如果這都不算愛(ài)

1、Contract Law Cases· Ailsa Craig Fishing Co Ltd v Malvern Fishing Co (1983) negligence by security firm excluded by limitation clause被告提供安保服務(wù)，當(dāng)原告的船停在港口時(shí)，因?yàn)楸桓娴氖韬?，原告的船沉沒(méi)了，合同稱(chēng)被告not be liable for any amount exceeding £1,000 in any one claim或者not be liable for more than £10,000 in any twelv

2、e month period，法庭認(rèn)為這個(gè)合同里的限制責(zé)任適用。· Balfour v Balfour (1919) domestic arrangements are presumed not to be contracts一對(duì)夫妻住在不同的地方，丈夫每月給妻子寄30塊錢(qián)，后來(lái)他停止給她錢(qián)，法院判丈夫無(wú)罪，這是個(gè)domestic arrangement, because the parties did not intend that they should be attended by legal consequences. At the time the agreement wa

3、s made the court did not consider that the marriage had broken down.· Barry v Davies (2000) In an auction without reserve, there is a unilateral offer to accept the highest bidD是個(gè)拍賣(mài)師，再一次without reserve的拍賣(mài)中拒絕了出價(jià)最高的B. Court held D和owner 沒(méi)有contract, 但是D和B之間有一個(gè)collateral contract(附屬協(xié)定)，而D的這個(gè)行為就是bre

4、ach contract.· Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool BC(1990) requests to tender are invitations to treatD招標(biāo)管理航班，標(biāo)書(shū)不能遲noon on 17 March 1983，原告post了標(biāo)書(shū)at 11am on 17 March 1983,本來(lái)信會(huì)被collected在noon,結(jié)果沒(méi)有。D沒(méi)有考慮原告的標(biāo)書(shū)，覺(jué)得他遲交了。· Butler Machine Tool Co v Ex-Cell-O Corporation (1979) battle of the

5、 forms: a counter-offer with standard terms is not an acceptanceSeller的contract里寫(xiě)了一個(gè)條款，Buyer給Seller了一個(gè)offer，這里沒(méi)有那個(gè)條款，Seller簽署了并給了Buyer. Court held Seller接受了 offer, buyer got the last shot.如果雙方都有一個(gè)well-drafted standard terms,很有可能最后就判no contact exists.· Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) offer cannot b

6、e withdrawn after it has been accepted; postal acceptance occurs on posting1號(hào)時(shí)，V給B一個(gè)offer；8號(hào)時(shí)，V寫(xiě)信說(shuō)要revocation；11號(hào)時(shí)，B收到offer當(dāng)天電話告知accept；15號(hào)時(shí)，又post了一封信accept；20號(hào)收到V的refuse信. Court held在11號(hào)B告知V的時(shí)候合同成立，在已經(jīng)acceptance的情況寫(xiě)，撤回是invalid的.· Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893)using patent remedy deeme

7、d acceptance of unilateral offer公司賣(mài)smoke ball,說(shuō)聞了就不感冒，一老太太聞了，卻感冒了，她認(rèn)為公司應(yīng)該按廣告上說(shuō)的給她200塊錢(qián)賠償，公司不給。法庭判老太太贏，Caebolic 有intend to bound。同時(shí) offers made to the whole world are perfectly valid.· Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees Ltd (1947) promissory estoppel prevents lack of consideration be

8、ing a bar to contract formation在1939年，plaintiff從defendant那里租了一些flats，他們約好的租金是2500，后來(lái)發(fā)生戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，租來(lái)的房子都空閑了，所以plaintiff沒(méi)有錢(qián)付房租了，他和defendant商量在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)期間，租金減為1250，戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)結(jié)束后，房子又滿(mǎn)了，房東找他要戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)期間的房租，法庭判不同給。· Chandler v Webster (1904) coronation procession; losses lie where they fall in frustrated contractsWebster租一間房給C，讓他

9、看coronation，他付了100磅，還剩41磅沒(méi)付。結(jié)果coronation cancel了。Court held這個(gè)obligation是pay the full contractual price，是發(fā)生在frustrate的event之前的，所以C要付全款。· Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council (1940) collapsing deck-chair shows receipt may not be a contractChapelton問(wèn)Barry租了椅子，拿了ticket作為憑證，但這個(gè)ticket里面有exclusion

10、 clause C沒(méi)讀，后坐這椅子受傷了。Court held 這個(gè)ticket只是一個(gè)receipt，一個(gè)reasonable person不會(huì)認(rèn)為里面有exclusion clause，所以這個(gè)clause是ineffective的。· Chappell and Co v Nestle (1960) even chocolate wrappers may be consideration to support a contractNestle是推銷(xiāo)公司，任何人集齊三張巧克力紙就能獲得一張唱片，Chappell是唱片公司，說(shuō)這不對(duì)等。Court held只要sufficient，不

11、需要adequate。· Collins v Godefroy (1831) complying with a duty imposed by law is not consideration for a contractGodefroy讓Collins attend a civil trial and give evidence。C參加了但沒(méi)有給evidence。之后G答應(yīng)給C錢(qián)但沒(méi)兌現(xiàn)。Court held當(dāng)G讓C參加的時(shí)候，按照法律C就是應(yīng)該要參加的。C做的只是required by law的事情，所以沒(méi)有provide consideration。· Combe v

12、 Combe (1951) High Trees House' promissory estoppel cannot found new actions丈夫答應(yīng)支付贍養(yǎng)費(fèi)給他分居的妻子，但沒(méi)有。妻子起訴，但駁回。沒(méi)有協(xié)議，而允諾禁反言(promissory estoppel)是劍不是盾。· Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co Ltd (1951) beads and sequins' misrepresentation defeats exclusion clauseCurtis 把衣服送到Chemical地方去干洗，她在

13、sign前Chemical告訴她exclusion clause是關(guān)于damage to beads之類(lèi)的，但實(shí)際是指所有的damage，后衣服弄壞了。Court held 因?yàn)閐efendant misrepresented了這個(gè)clause的effect，所以不能rely on 這個(gè)clause。· Dunlop v Selfridge (1945) X sells types to Y who sells to Z; X has no standing to sue Z under the contracts between X and Y, or Y and Z原告向一家批發(fā)

14、商Dew公司出售輪胎，為了維持輪胎的價(jià)格，他們?cè)谂cDew公司簽訂的合同中加入一條規(guī)定，不得按照低于一定水平的價(jià)格賣(mài)輪胎，并且，在Dew向任何一個(gè)零售供應(yīng)商供貨時(shí)，必須讓零售商作出書(shū)面保證，也要服從這個(gè)規(guī)定。后Dew將部分輪胎批發(fā)給被告，并且從被告處得到了原告要的書(shū)面保證，但被告卻違反了合同和書(shū)面保證，以低價(jià)出售輪胎，原告遂起訴違反協(xié)議。原告敗訴。· Edwards v Skyways Ltd (1964) commercial dealing - including employer-employee - presumed to create contract航空公司說(shuō)如果他們的飛行

15、員沒(méi)工作了就能拿到退休金，結(jié)果沒(méi)給，法庭判必須給。The subject of the agreement was commercial in nature and there was meeting of mind - an intention. The airline was unable to show that legal relations were not intended. There was no evidentence to show that the transaction was intended to be binding in honour only.· E

16、ntores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation Ltd (1955) Telex communication of acceptance of offer must be read to be validEntores在London，Miles在Holland，Entores給了offer，Miles accept，后來(lái)有dispute了。Entores要在English court提出breach contract， Miles反對(duì)，說(shuō)合同是在Holland完成的。Court held acceptance是在Holland完成的，但只有當(dāng)它c(diǎn)ommunica

17、te to offeror的時(shí)候才valid 所以English court有權(quán)力。· Errington v Errington (1951) mortgage payments can be consideration; consideration remains executory until mortgage redeemed父親說(shuō)兒子媳婦一直供房，供完就把房子給他們，后來(lái)老頭死了，兒子媳婦繼續(xù)供房，遺孀想拒絕。Court held這個(gè)promise connot be revoked,老友這是一unilateral offer, 兒子媳婦可做可不做，但一旦做了就不能revo

