钱,因为该协议是非法的且不道德的。

6. Case Bettini V GYE

👀Fact:Bettini同意在伦敦赛季为Gye演唱2周。Bettini还同意在音乐会前至少6天到达伦敦,但她生病了,只在音乐会前2天到达伦敦。GYE拒绝使用Bettini。
👀Held: 关于排练的条款不是一个条件,也没有触及合同的根源。因此,GYE无权解除合同

2.4: Discharge of contract

1.Discharge by performance (Case Bolton V Mahadeva)

👀Fact:Bolton帮Mahadeva安装了一个中央供暖系统,耗资560美元。然而,住户Mahadeva在装置中发现了一些缺陷,Bolton拒绝修复它。Mahadeva维修后,维修费用为174美元。因此,Mahadeva拒绝支付560美元

👀Held:Bolton无权获得任何金钱,而Mahadeva则从合同中解除。

2.Discharge by frustration 

💜Sec 57(1) – an agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void.
💜Sec 57(2) – a contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful

a) Case Taylor V Caldwell

👀Fact:Taylor租了一个音乐厅,目的是举办4场盛大的音乐会。Taylor在组织音乐会方面花费了大量精力和精力,然而,在第一场音乐会前一周,音乐厅被意外火灾摧毁。Taylor试图以未能提供大厅为由提起违约诉讼,并要求Caldwell赔偿损失。

👀Held:Taylor不能和Caldwell索赔。由于火灾发生得无法控制,合同受挫,无法履行合同。

b) Case Krell V Henry

👀Fact:Henry同意租用Krell的公寓观看Edward VII的加冕游行。国王生病了,游行被取消.

👀Held:合同被解除,租金不可退还

c) Case Condor V The Barron Knight LTD

👀Fact:Condor,16岁,是Barron Knight LTD乐队的鼓手,合同期为5年。他的职责是每周7个晚上演出。Condor生病了,他的医生命令他每周只能玩4个晚上。乐队随后终止了他的合同。

👀Held:P因为生病不可能继续履行合同的责任。合同被适当地终止。

3.Discharge by breach (Case Tan Hock Chan V Kho Teck Seng )

👀Fact: Kho Teck Seng是Tan Hock Chen雇用的建筑承包商,负责建造某些商店,Tan Hock Chen 对Kho Teck Seng 是根据进度付款工资。由于土地占用者要求租赁权,Kho Teck Seng无法完成最后一块地块的工作。

👀Held:Tan Hock Seng未能将土地的有效占有权交给Kho Teck Seng构成违约,Kho Teck Seng有权终止合同




 







2022年5月8日星期日

Case chapter 2.2 Case of business law

 💜Offer是Section 2(a)-When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtain the assent of that other to the act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal

1.Case Boulton V Jones

Fact:Jones 和第三方买货。他已经给对方offer了,可是第三方把货卖给了Boulton。Boulton知道后把货转卖给Jones。当Jones知道这个货是从Boulton买的而不是第三方,Jones拒绝支付给Boulton。Boulton因此上诉Jones

Held:Jones不需要支付给Boulton。这是因为Jones和Boulton没有offer and acceptance,他是和第三方有offer (specific offer

How an offer could be made?

💜Section 9- So far as the proposal or acceptance of any promise is made in words, the promise is said to be express. So far as the proposal or acceptance is made otherwise than in words, the promise is said to be implied

2.Case Guthing V Lynn

Fact: Lynn 跟 Guthing买了一匹马,如果这匹马可以带来好运, Lynn将支付Guthing额外的$5,可是Lynn并没有支付$5给 Guthing
Held:带来好运 这个词太含糊不清,因此此合约是void的

💜Section 3 -the communication of proposals, the acceptance of proposals, and the revocation of proposals and acceptance, respectively, are deemed to be made by any act or omission of the party proposing, accepting or revoking, by which he intends to communicate the proposal, acceptance or revocation, or which has the effect of communicating it

💜Section4(1)-the communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made 

3.Case Taylor V Laird

Fact: Caption Laird在一次的航海期间退休了,另外一个正规的caption(Taylor)为他提供剩余的服务。(Taylor没有寻求Laird的同意)。事后,Taylor向Laird claim赔偿损失。

