2、-国际商事合同法案例讲解大全

更新时间:2023-07-05 00:01:04 阅读: 评论:0

2、-国际商事合同法案例讲解大全

2、国际商事合同法案例讲解大全
邹岿 编
第二章  国际商事合同法
第一节  合同法概述
自我swot分析第二节  合同的成立
1、吉卜逊诉曼彻斯特市议会案(Gibson v.Manchester City Counci1  1979)
1970年9月,保守党占多数议席的英国曼彻斯特市议会决定出让该议会房子,写信给原告吉卜逊称:“市议会有可能出让房子,价格约2725英镑,如你想买的话,请正式写份申请。”原告按要求写好申请,并回了信。正在此时,市议会重新选举,工党占了上风,决定不出让房
凝重子了。原告遂要求法院强制执行。法院认为市议会信中的“如你想买的话,请正式写份申请”属于要约邀请,原告的申请属于要约,市议会后来没有接受要约,所以没有意思表示一致,也就没有合同。原告因此败诉。
美的句子
2、林肯被刺国防部悬赏缉凶纠纷案
林肯( Abraham Lincoln,1809-1865)是美国第16届总统。林肯被暗杀后,有三个犯罪嫌疑人,其中两人被逮捕,剩下一人怎么也找不到。为此,国防部悬赏25万美元查找这个嫌疑犯。原来,这个人跑到意大利当兵去了。隐姓埋名许多年之后,有一天,该人酒后吹牛,把当年暗杀林肯的事说了出来。听到该话的意大利人大惊,就把消息通过意大利官方告知美国国防部。由于长期没有音信,美国国防部已经撤回了这个悬赏。但意大利方面并不知道。后来,通风报信的人要求美国支付这25万美元的悬赏。美国本土撤回的悬赏,在不知情的意大利人看来并未被撤回,后来起诉到法院。最终双方达成妥协,美国国防部给了意大利报信人10万美元了结此案。
征兵体检要求
3、纽曼诉斯奇夫案(Newman v. Schiff)  1985
一个名叫斯奇夫的人,自称反税收者,在美国哥伦比亚广播公司(CBSl凌晨3:00-4:00的一档夜间电视节目中,声称联邦政府并未要求美国公民申报所得税,并说:“如果有人能从联邦税法中查到公民必须申报所得税的规定,并马上打电话给本档夜间节目,我将付给他100 000美元。”哥伦比亚广播公司的早间新闻转播了夜间节目的这则报道。
一个名叫纽曼的律师看后,查了联邦税法,确认联邦税法要求公民必须申报所得税,随即打电话给哥伦比亚广播公司,要求得到100 000美元,CBS把这一要求转给斯奇夫,斯奇夫拒绝支付。纽曼上法院告斯奇夫违约,法院认为斯奇夫的要约是有时间期限的,即当天夜里3:00-4:00的那档节目,在这期间若有承诺,合同遂告成立,斯奇夫就要支付100 000美元,过了这段时间,要约失效,无合同可言,原告败诉。
且醉非觞4、斯蒂克诉马立克案案(Stilk  v. Myrick) 1809
船方雇用一批海员作一次往返于伦敦与波罗的海的航行,途中两名船员开了小差,船长答应其他船员,如果他们努力把船开回伦敦,他将把那两名海员的工资分给他们,事后船长食言,船员到法院起诉,法院认为船长的允诺是不能执行的,因为缺少对价,理由是,船员在开船时,已经承担了义务,答应在航行中遇到一般普通意外情况应尽力而为,有两名
船员开小差属普通意外情况,余下的船员依据原来签订的雇佣合同有义务尽力把船安全开回目的港,简而言之,凡属原来合同已经存在的义务,不能作为一项新的允诺对价。
5、蒙特夫特诉斯考特案(Mountford  v.Scott)1971
被告答应以1美元的价格把房子卖给原告,但后来被告反悔了,声称1美元是个不充分对价,法院认为对价并不要求对等或充分,合同能否执行取决于有没有对价,而不是对价充分与否,对价是否充分应由双方当事人在订约时自行考虑决定。被告败诉。
只有在欺诈、误会、不正当影响等案件中,法院才会把对价不充分作为证明欺诈、误会、不正当影响的一种证据,当事人才可以要求解除合同。
6、哈特立诉鲍生比案( Hartlay  v. Ponsonby)1857
在本案中,1/3的船员开小差,船长答应分他们的工资给剩下的船员,到了目的港,船长反悔了,法院认为这种情况与前述斯蒂克诉马立克案中的情况不一样,本案船员走了1/3,已非普通意外事件,这时船员继续开船属履行了合同以外的义务,应视为对价,应得到额外工资。最终被告败诉。
7、葛莱斯布劳克诉葛莱摩根案( Glasbrook  v. Glamorgance) 1925
被告是个煤矿业主,担心罢工的矿工会破坏煤矿设施,遂要求警察驻扎矿区,警察没同意,认为按常规的巡逻足以对付这一情况。被告又答应付警察驻扎费。后被告拒绝支付费用,法院认为警察的驻扎超出了常规的公共义务即巡逻,应视为对价,被告败诉。肺气肿症状
8、Hamer  V. Sidway
On March 20,1869,William E. Story Sr. had promid his nephew, William E. Story Jr. $5 000 if his nephew would abstain from drinking alcohol,using tobacco,and playing cards or billiard for money until the nephew reached 21 years of age. Story Jr.  accepted the promi of his uncle and did refrain from the prohibited acts until he turned the agreed-upon age of 21. After celebrating his 21st birthday on January 31,1875,Story Jr. wrote to his uncle and requested the promid  $5 000.