18、ke了。· Esso v Customs and Excise Commissioners (1976) offering a free gift can found a contract, if there is some form of (non-monetary) considerationEsso促銷(xiāo)：任何人買(mǎi)了4加侖的油就能得到一個(gè)免費(fèi)的世界杯紀(jì)念幣。法院糾結(jié)的是，這些硬幣算不算販賣(mài)，如果是的話，Esso要交稅。Esso覺(jué)得這是個(gè)促銷(xiāo)的免費(fèi)小禮物，not intended to have legal effect。法院認(rèn)為T(mén)here was an intention to

19、create legal relations.但是，the coins were not exchanged for a money consideration and therefore the coins were not for resale.· Fisher v Bell (1961) displaying flick-knife in shop window deemed not to be an offer for sale'當(dāng)?shù)曛鲗椈傻稊[在櫥窗內(nèi)時(shí)，店主被指控犯有出售彈簧刀罪。議會(huì)認(rèn)為彈簧刀是危險(xiǎn)物，想使其不被買(mǎi)賣(mài)。有人可能已經(jīng)考慮了分區(qū)法院的理由：“彈簧刀是

20、危險(xiǎn)物品；將它擺在商店櫥窗里的人想要賣(mài)掉這個(gè)危險(xiǎn)物品；因此他犯了出售彈簧刀罪。”但是，Parker勛爵裁決店主之所為不是出售彈簧刀，而是邀路人來(lái)商店買(mǎi)它，因此，被告無(wú)罪。· Foakes v Beer (1884) a willingness to pay part of a debt promptly does not itself represent a consideration, and cannot found a contractFoakes欠Beer錢(qián)，Beer說(shuō)如果現(xiàn)在給錢(qián)，不算利息，不會(huì)sue，F(xiàn)oakes還錢(qián)后Beer反悔，要求利息。Court held Beer

21、的promise是不sue，但是Foakes沒(méi)有sufficient consideration。· Glasbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan CC (1925) carrying out a statutory duty may be consideration to found a contract if the manner of so doing is above and beyond the call of dutyGlasbrook要求Glamorgan警察幫他維持秩序，必須要增派人手，警察認(rèn)為巡邏的人已經(jīng)夠了，但Glasbrook同意pay for

22、this，所以警察就加派了人手，后Glasbrook反悔，說(shuō)這是警察的legal duty。Court held 警察free to choose which method of protect是最effective的，在這里，因?yàn)檫@個(gè)Glasbrook，他們provide more protection than necessary，所以provide了good consideration。· Harbutt's Plasticine v Wayne Tank (1970) A significant breach of contract may defeat an exc

23、lusion clause原告的工廠被燒毀了，因?yàn)閃ayne做了個(gè)不合適的管道。管道的某個(gè)部分被打開(kāi)，并且沒(méi)人看管。原告必須建個(gè)新工廠，不然沒(méi)法繼續(xù)他的business.so· Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprises v Christopher Hull Fine Art (1989) Sale of Goods act not breached if buyer should not have relied on seller's description買(mǎi)賣(mài)雙方都是倫敦的美術(shù)品的商人，買(mǎi)賣(mài)的標(biāo)的物是畫(huà)。賣(mài)方聲稱(chēng)該畫(huà)的作者是Gabriele M

24、ünter。買(mǎi)方的雇員查看了畫(huà)，賣(mài)方則表示對(duì)畫(huà)知之甚少，更不知道Gabriele Münter是何人。買(mǎi)方后來(lái)發(fā)現(xiàn)該幅畫(huà)是贗品，于是起訴要求賣(mài)方返還價(jià)款，理由是畫(huà)的買(mǎi)賣(mài)是1979年貨物買(mǎi)賣(mài)法第13(1)條規(guī)定的憑描述買(mǎi)賣(mài)，而賣(mài)方違反的1979年貨物買(mǎi)賣(mài)法第14(2)條默示的條款，即畫(huà)是具有可銷(xiāo)售質(zhì)量的 (of merchantable quality)。高院認(rèn)為買(mǎi)方并沒(méi)有依賴(lài)關(guān)于畫(huà)是Münter之作的描述，因此畫(huà)的買(mǎi)賣(mài)并不是憑描述的買(mǎi)賣(mài)，而且法院認(rèn)為買(mǎi)方并未證明該畫(huà)不具有可銷(xiāo)售質(zhì)量。· Hartley v Ponsonby (1857) agr