Held:Laird不需要偿还Taylor,因为彼此之间没有acceptance,offer是no valid的。Laird没有机会拒绝或同意

ITT

1.Advertisement (Case Coelho V The Public Service Commission)

Fact: Coelho从报纸看到了招聘广告,去面试,Public Service Commission同意了面试结果。之后,Public Service Commission尝试毁约,认为这是ITT 不是offer

Held:这是一个valid的contract。因为Public Service Commission和Coelho有了offer,因此不能随便毁约

2. Advertisement (Case Harrison V Nickerson)

Fact:Nickerson 登广告表示拍卖会有A产品。Harrison是为了A产品才到拍卖会的。但是到了拍卖会的时候,Harrison发现没有A产品。Harrison要和Nickerson claim赔偿

Held:在这种情况,没有promise,没有条件,广告只是ITT不是offer,所以只是ITT

3. Self-service outlet (Case Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain V Boots Cash Chemist)

Fact:Boost Cash Chemist介绍self-service system是顾客从shelf拿货品,然后在counter结账。任何有关毒品的货物,pharmacist就要避免卖(要阻止transaction). Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain 提起诉讼,以确定该制度在药品销售方面的合法性

Held:Good on the shelf 是ITT 不是 offer,所以是可行的

4.Auction (Case Payne V Cave)

Fact:Cave先生在拍卖会以最高价格把Payne的商品标下。可是呢,在那个拍卖者
敲hammer前改变主意了。Payne随后提起诉讼

Held:Cave 可以取消这场拍卖,因为还没有敲hammer,offer还没有made。

5.Exhibition of the shop window (Case Fisher V Bell)

Fact:Bell把flick knife展示在商店的窗口,并且贴上价格。根据法律,售卖flick knife是刑事犯罪。

Held:product展示在shop的是ITT 不是offer,所以不属于刑事犯罪

💜Section 5(1) - A proposal may be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer but not afterwards

6. Revocation by communication (Case Byrne V Vien Tian Hoven)

Fact: Vien Tian Hoven 卖货给Byrne,(在10月1日寄信),在10月8日before acceptance)Byrne寄出一封revoke offer的信,但是Vien Tian Hoven 在10月11日寄出acceptance letter。Vien Tian Hoven在 10月20日才收到revoke的信

Held:Revocation must be communicated

7. Revocation by counter offer (Case Hyde V Wrench)

Fact: Wrench 在6月6日卖 Hyde land for $ 1000。在6月8日,Hyde 做了一个counter offer用$950买下那个land。 Wrench拒绝以$950卖给 Hyde。Hyde再次以$1000的价格和Wrench买land。Wrench拒绝。Hyde提起诉讼。

Held:Wrench有权不卖给Hyde。当counter offer made,original contract就不valid了。新的counter offer还没有被accept。

Acceptance


💜Section 2(b)of the Contract Act 1950- When the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted: a proposal, when accepted, becomes a promise.

How to made an acceptance?
💜Section 9-So far as the acceptance of any promise is made in words, the acceptance is said to be expressed. If the acceptance is made other than in words, the acceptance is said to be implied.

💜Section 7(a) of the Contract Act 1950-Acceptance must be absolute and must conform exactly with the terms of the offer. If the offeree is required to perform an act or to pay a sum of money, the act must be done accordingly.

💜Section 7(b)of the Contract Act 1950-The offeree can communicate his acceptance in any usual manner, so long as the manner he used is the one which do not cause any delay. However, if there is a made of acceptance prescribed by the offeror in the offer, it must be followed in order to make a valid acceptance

1.Case Felthouse V Bindley

Fact: Felthouse 写信给 Bindley要买他的马,他表示如果我没有听到任何有关马的消息,我就会以$40把这匹马当成我的。 Bindley有打算把马卖给Felthouse但是没有回复他。Bindley有和拍卖者沟通不卖这匹马,但是拍卖者不小心把马卖了。 Felthouse对 Bindley 提起诉讼,因为把Felthouse的财产转移

