F4学习笔记.docx

F4学习笔记.docx

《F4学习笔记.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《F4学习笔记.docx（19页珍藏版）》请在冰点文库上搜索。

F4学习笔记

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.Capac