25、eement to comply with a contract may be consideration for a new contract, if changed circumstances (numerous desertions from ship) make it difficult to comply少了一半船員，船長(zhǎng)對(duì)剩下的一般說(shuō)，跟他回London的話，就給extra money,船員就努力工作，把船開(kāi)回了London,船長(zhǎng)拒絕給錢(qián)，法庭認(rèn)為必須給。Sailing the ship back to London in an unseaworthy condition was

26、more than the original contract required. Extra money is good consideration.· Harris v Nickerson(1932) advertisement of auction is an invitation to treat, not an offerN登廣告說(shuō)某天要拍賣(mài)多少多少東西，H 長(zhǎng)途跋涉來(lái)了卻發(fā)現(xiàn)N只auction了一部分東西，怒了,告N。法庭判N無(wú)罪。The advertisement of the auction was not a guarantee that is would be h

27、eld but simply a declaration of intention or an invitation to treat and so there was no contract.· Hillas v Arcos (1932) courts can interpret vague terms in contract (fair specification'') if parties' intentions clear from previous dealingsArcos與Hillas簽訂了協(xié)議1930年提供給他一定數(shù)量一定質(zhì)量size的timb

28、er，并規(guī)定Hillas有option在1930年購(gòu)買(mǎi)另一批timber，但沒(méi)說(shuō)質(zhì)量size，后Acros賣(mài)給了別人，說(shuō)這個(gè)contract太vague。Court held 雖然沒(méi)具體說(shuō)，但可以implied根據(jù)previous seasons dealing and normal practise。· Hoenig v Isaacs (1952) party injured by breach of contract cannot assume his responsibilities fully discharged原告同意裝修被告的公寓，750鎊分兩次完成，原告完成后，被告因

29、為不滿(mǎn)意一些家具被損壞所以拒絕支付最后一部分，那些家具價(jià)值56鎊。Court held原告已經(jīng)執(zhí)行了大部分合同的內(nèi)容，所以應(yīng)該支付錢(qián)然后減去損壞的就可以了。 · Household Fire Insurance v Grant (1879) postal acceptance of offer valid at posting, even if never received被告申請(qǐng)獲得原告公司的股票，原告公司接到申請(qǐng)后很快寄回了一封信向被告配發(fā)股票，但被告從未收到這封信。3年后公司進(jìn)行清算時(shí)，要求被告作為公司的一名股東，應(yīng)當(dāng)償還他擁有的公司股票所欠的認(rèn)繳款項(xiàng)，被告拒絕付款，并稱(chēng)自己與

30、原告公司之間并無(wú)合同，因而自己不是原告公司的股東。原告敗訴。· Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Cpy (1877) promissory estoppel prevents landlord evicting tenant during negotiations房東給了租客6個(gè)月去維修損壞，否則就不租給他了。然后雙方談判買(mǎi)賣(mài)房子，本來(lái)以為財(cái)產(chǎn)轉(zhuǎn)讓會(huì)發(fā)生。所以租客沒(méi)有維修，因?yàn)樗X(jué)得這是房東的任務(wù)。最戶(hù)一分鐘買(mǎi)賣(mài)談崩。允諾禁反言阻止了房東驅(qū)逐訪客。· Hollier v Rambler Motors (1972) exclusion clause

31、 cannot be incorporated by past dealings if sporadic原告在5年內(nèi)使用了被告的車(chē)庫(kù)幾次，每次他都要簽一個(gè)損壞賠償?shù)奈募＿@次是電話交涉的，也沒(méi)有免責(zé)條款。車(chē)庫(kù)因?yàn)榫S修損壞了車(chē)，被告覺(jué)得這次可以通過(guò)之前的交易援引免責(zé)條款。法庭認(rèn)為之前的交易達(dá)不到足夠的交易數(shù)，不能援引。· Hyde v Wrench (1840) a counter-offer is not an acceptanceD賣(mài)1200，P拒絕。D又提出1000，P說(shuō)950.D說(shuō)不行，P說(shuō)那就1000。法庭認(rèn)為D可以選擇不賣(mài)給P了. The plaintiffs action

32、s showed that he intended to reject both the defendants offers and this meant that he was no longer able to revive them by changing his mind and making a subsequent acceptance.· Jones v Padavatton (1969) domestic arrangements are presumed not to be contracts母親住在美國(guó)West Indian，女兒兒子住在華盛頓，母親同意，如果女兒