Held:这个合同不成立,因为Bindley没有accept,因此Felthouse败诉

2.Acceptance must be made within a reasonable time (Case Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Ltd V Montefiore)

Section 6(b)-an offer is revoked by the lapse of time prescribed in the proposal for its acceptance, or if no time so prescribed, by the lapse of a reasonable time, without communication of acceptance

Fact: Montefiore 在6月8日applied Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Ltd股份,期间一直不受理。在11月23日,Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Ltd接受Montefiore applied的股份。可是,Montefiore不愿意付款,Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Ltd提出诉讼,Montefiore违约

Held:Montefiore 有权不付款,因为他们之间没有合约,因为没有在合理的时间acceptance

3.Case Ignatius V Bell

Fact:Bell 卖estate给Ignatius, Ignatius必须在8月20日前给acceptance。 8月16日的时候,Ignatius寄出acceptance的信,因为Bell不在,所以8月25号Bell才去拿信。Ignatius以specific performance提出诉讼并有权购买land

Held:Ignatius有权购买土地,因为他已经在8月20日前寄出accept的信了

4.Case Adam V Lindsell

Fact:9月2号,Lindsell 卖wool给发展商Adam。Lindsell 预测Adam会在8号前给acceptance。由于Lindsell写错地址,因此在9月5号才给Adam发过acceptance。当天下午,Lindsell给Adam发acceptance,可是Lindsell在9月9号才收到acceptance。Lindsell在9月8日的时候把货卖给第三方了。

Held:Adam的acceptance是有效的,因为他在合理的时间给acceptance

5.Acceptance subject to contract (Case Low Kar Yit & Ors V Mohamed Isa & Anor)

Fact: Mohamed Isa& Anor打算和Low Kar Yit的agent买一块地(需经过双方起草同意的正式合同,并得到法律批准) 。P的agent愿意卖但是Mohamed Isa& Anor不愿意签agreement。Low Kar Yit提出诉讼表示Mohamed Isa&Anor违约

Held:该选择权是以双方当事人商定的正式合同为条件,因此双方当事人之间没有订立合同,所以没有违约

6.Case Dunmore V Alexander

Fact: Betty Alexander受雇于Lady Agnew。她写信给Dunmore,提供Betty Alexander服务。Dunmore通过邮寄方式接受了这个提议,后来又寄了一封信撤销了接受。虽然Lady Agnew在撤销前收到了接受,但她同时将两人转交给了Betty。Betty因违反合同而提起诉讼

Held:在这种情况下,允许撤销涉因为同时到达两条消息。然而,接受可以通过到达要约的信函或在接受信之前撤销

Consideration

1. Natural Love and Affection (Case Re Tan Soh Sim V Tan Saw Keow)

Fact:Tan Soh Sim 死了,他打算把遗产留给4个养子。Tan Soh Sim的近亲满足他的遗愿(没有立遗嘱的情况下)。他的近亲写个合同把财产留给4个养子。

Held:养子是与他们的父母有关系,和Tan Soh Sim的亲戚无关,这个合同是无效的,因为consider as natural love and affection

2.Consideration need not be adequate (Case Phang Swee Kim V Beh I Hock)

Fact: Phang Swee Kim同意以RM500把地卖给 Beh I Hock (实际上这个地的市价大于rm500)Phang Swee Kim之后拒绝售卖。

Held:agreement是有效的就算consideration不平等。有consideration就可以了

3.Consideration can move from any other person (Case Venkata Chinnaya V Verikatara Maya)

Fact:姐姐同意每年支付RS653给弟弟(没有consideration的承诺),但是在同一天,妈妈给姐姐一些land让她持续付给弟弟。之后她没有支付给弟弟,他的弟弟提起诉讼。

Held:姐姐必须支付给弟弟,虽然她没有和弟弟有任何consideration,但妈妈提供了consideration

4.Consideration must have value unless it is an obligation to do so (Case Collin V Godefroy)

Fact:Godefroy 答应 Collin要付她钱如果Collin作她的证人。不久后,Collin收到了法庭的传唤做证人,Godefroy 拒绝支付。Collin提出诉讼要求payment

Held:Godefroy有权不支付,这是身为公民责任

5.Waiver of Consideration (Case Kerpa Singh V Bariam Singh )

