內(nèi)容文稿教程case

CommonwealthvStateofTasmania(1983)46ALRBrieffactsanddecision:Tasmaniaernmentwantedtobuildadamandpowerstationneartheworldcultureandnaturalheritage,butcommonwealthernmentwantedtostopitcosthedamagetowildernessareathatwasinWorldHeritagelist.Sofinally,thecommonwealthParliamentmakelawbasedonconstitution5-14whichallowparliamenttomakelawsabout“externalaffairs”tostoptheconstructionofdam.Divisionofpower(legislativepowerbetweenfederalandstates)——Whenthere sbetweenFederalandstates,FederalFederalcanalsousetheConstitution5-10,corporationstostopthecorporationsbetweentheconstruction andtheTasmaniaLeevKnapp[1967]2QBInbrief:somelawregulatethat“muststopafteranaccident”,buthejuststopedforasecond,andarguethathehadstopped.Butcourtstillconvicthim.Conclusion:Thecourtuesdthegoldenruleinstatutoryinterpretation——ifuselilruletointerprettheword“stop”,theresultwillbeabsurd,sotheygavethewordanothermeaning:stopuntilthingsdone.SmithvHughes[1960]2AllERFact:ThedefendantswereprostituteswhohadbeenchargedundertheStreetOffencesAct1959whichmadeitanoffencetosolicitinapublicce.Theprostitutesweresolicitingfromprivatepremisesinwindowsoronbalconiessocouldbeseenbythepublic.Decision:ThecourtappliedthemischiefruleholdingthattheactivitiesofthedefendantswerewithinthemischieftheActwasaimedateventhoughunderalilinterpretationtheywouldbeinaprivatece.Act1959——tosolicitinapublicceisanThewords“publicce”areWhatistheproblem(mischief)thislawwanttoresolve?——harmfromprostitutessolicit.Sothecourtincludedthebalconywhichcouldbeseenbythepublicintothe“publicce”CarlillvCarbolicSmokeBallCo.[1893]1QB256(Textbook:pp259-6elementsof becausethisusepromotedtheirsales.Undergoingtheinconvenienceofusingthesmokeballwhichshewasrequiredtodobeforeshewaseligiblefortherewardremediesforbreachofcontract——specific(rule1tomakeoffer)Anoffercanbeaddressedtoanynumberof——theworldatlarge(slide(rule2ofmakingoffer)Invitationtotreat:normallyadsactasinvitationtotreatbutthisisandexception(textbookRule4ofofferacceptance——acceptancemustbecommunicatedwithofferorexceptthatcommunicationisnotrequired——Theexceptionofacceptanceshouldcommunicatewithofferor——thisisaunila lofferandMsCarlillacceptedtheofferbybuyingandusingthemokeball.The lcontract(chapter(rule2fomakeanoffer)HarveyvFacey[1893]AC552supplyoffermakingrule2——offermustdistinguishfromthesupplyof6elementsofcontracts——agreement(offer&acceptance),inthiscase,justmadeanofferandFaceydidnotacceptwhichmeansthatnoacceptance,noagreement,noPharmaceuticalSocietyofGreatBritainvBootsCashChemist .[1953]1QB401 (ITT)Rule2ofmakinganoffer——offermustbedistinguishedfromITT——goodsdisyinashopareinvitationstotreatFishervBell[1961]1QB394（Rule2ofmakinganoffer——offermustbedistinguishedfromITT——goodsdisyinashopwithpricetagattachedareinvitationstotreatPartridgevCrittenden[1968]1WLR204（粥在賣雞Rule2ofmakinganoffer——offermustbedistinguishedfromITT——AdvertisementsonnewspapersTVnormallyareITTR.vClarke(1927)40CLRConclusion:Acceptancerule1——mustbemadewithknowledgeandrelianceonInthiscase,thetruereasonwhyClarkeaccepttheofferisforoutofjailbutnotfortherewardmoney,whichmeansnorelianceontheoffer,thennoacceptance.HydevWrench(1840)3Beav(Wrench(Wrench950counterAcceptancerule2——acceptancemustcorrespondexactlythetermsoftheIfthestatementofacceptanceattemptstointroduceanyqualificationofnewitems,itwillbeseenascounter-offerCounter-offerwilldestroytheoriginalofferandactasanew6elementsofcontract——agreementInthiscase,whenHyderepliedtooffer$950insteadof$1000,hemadeacounteroffer,butthenWrenchrefused,sothereisnoanyoffer.SowhenHydeagreedtopay$1000,itactuallywasanothernewoffer.Sointhewholecase,noacceptanceexits,nocontract.StevensonJacques&CovMcLean(1880)5QBD346(Mcleanpaylatercounteroffer)Counter-offervsrequestforPowellvLee(1908)99LT284（Conclusion:ThirdpartyshouldbeauthorisedInthiscase,Powellistheofferorwhomadeanoffertotheschoolforthepositionofheadmaster.TheboardofschoolisoffereebutaftertheydecidedtoreceivePowell’soffer,theydidn’tcommunicatetotheofferorthemselvesorthroughauthorisedthirdparty,whichmeanstherewasnoacceptancethereforenocontract.SotheboardcanchangetheirmindbeforecommunicatetoPowell.FelthousevBindley(1862)11CBNSConclusion:(1)OfferorcannotstipulatesilenceasAttention“stipulate”—ifofferorandoffereehaveagreementof“silence”thenofferornotstipulatethereforesilencecanbeacceptance.(caseindiscussion2refertotextbookHouseholdFireInsurancevGrant(1879)LR4ExDConclusion:Postalacceptancerule——theacceptancecomestoeffectiveatthetimepostingratherthanthetimeofreceipt.HolwellSecuritiesvHughes[1974]WLR155(Holwellcontract)Conclusion:Howtoavoidpostalacceptancerule——whereofferorsrequirethatacceptancemustactuallybereceivedbyofferor.BrinkibonvStahagStahlundStahlwarenhandelgesellschaftmbH[1983]2AC34BrinkibonvStahagStahl[1983]2AC34isaleadingdecisionoftheHouseofLordsontheformationofacontractusing BrinkibonwasaLondonthatpurchasedsteelfromStahag,asellerbasedinAustria.BrinkibonsenttheiracceptancetoaStahagofferbyextoVienna.BrinkibonlaterwantedtoissueawritagainstStahagandappliedtoserveanoutofjurisdictionparty.TheywouldonlybeabletodosoifthecontracthadbeenformedinEngland.(Thequestionatissuewaswherethecontractwasformed.）TheJudgesdecidedthatthecontractwasformedinVienna.TheyacceptedtheprincipleinEntoresvFarEastCowhereinthecaseofinstantaneouscommunication,whichincludedex,theformationgenerallyoccursinthecewheretheacceptanceisreceived.LordWilber,however,didnotseetheruleasapplyinginallcircumstances:Since1955theuseofexcommunicationhasbeengreatlyexpanded,andtherearemanyvariantsonit.Thesendersandrecipientsmaynotbetheprincipalstothecontemtedcontract.Theymaybeservantsoragentswithlimitedauthority.Themessagemaynotreach,orbeintendedtoreach,thedesignatedrecipientimmediay:messagesmaybesentoutofofficehours,oratnight,withtheintention,orontheassumptionthattheywillbereadatalatertime.Theremaybesomeerrorordefaultattherecipient’sendwhichpreventsreceiptatthetimecontemtedandbelievedinbythesender.Themessagemayhavebeensentand/orreceivedthroughmachinesoperatedbythirds.Andmanyothervariantsmayoccur.Nouniversalrulecoverallsuchcases;theymustberesolvedbyreferencetotheintentionsoftheparties,bysoundbusinesspracticeandinsomecasesbyajudgementwheretherisksshouldConclusion:Acceptanceforinstantaneouscommunicationmustarrivetobeeffective(nomattertimingorlocation)Inmostdistancecommunicationthepointisnotwhentheacceptancemade,therealpointiswheretheacceptanceismade.InthisBrinkibonsenttheiracceptancetoaStahagofferbyextoVienna,thereforetheacceptanceisformedinVienna.DickinsonvDodds(1876)2ChD463(Doddsrevokebyreliable