33、放棄現(xiàn)有的工作，到英國(guó)攻讀法律成為出庭律師，母親將負(fù)擔(dān)女兒的生活費(fèi)用。女兒這樣做了。母親改變協(xié)議，同意女兒住在母親在英國(guó)的房子，免收租金，同時(shí)允許女兒將其中一間出租，租金用來(lái)支付女兒的費(fèi)用。當(dāng)母女倆吵翻后，母親趕女兒出門(mén)，女兒告母親違約。本案屬于家庭安排，安排內(nèi)容不明確，所以無(wú)合同。· Lampleigh v Braithwaite (1615) past endeavours can be consideration for contract if carried out at request of beneficiary and in expectation of rewardB

34、殺了人，他讓L幫忙去國(guó)王那里討個(gè)赦免。L就專(zhuān)程去London,幫B弄到了一個(gè)赦免，事成之后，B承諾會(huì)付給L100塊，結(jié)果沒(méi)給，L把B告了，法庭認(rèn)為應(yīng)該給。· L'estrange v Graucob (1934) ignorance of exclusion clause in supply of faulty cigarette machine held not to defeat the exclusionclaimant問(wèn)defendant買(mǎi)了一個(gè)machine，沒(méi)看contract但sign了，里面有小字體的exclude clause for implied ter

35、ms，后machine doesnt work。Court held因?yàn)樗齭ign了 就要bound by the terms。· Liverpool CC v Irwin (1976) terms may be implied into a contract based on legal obligationIrwin夫婦租了Liverpool的flat，但這個(gè)房子設(shè)施很差都?jí)牡袅耍琁rwin夫婦起訴說(shuō)Liverpool沒(méi)有對(duì)這個(gè)房子maintain adequately。Court held L沒(méi)有take reasonable care to· L Schuler A

36、G v Wickman Machine Tools Ltd (1973) stating that a term is a condition does not necessarily make it soS是工具銷(xiāo)售商，W是授權(quán)銷(xiāo)售的公司。 合同有個(gè)condition是W會(huì)provided a sales person to each named company once a week。這就意味著一星期1400次。W就沒(méi)有一一做到，S就起訴了他違反合同。法庭認(rèn)為雖然合同說(shuō)這個(gè)是condition,但其實(shí)是個(gè)warranty.· May and Butcher JR (19

37、34) courts will not enforce a contract that is unintelligibleMay想要purchase R的一些器材，agreement寫(xiě)的是price和date of payment以后再decide from time to time。后break down了。Court held no contract，因?yàn)閑ssential term仍等著以后的negotiation，too incomplete to enforce。· McCutcheon v MacBrayne (1964) ferry sinks, and exclusi

38、on clause sinks with it; exclusion clause not incorporated by sporadic prior dealing原告的車(chē)被淹沒(méi)在輪渡運(yùn)輸中，原告之前用過(guò)幾次這樣的輪渡運(yùn)輸，有時(shí)他簽了免責(zé)條款，有時(shí)沒(méi)有。這次他并沒(méi)有被要求簽，被告想援引之前的免責(zé)條款。法庭認(rèn)為，之前的簽署沒(méi)有一致性，不成立，要賠償。· Merritt v Merritt (1970) domestic arrangement may be contracts, despite presumption to the contrary, if facts suppor

39、t this view丈夫和別的女人在一起了，他承諾給前妻一半財(cái)產(chǎn)，但是沒(méi)有兌現(xiàn)，法庭認(rèn)為前妻贏。因?yàn)閠he presumption against an intention to create legal relation does not apply when the parties are separated.· Neale v Merrit (1930) Acceptance of offer must be on terms of offerM買(mǎi)給N土地一次性支付280鎊。N 接受了，把80鎊寄去，并答應(yīng)支付50鎊每月分期付款。法庭認(rèn)為這根本不是接受，這是 counter

40、offer。· Nicolene v Simmons (1953) Meaningless terms in contract does not void the entire contractNicolene order steel bars from Simmonds, 寫(xiě)明是the usual conditions of acceptance，但no usual conditions existed.后來(lái)Simmonds fail to deliver說(shuō)那個(gè)term太vague。Court held 這個(gè)clause是meanless的，可以severed from the c