Fact:Bariam Singh欠Kerpa Singh 多过$8000. Bariam Singh的孩子给Kerpa Signh$4000的支票settle全部债务。Kerpa Signh没有回应,但是他去兑换现金。Kerpa Signh要讨回剩下的钱,因此Kerpa Singh提出诉讼

Held:Kerpa Signh不能和Bariam Singh讨回剩下的钱,因为Kerpa Signh用行动同意了Bariam Singh孩子的意思。如果Kerpa Signh想要$8000,Kerpa Signh不应该去兑换cash,应该拒绝。

Intention to create legal reation

A.Domestic Arrangement
1.Case Balfour V Balfour

Fact: 丈夫在国外工作答应会给妻子钱。承诺的时候,夫妻关系良好。之后婚姻关系出问题,丈夫不愿意支付钱给妻子,妻子提出诉讼。

Held:不成功,因为当时关系良好,没有intend to to be legally bound

2.Case Merrit V Merrit

Fact:Mr Merrit和他的妻子有个联名的房子,Mr Merrit之后找小三,抛弃妻子和小三同居。他和妻子有个约定,每个月给妻子$40,然后妻子继续一起付房子,房子付完后,把房子转给妻子。Mr Merrit不愿意转,妻子提出诉讼

Held:agreement is binding。因为当时关系已经破裂了,intend to to be legally bound

B.Commercial Agreement
1.Case Edwards V Skyways LTD

Fact: Edward是为Skyways LTD工作的航空公司飞行员。Skyways LTD说,如果Edward撤回对公司养老基金的缴款,公司将向他支付等价物。Edward同意,并撤回了他的贡献。然后,公司遇到了财务困难,没有向他支付付款。

Held:该协议是在商业背景下达成的,这提出了一个强有力的假设,即该协议具有法律约束力。Edwards 可以claim

Capacity

💜Section 10 of CA 1950- all agreement are contract if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be void
an agreement is enforceable as a valid  contract of the party to the contract are competent 

💜Section 11 of CA 1950- Every person is competent who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject,and who is of sound mind, and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject

1.Case Mohori bibee V Dhurmodas Ghose

Fact:被告(未成年人)将几套房子的抵押贷款交给了放债人(Brahmo Dutt)。随后,答辩人由其母亲和监护人作为下一个朋友对Brahmo Dutt提起诉讼,称答辩人在执行抵押时未成年,并要求宣布抵押无效和无效。

Held:合同无效

2. Case Tan Hee Juan V Teh Boon Keat

Fact: 一个婴儿代表D执行土地转让。随后对转让进行了登记。然后,P向法院申请撤销转让的命令。

Held– 法院宣布转让无效。

3.Contract for scholarship(Contract for necessaries) (Case Government of Malaysia V Gurcharan Singh& ORS)

💜Section 4 of the CA 1950 - not with standing anything to the contrary contained in the principal Act, no scholarship agreement shall be invalidated on the ground that the scholar entering into such agreement is not the age of majority

Fact:政府借Gurcharan Singh &ORS RM11500 for education。当时他还未成年,Gurcharan Singh& ORS 拒绝还钱。政府告他们

Held:Gurcharan Singh&ORS 必须还钱

4. Unsound mind (Case Matthews V Baxter)

💜Section 12(1) of the CA 1950 - a person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and if forming a rational judgement as to effect upon his interest

Fact:Baxter喝醉了,在拍卖会上同意购买房产。一旦他清醒,他决定与希望确认合同。然而,他随后想取消合同,他提出他在拍卖期间喝醉了。

Held - Baxter在清醒后确认合同,因此他取消合同并提出他喝醉了的行动不适用。

Certainty

1. Case Karuppan Chetiy V Suah Thian

Fact:租$35 for as long as he wish

Held:agreement是void的因为uncertainty (不确定性)


LIANG分享处

       分享 处 今天我来分享我的 diploma civil engineering(DKA) 学习经验与一些经历 我在这个学期里有拿的科目有 8 科 +1 co-curriculum (共 19   credit hours/19 积分)如图: 注明: 第一与第二科目...