The uncle responded to his nephew in a letter dated February 6,1875 in which he told his nephew that he would fulfill his promi. Story Sr. also stated that he woul
d prefer to wait until his nephew was older before actually handing over the ( then)  extremely large sum of money ( according to an online inflation calculator, $ 5 000 in 1890 would be worth approximately  $ 118 000).The Sr. also declared in his leter that the money owed to his nephew would accrue interest while he held it on his nephews behalf. The Jr. connted to his uncles wishes and agreed that the money would remain with his uncle until Jr. became older.
William E. Story Sr. died on January 29,1887 without having transferred any of the money owed to his nephew. Story Jr. had meanwhile transferred the $ 5 000 financial interest to his wife;Story Jr. s wife had later transferred this financial interest to Louisa Hamer on assignment. The Sr. s estate executor refud to grant Hamer the money,believing there was no binding contract due to a lack of consideration. As a result,Hamer sued the estates executor,Franklin Sidway.青草热舞
Opinion of the court
The Court of Appeals reverd and directed that the judgment of the trial court be a
ffirmed,with costs payable out of the estate. Judge Alton Parker (later Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals) ,writing for a unanimous court,wrote that the forbearance of legal rights by Story Jr. namely the connsual abstinence from drinking liquor,using tobacco,swearing,and playing cards or billiards for money until he should become 21 years of age constituted consideration in exchange for the promi given by Story Sr. . Becau the forbearance was valid consideration given by a party(Story Jr. ) in exchange for a promi to perform by another party ( Story Sr.) ,the 金刚狼3剧情解析promi was contractually obligated to fulfill the promi.

本文发布于:2023-07-05 00:01:04,感谢您对本站的认可!

本文链接:https://www.wtabcd.cn/fanwen/fan/89/1068090.html

版权声明:本站内容均来自互联网,仅供演示用,请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系,我们将在24小时内删除。

标签:法院   要求   船员   认为   奇夫   被告   悬赏   原告
相关文章
留言与评论(共有 0 条评论)
   
验证码:
推荐文章
排行榜
Copyright ©2019-2022 Comsenz Inc.Powered by © 专利检索| 网站地图