41、ontract，而剩下的agreement是certain and complete的，所以可以被enforced。· Olley v Marlborough Court (1949) Exclusion clause must be notified to affected party before contract formedOlley在M的hotel訂了房間 pay完之后到了房間才看到這個(gè)exclusion clause說(shuō)東西被偷概不負(fù)責(zé)，后東西被偷了。Court held contract是在check in 的時(shí)候made的，在contract make之后 notice

42、才communicate to了claimant，所以是ineffective的。· Parker v Clark (1960) 一對(duì)老夫妻C邀請(qǐng)他的侄女和其丈夫P來(lái)合住，P說(shuō)這樣他們不得不賣(mài)掉自己的房子。C說(shuō)他們死后會(huì)把房子給P和他們女兒各一部分。P就把房子賣(mài)了。后來(lái)C和P翻臉，C讓他們離開(kāi)，P起訴C違約。法庭認(rèn)為C要賠償P。· Parker v South Eastern Railway (1877) party who relies on exclusion clause must take reasonable trouble to bring it to atte

43、ntion原告將一個(gè)價(jià)值24.5鎊的小包存入被告的寄存處，被告給他一張存物憑證，憑證的吼吼印著數(shù)字和存物的提起，并且有“注意背后”的字樣。在憑證背后印著免責(zé)條款，規(guī)定：寄存物的價(jià)值超過(guò)10英鎊的，寄存處對(duì)超過(guò)的部分不負(fù)責(zé)任。后原告的小包丟失，原告要求賠償。陪審團(tuán)發(fā)現(xiàn)，原告根本沒(méi)有讀那個(gè)憑證。陪審團(tuán)認(rèn)為原告沒(méi)有讀那個(gè)憑證，他也沒(méi)有義務(wù)要這樣做，所以原告勝訴。英國(guó)法院提出了一個(gè)免責(zé)條款的當(dāng)事人是否讓對(duì)方“合理地知道”免責(zé)條款。也就是說(shuō)當(dāng)事人必須證明對(duì)方知道或應(yīng)該知道合同的條款。· Partridge v Crittendon (1968) advert in newspaper is a

44、n invitation to treat, not an offer廣告登賣(mài)一種受保護(hù)的鳥(niǎo)，結(jié)果被人告了，法庭認(rèn)為判這個(gè)公司無(wú)罪。The advertisement was only an invitation to treat because nowhere was there any indication of an expression of intention to be bound.· Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots (1952) retail contract for sale formed at chec

45、kout, not on selection of goods一個(gè)人從藥架子拿藥下來(lái)，檢查人員說(shuō)Boots違法，法庭判Boots無(wú)罪。The display of goods on shelves, even with price marked, was an invitation to treat. The offer took place when the customer selected the goods form the shelves and took them to the pharmacist at the cash register. If the pharmacist a

46、ccepted money, a contract was found.· Phillips Products v Hyland (1987) if a duty-defining clause is in reality an exclusion clause, it can be struck out under UCTA as such P從某公司那里租了個(gè)機(jī)器，合同規(guī)定該公司要提供給原告一個(gè)開(kāi)機(jī)器的司機(jī)H，合同也規(guī)定H的疏忽不算在公司身上。結(jié)果司機(jī)疏忽犯錯(cuò)了造成了原告的損失。法庭認(rèn)為排除條款不合理，大概就是原告根本沒(méi)辦法自己開(kāi)機(jī)器，只能接受。· Photo Prod

47、uctions v Securicor Ltd (1980) significant breach of contract does not necessarily defeat exclusion clausePhoto請(qǐng)S來(lái)patrol（巡邏）工廠，exclude了S的liability，結(jié)果S的一個(gè)employee故意放火燒了工廠。Court held 是不是fundamental breach已經(jīng)不考慮了，要考慮的是whether or not it covered the liability in question，所以可以rely on這個(gè)exclusion clause。

48、3; Pinnel's case (1602) a willingness to pay part of a debt promptly does not itself represent a consideration, and cannot found a contract即“在給付到期日前所為之部分金錢(qián)給付，不得視為對(duì)全部債權(quán)清償之給付”其所以如此，是因?yàn)闆](méi)有約因的支持。所以支付全部債務(wù)是債務(wù)人應(yīng)盡的義務(wù)，在沒(méi)有新的約因或事項(xiàng)的情況下，自然是不能以部分之金錢(qián)給付而抵消全部債務(wù)的了。但如果此項(xiàng)債務(wù)的給付提前，或以其他物如馬、牛等物品為替代或在其他地點(diǎn)為部分金錢(qián)給付時(shí)，則法律可以允許