Conclusion:Revocationofoffermustbecommunicatedtotheofferee(thirdparty),anditissufficientifoffereeisinformedbyareliable Byrne&CovVanTienhoven&Co(1880)5CPD344(Byrnepostalrevocation)Byrne&CovLeonVanTienHoven&Co[1880]5CPD344isaleadingEnglishcontractlawcaseontheissueofrevocationinrelationtothepostalrule.InitLindleyJoftheHighCourtCommonPleasDivisionruledthatanofferisonlyrevokedbydirectcommunicationwiththeofferee,andthatthepostalruledoesnotapplyinrevocation;whilesimplypostingalettercountsasavalidacceptance,itdoesnotcountasvalidrevocation.VanTienhoven&CopostedaletterfromtheirofficeinCardifftoByrne&CoinNewYork,offering1000boxesoftintesforsaleon1October.ByrneandCogottheletteron11October.Theyegraphedacceptanceonthesameday.Buton8OctoberVanTienhovenhadsentanotherletterwithdrawingtheiroffer,becausetintepriceshadjustrisen25%.Theyrefusedtogothroughwiththesale.LindleyJheldthatthewithdrawaloftheofferwasnoteffectiveuntilitwascommunicated.Hisjudgmentstatedthefollowing.“Thereisnodoubtanoffercanbewithdrawnbeforeitisaccepted,anditisimmaterialtheofferisexpressedtobeopenforacceptanceforagiventimeornot.Theofferwaspostedonthe1stofOctober,thewithdrawalwaspostedonthe8th,anddidnotreachtheintiffuntilafterhehadpostedhisletterofthe11thacceptingtheoffer.Itmaybetakenasnowsettledthatwhereanofferismadeandacceptedbyletterssentthroughthepost,thecontractiscompletedthemomenttheletteracceptingtheofferisposted:Harris'sCase;DunlopvHiggins,evenalthoughitneverreachesitsdestination.When,however,thosearelookedat,itwillbeseenthattheyarebasedupontheprinciplethatthewriteroftheofferhasexpresslyorimpliedlyassentedtreatananswertohimbyaletterdulypostedasasufficientacceptanceandnotificationtohimself,or,inotherwords,hehasmadethepostofficehisagenttoreceivetheacceptanceandnotificationofit.Butthisprincipleappearstometobeinapplicabletothecaseofthewithdrawalofanoffer.InthisparticularcaseIfindnoauthorityinfactgivenbytheintiffstothedefendantstonotifyawithdrawaloftheirofferbymerelypostingaletter,andthereisnolegalprincipleordecisionwhichcompelsmetohold,contrarytothefact,thattheletterofthe8thofOctoberistobetreatedascommunicatedtotheintiffonthatdayoronanydaybeforethe20th,whentheletterreached...Beforeleavingthispartofthecaseitmaybeaswelltopointouttheextremeinjusticeandinconveniencewhichanyotherconclusionwouldproduce.Ifthedefendants’contentionweretoprevailno whohadreceivedanofferbypostandhadaccepteditwouldknowhispositionuntilhehadwaitedsuchatimeastobequitesurethataletterwithdrawingtheofferhadnotbeenpostedbeforehisacceptanceofit.Conclusion:Revocationofoffermustbecommunicatedtotheofferee(thirdparty)——Postalacceptanceruledoesnotapplyinrevocationofoffer——postalrevocationonlybeeffectivewhentheoffereereceiveRose&FrankCovCrompton&Bros[1925]AC445(honouredclauserebut了businessICLR)Theclaimantsanddefendantsenteredanagreementforthesupplyofsomecarbonisedtissuepaper.Undertheagreementtheclaimantsweretobethedefendant'ssoleagentsintheUSuntilMarch1920.ThecontractcontainedanhonourablepledgeclausewhichstatedtheagreementwasnotaformalorlegalagreementandshallnotbesubjecttothejurisdictionofthecourtsinneitherEnglandnortheUS.Thedefendantsterminatedtheagreementearlyandtheclaimantsbroughtanactionforbreach.ThehonourablepledgeclauserebuttedthebusinessICLRpresumptionwhich-lyexistsincommercialagreementsthatthepartiesintendtobelegallyboundbytheiragreements.TheagreementthereforehadnolegalaffectandwasnotenablebytheThiscaselthatnotonlythe“family/social/domecticagreement”presumptioncanberebuttedbutalsothecommercialpresumption.BalfourvBalfour[19192KB571(BalfourConclusion:PresumptionofICLR——familyagreements,andtheirconditiondidnotmatchconditionforrebuttingtheMerrittvMerritt[1970]2AllERFact:coupleinbadrelationship,theymadeanagreementaboutgivinghousetowifeanditwaswrittendown.Conclusion:Familyagreementpresumptioncanbe [1938}2AllERFact:intiffclaimedtohavewonthefootballpools,THcouponstatedthatthetransactionwas“bindinginhonouronly”.Theagreementwasbasedonthehonourofthepartiesandthusnotlegallybinding.Conclusion:businessagreementpresumptioncanberebuttedbyhonouredWhitevBluett(1853)2LJEx36(boringson)Inthiscase“nottoborehisfather”istoovaguesoiskindofillusorysothisisnotagoodconsideration,thereforenocontract.AttentiontoFatherispromisorandhepromisestoexecuseadebtbyhissonifson“nottoborehisSonisthepromiseeandhepromisenottoborehisSince“nottoborehisfather”istoovagueitisnotagoodconsiderationTherefore,nocontractnotbinding.RoscorlavThomas(1842)3QB234(Patentspastconsideration)PastconsiderationisinsufficientThomasisthepromisorwhopromisethehorsewas“sound fromRoscorlaisthepromiseewhoactpurchasedthehorseasaButthe“consideration”isthepastconsiderationwhichisnotagoodconsiderationandinthiscasethepastconsiderationwasnotdoneatthepromiser’srequestsoitisnotanexception.Therefore,nocontract,notReCasey’sPatents[1892]1CLR（PatentspastAandBownedapatentandCwasthemanagerwhohadworkedonitfortwoyears.AandBthenpromisedCaone-thirdshareintheinventionforhishelpindeveloit.ThepatentsweretransferredtoCbutAandBthenclaimedtheirreturn.ItwasheldthatCcouldrelyontheagreement.EventhoughC'sconsiderationwasinthepast,ithadbeendoneinabusinesssituation,attherequestofAandBanditwasunderstoodbybothsidesthatCwouldbepaidandthesubsequentpromisetopaymerelyfixedtheamount.Conclusion:theexceptionofpastconsideration——itwasunderstoodbybothsidesthatwouldbeCollinsvGodefroy(1831)109ER1040(Collins本來就該來作證)Fact:GodefroypromisedtopayCollinsifCollinswouldattendcourtandgiveevidenceforGodefroy.Collinshadbeenservedwithasubpoena(ie,acourtorderlingsomeonetheymustattend).Collinssuedforpayment.Judgment:ItwasheldthatasCollinswasunderalegaldutytoattendcourthehadnotprovidedconsideration.Hisactionthereforefailed.Conclusion:insufficientconsideration——publicWardvByham[1956]1WLR（的ward有個happyFact:Anunmarriedcouplehadachildtogetherandlivedtogetherforfiveyears.Thefatherthenturnedthemotheroutofthehouseandsentthechildtolivewithaneighbourandthefatherpaidtheneighbour￡1perweek.Themotherthengotajobasaliveinhousekeeperandwishedtohavethedaughterlivewithher.Thefatheragreedtoallowthedaughterlivewiththemotherandagreedtopayher￡1perweekprovidedsheensuredthechildwaswelllookedafterandhappy.Thefathermadepaymentsbutthenwhenthemotherremarriedhestoppedmakingpayments.Themotherbroughtanactiontoentheagreement.ThefatherarguedthattheMotherwasunderanexistinglegaldutytolookaftermaintainthechildandthereforewasnotprovidinganyconsiderationforthepromisetomakepayment.Judgment:Bypromisingtoensurethechildwaswelllookedafterandhappyshehadgonebeyondherexistinglegaldutyandthereforehadprovidedconsideration.Shewasentitledtothepayment.exceptionofpublicduty——ifonegobeyondhisorherpublicdutythenitcanbea(2)Vague——judgesarereluctanttosayvagueDuntonvDunton(1892)18VLR（DuntongoingbeyondpublicFact:ThepartiesenteredintoawrittenagreementwherebyMrDuntonagreedtopay-sformerwifeanallowancesolongasshebehaved‘withsobriety,andina-ectable,orderly,andvirtuousmanner’orcommittedanactwherebysheorMr-untoncouldbesubjectedto‘hate,contempt,orridicule’. Thequestionaroseastowhetherthisagreementwaslegallybinding.WasthereconsiderationforMrDunton’spromisetopaytheintiffargue:Apromisetobehaverespectablyconstitutesgoodconsideration.(2)Defendantargue:Publicduty.Thepromisetobehaverespectablywasmerelyapromiset-odothatwhichMrsDuntonwasalreadyboundtodo(ie,shewasalreadyrequiredtobehaverespectably!)andwas,therefore,notgoodconsideration.Judgment:Shepromisetogiveuptherighttobehaveinanyfashionshechosewas-fficientlycertaintoconstituteconsiderationonherConclusion:goingbeyondpublicdutyisGlasbrookBrothers.vGlamorganCountyCouncil[1925]AC(CountyCouncil的goingbeyondpublicFact:proviedemoreprotectionthatthehonestlyandreasonablybelievedwasnecessary.Conclusion:goingbeyondpublicStilkvMyrick(1809)2Camp317(Stilkcontractual)Fact:Twooutofelevensailorsdesertedaship.Thecaptainpromisedtopaytheremainingcrewextramoneyiftheysailedtheshipback,butlaterrefusedtopay.DidthecaptainneedtokeeptheJudgment:Itwasheldthatasthesailorswerealreadyboundbytheircontracttosailbackandtomeetsuchemergenciesofthevoyage,promisingtosailbackwasnotvalidconsideration.ThusthecaptaindidnothavetopaytheextraConclusion:ContractualdutyownedtopromisorisnotagoodMusumecivWinadellPty (1994)34NSWLR723(museumpracticalbenefits)Fact:Fruitshop(Muse)canpaylessrenttoshopConclusion:practicalbenefit——althoughiscontractualobligationforMusetopayfullAmountbuttheconsiderationtopromisoristhatit’sbettertohavethefrui-tshopinceratherthanhaveanemptyShadwellvShadwell(1860) ER(ownedcontractualdutytothirdFact:unclepromisednephewthatifnephewmarriedhisfianceehewillpaynephew-rtainamountofmoney.ThenafterfewyearsunclestoppedConclusion:contractualobligationownedtothirdparty——incasewhereAandBenteranagreementunderwhichApromisestoperformtheobligationsunderacontractwithC,A’spromiseissufficientconsiderationtosupportaprom-isebyBnomatterhowtheconsiderationHartleyvPonsonby(1857)7E&B872(Hartley17beyondcontractual)Fact:177of36crewrefusedtowork.Captainpromisedextrapaytothosewhoconclusion:theconsiderationgoingbeyondcontractualdutyisgoodPinnel'sCase(1602)77ER237(Pinnelpartpayment)Pinnel'sCase[1602]5Co.Rep.117a,[1]alsoknownasPennyvCole,isanimportantcaseinEnglishcontractlaw,onthedoctrineofpartperformance.Init,SirEdwardCokeopinedthatapartpaymentofadebtcouldnotextinguishtheobligationtopaythewhole.Facts:PinnelsuedCole,inanactionofdebtuponabond,forthesumof￡810s.TheCole,arguedhehad,atPinnel'srequest,tendered￡52s6dbeforethedebtwasdue,andtheintiffhadacceptedinfullsatisfactionforthedebt.Judgment：Thecasereportsthejudgmentas“paymentofalessersumonthedayinsatisfactionofagreater,cannotbesatisfactionforthewhole,becauseitappearstotheJudgesthatbynopossibility,alessersumcanbeasatisfactiontotheintiffforagreatersum:butthegiftofahorse,hawk,orrobe,etc.insatisfactionisgood.Foritshallbeintendedthatahorse,hawk,orrobe,&c.mightbemorebeneficialtotheintiffthanthemoney....hedidnotpleadthathehadpaidthe5l.2s.2d.infullsatisfaction(asbythelawheought)butpleadedthepaymentofpartgenerally;andthattheintiffaccepteditinfullsatisfaction.Andalwaysthemannerofthetenderandofthepaymentshallbedirectedbyhimwhomadethetenderorpayment,andnotbyhimwhoacceptsit.AndforthiscausejudgmentwasgivenfortheConclusion:Contractualduty——thegeneralruleforcompromiseofdebts——”timehonouredrule”acreditormightaccepteverythingexceptalessamountofHemighttakeahorseoracanaryoratomtitifhechoseandthatwasaccordandFoakesvBeer(1884)9AppCas605(Beerpartpayment)Theappellant,DrJohnWestonFoakes,owedtherespondent,JuliaBeer,asumof￡2,09019safteracourtjudgment.BeeragreedthatshewouldnottakeanyactionagainstFoakesfortheamountowedifhewouldsignanagreementpromisingtopayaninitialsumof￡500(￡52,615.38in2012adjustedforinflation)andpay￡150twiceyearlyuntilthewholeamountwaspaidback.Foakeswasinfinancialdifficultyand,withthehelpofhissolicitor,drewupanagreementforBeertowaiveanyinterestontheamountowed.Shesigned.Foakespaidbacktheprincipalbutnottheinterest.ThenBeersuedFoakesfortheinterest.ThequestionwaswhethershewasentitledtodespitetheiragreementthathewouldnotneedtopayConclusion:contractualobligation——partpaymentcannotbegoodCentralLondonPropertyTrust.vHighTreesHouse.[1947]KB130(textbook281) Maher(1988) 513(textbook281)DonoghuevStevenson[1932]ACbeerDonoghuealinjuryasaresult.beer的制造商告上Result:herclaimsuccessful.——neighbourPerrevApand(1999)198CLR180(textbook(1)intiff[Perre]hadacontracttosellpotatoesinDefendant[Apand]dbadproductswhichcausedinfectioninalandbelongingtoSparnon,theintiff'sneighbour.WARegulationsmeantthatpotatoesgrownclosetoinfectedlandcannotbesoldin-A,thereforetheintiff'spotatoeswerenotallowedTheintiffsufferedgreateconomicloss.(Duty-PureEconomicLoss,NegligentReasonableforeseeability"ThelosessufferedbythePerres[intiff]wereareasonablyforeseeableconsequenceofApand'sconductinsupplyingthediseasedseed[4]..."Vulnerability"ThePerres'businesswasvulnerablyexposedtoApand'sconductbecausethePerres-renotinapositiontoprotectthemselvesagainsttheeffectofApand'snegligenceapartfrominsurance(whichisnotarelevantfactor)[5]..."Noindeterminateliability,nointerferencewithcommercial"ImposingthedutyonApanddoesnotexposeittoindeterminateliabilityalthoughits-iabilitymaybelarge;imposingthedutydoesnotunreasonablyinterferewithApand's -ommercialdombecauseitwasalreadyunderadutytotheSparnonstotakereaso -ablecare[6]..."