49、以部分給付視為對(duì)全部債權(quán)的滿(mǎn)足給付，因?yàn)榇祟?lèi)物品之給付可能對(duì)債權(quán)人更有用途。這就是屏乃爾原則的內(nèi)容。根據(jù)這個(gè)判例，在沒(méi)有新的約因的情況下，一般是不能以部分的給付來(lái)代替全部的債務(wù)履行的。· Redgrave v Hurd (1881) a party's opportunity to discover truth does not absolve other party for misrepresentation一個(gè)律師將他的業(yè)務(wù)賣(mài)給了另一個(gè)律師，前者在成交之前對(duì)后者說(shuō)，他每年的收入能達(dá)到300鎊，并且把有關(guān)的記錄放在后者面前。處于對(duì)前者的相信，后者并沒(méi)有翻閱那些記錄。后來(lái)，后

50、者發(fā)現(xiàn)前者作了虛假的表示，其每年的收入根本達(dá)不到前者說(shuō)的數(shù)額，因?yàn)橐蟪蜂N(xiāo)交易。法庭判決，他有權(quán)這樣做，即使他有機(jī)會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)前者的表示是不真實(shí)的，· Smith v Eric S Bush (1990) Valuer of house has a duty of care to purchaser; disclaimer must satisfy UCTA原告因?yàn)楸桓嬲业脑u(píng)估公司沒(méi)有給出advise，使得房子受損。原被告之間沒(méi)什么合同關(guān)系，但是被告是評(píng)估公司的人。原告和評(píng)估公司的合同中有一條規(guī)定是評(píng)估師免責(zé)。免責(zé)條款要符合UCTA。所以這里無(wú)效。· Saunders v Ang

51、lia Building Society (1971) non est factum does not excuse careless signing of contract一個(gè)老太太寫(xiě)了個(gè)文件說(shuō)把房子賣(mài)給L先生，L靠著這份文件申請(qǐng)到了2000塊錢(qián)。他沒(méi)還上錢(qián)，現(xiàn)在要收老太太房子，L先生有個(gè)朋友是老太太侄子，老太太同意給幫助L，并且把自己的房子給侄子作為禮物，條件是讓她終身免費(fèi)居住。老太太簽的那份文件，因?yàn)檎也坏窖劬蜎](méi)讀，這個(gè)文件是無(wú)效的因?yàn)?misrepresentation。· Scammel v Ouston (1941) courts need not enforece a

52、 vague contractS提供一個(gè) van for ， 2年內(nèi)£286， O抵押 for £100. S refused to supply the van.法庭認(rèn)為這不是合同條款，沒(méi)法強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行，因?yàn)楦緵](méi)說(shuō)多久還多少什么的。· Stilk v Myrick (1809) agreement to comply with a contract is not normally consideration for a new contract一群水手和船長(zhǎng)簽約，從London去菠蘿的海并返回，中途跑了兩個(gè)水手。船長(zhǎng)找不到替代的人就跟剩下的人說(shuō)，只要你們把船安全駛

53、回London,我就把給那倆的錢(qián)給你們，水手們同意了，船回到London后，船長(zhǎng)不兌現(xiàn)諾言，法庭判船長(zhǎng)不必給錢(qián)。No extend contractual duty.· The Eurymedon (1975) courts can find ways to give effect to contracting parties intentions, despite technicalities that make it difficult合同內(nèi)容是把機(jī)器運(yùn)送到新西蘭，機(jī)器持有人不能起訴裝卸工，除非是一年內(nèi)發(fā)生什么問(wèn)題，裝卸工的合同適合運(yùn)輸公司之間的，弄懂三者關(guān)系。結(jié)果裝卸工把機(jī)器弄

54、壞了，機(jī)器持有人要裝卸工賠償，覺(jué)得他和裝卸工之間的隱藏條款是，裝卸工得小心機(jī)器的安全。彼時(shí)失效已經(jīng)超過(guò)一年了。裝卸工覺(jué)得他可以依賴(lài)limitation clause避免被起訴。反正裝卸工贏了官司。· The Fibrosa (1943) contract frustrated by war; losses may be recoverable if total loss of consideration一個(gè)英國(guó)公司同意12th July 1939給波蘭一公司提供一些machine, 4個(gè)月內(nèi)交付完，一開(kāi)始付£1,600最后付£3,200。 波蘭公司paid

55、63;1000 on 18th July。 1st Sept德國(guó)入侵波蘭，3rd Sept 英國(guó)對(duì)德宣戰(zhàn)。23rd Sept這個(gè)訂單變成非法的了，因?yàn)橛?guó)在敵人的領(lǐng)隊(duì)對(duì)其貿(mào)易。法庭認(rèn)為contract was frustrated如果時(shí)候違法，波蘭公司可以拿回已付的錢(qián)，然后將來(lái)不用再付。· The Hongkong Fir (1961) some contractual terms can be innominate: neither conditions nor warranties被告向原告租用“香港杉木號(hào)”貨輪,租期為24個(gè)月出租方聲稱(chēng)這艘船已經(jīng)處于適合普通貨物運(yùn)輸?shù)臓顟B(tài)。結(jié)果

56、發(fā)現(xiàn)引擎室的船員并不能勝任他們的工作,并且在租船期的前7個(gè)月中這艘船航行了不到9個(gè)星期,原因是這艘船經(jīng)常拋錨,所以要不斷地修理來(lái)使她適航。因此被告拒絕履行租船合同,并且主張租船合同中的適航條款是一項(xiàng)condition,由于原告違反了這一條件,所以他們有權(quán)利解除合同這一條款neither conditions nor warranties,而被告是否有權(quán)利解除合同,則要看違反這一條款的后果是否在實(shí)質(zhì)上剝奪了他在合同項(xiàng)下本應(yīng)獲得的利益。在本案中卻并非如此,因?yàn)樽獯饺杂谐浞值臅r(shí)間進(jìn)行運(yùn)輸。· The Moorcock (1889) contractual terms can be imp

57、lied if necessary to give business efficacy被告是泰晤士河上的一座碼頭的所有人，原告是汽船Moorcock號(hào)的所有人。雙方協(xié)議輪船在被告的碼頭上裝卸貨物，由原告支付被告租用起重機(jī)和碼頭上其他設(shè)施的租金。但當(dāng)輪船停泊在碼頭上時(shí)正趕上退潮，輪船因此擱淺，船底觸到泥土中的石頭遭到損壞。法庭認(rèn)為，雙方合同的基礎(chǔ)必定是，低潮時(shí)河床是安全的，所以有必要在合同中插入這樣一條必須條款。由于被告違反了這一默示條款，他必須承擔(dān)違約責(zé)任。· Thompson v Borden Midland and Scottish Railway (1930) an exclu

58、sion clause cannot be defeated by ignorance, even if it is somewhat difficult to find原告下火車(chē)時(shí)受傷，鐵路公司認(rèn)為他們有告示，所以exclusion clause，車(chē)票也寫(xiě)了要注意。原告是個(gè)文盲，她不識(shí)字。法庭認(rèn)為免責(zé)條款成立，只要reasonable steps 讓reasonable person知道就可以，沒(méi)有必要人所有人都知道，所以原告索賠不成功。· Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971) exclusion clause must be notified t

59、o the affected party before contract formedShoe停車(chē)場(chǎng)門(mén)口的exclusion clause說(shuō)停車(chē)risk自負(fù)，T停車(chē)刷卡付錢(qián)后車(chē)被撞。Clause是否有效的關(guān)鍵在于offer和accept. Court認(rèn)為當(dāng)machine is ready to receive the money的時(shí)候offer就生成了，然后customer put money into machine的行為是acceptance.· Re McArdle (1951) past benefit not consideration for a contractfather說(shuō)等mother死后house留給children。一個(gè)child的wife給房子進(jìn)行改建，worth 488英鎊，一年后children承諾會(huì)給wife錢(qián)補(bǔ)償，后未給。Court held 在consideration做出以前她就已經(jīng)perform了，所以她provide no consideration for這些錢(qián)，所以the agreement is un