-ie,imposingadutywouldn'tputaburdenonthedefendantwhichh didn'talreadyowetosomeoneelseanyway.TheDefendantowedtheintiffadutyofcaretopreventcausingevenpure-closs-the Conclusion:ProximityisnotthetestfordutyofBoltonvStone[1951]AC850（Stone打板球possibility小Fact:fencewhichis17feethighand78yardsfrom擊球手,andthisthingshappenedonly6timein28years.Judgment:Althoughtheriskisforeseeable(6times/28years)theriskofsomeonebeing-njuredwassosmall——itisreasonable——itmeansthatStonedidnotactbelowreasonablesoStonewon.Conclusion:Standardofcare(nobreachofduty)——reasonable——-tyofHaleyvLondonElectricityBoard[1965]ACFact:Electricitydugaholeinpublicce,andtooksufficientmeasurestoprevent-htedpeoplefallingintheholebutnoenoughtopreventblindpeople.Therewasahoforblindpeoplearoundthatcesotheprobabilityisbig.Conclusion:Electricityactedbelowreasonable——breachofduty——-tyofParisvStepneyBC[1951]ACTheintiff[Paris]wasaworkerintheDefendant's[Stepney]TheintiffonlyhadoneInthecourseofhiswork,anaccidentcauseddamagetohisgoodeye,makinghimalmosttotallyblind.TheintiffsuedtheDefendantforTheDefendant'sfailuretosupplyprotectivegogglesconstitutedabreachofhisdutyof-retoowedtohisemployees——ParisConclusion——Breachofduty——reasonable——seriousnessoflikelyWattvHertfordshireCountyCouncil[1954]WLRTheclaimantwasafireman.Awomanhadbeeninvolvedinatrafficaccidentandwastrappedunderneathalorry.Thiswas200-300yardsawayfromthefirestation.Thefireserviceswerecalledtoreleasethewoman.Theyneededtotransportaheavylorryjacktothesceneoftheaccident.Thejackcouldnotgoonthefireengineandthenormalvehicleforcarryingthejackwasnotavailable.Thefirechieforderedtheclaimantandotherfirementoliftthejackontothebackofatruck.Therewasnomeansforsecuringthejackonthetruckandthefiremenwereinstructedtoholditontheshortjourney.Intheeventthetruckbrakedandthejackfellontotheclaimant'sDecision:TherewasnobreachofReason:Theemergencyofthesituationandutilityofthedefendant'sconductinsavingalifeoutweighedtheneedtotakeprecautions.RogersvWhitaker(1992)175CLRdoctor給Rogers整容但沒1/14000chanceofsympatheticophthalmia,手術(shù)過程sympatheticophthalmia發(fā)生了RogerssuedoctornotwarningButdoctorgaveevidenceaboutnoonetoldpatientsaboutthischancesoit’skindofprofessionalstandards.judgethoughtdoctorshouldwarnRogers——breachofRogersproveifdoctortoldhershewon’ttakethesurgeonandjudgebelievedConclusion:Breachofduty——reasonableprofessional——professionalstandardsar-enotconclusiveBarnettvChelseaHospital[1969]1QBBarnettBarnettsuedhospitalforJudgment(whatDependsonwillhediedevenhospitalactedDependsonwillarsenickillFactisthatarsenisnearlykilleveryonewhouseSothehospitalbreachthedutybutnotthecauseofhisdeath——nocausation——noConclusion——noMarchvE.&M.H.Stramare .(1991)65ALJRFact:Truck占著倆車道停車，MarchtruckHavecausation——MarchBut“butfor”testneedtobeappliedinacommonsensemanner.——Marchhave70%responsibilityforhisowninjuries.TheWagonMound(No.1)[1961]ACBackgroundTheDefendants[Overseaship]negligentlyleakedoilintothewaterwhenitwasparkedbythewharfoftheintiff[MortsDock].TheintiffinquiredwithCaltexwhetherthisoilishighlyflblestillinthewater.Hewasinformedthatitwouldbeveryhardfortheoiltocatchalight.——whichmeanshecannotforeseethedamagesBasedonthis,helethisemployee'stodosomework,whichresultedintheoilcatchingfireanddamagetohiswharfandashipstationedthere.TheintiffsoughttorecoverdamagesforthenegligenceoftheDefendantsinspillingtheoil.Legal

ThefireandthedamagetothewharfwasadirectconsequenceoftheDefendant'snegligence.Thetestofdirectconsequenceshouldnotbethetestforremotenessanymore"Foritdoesnotseemconsonantwithcurrentideasofjusticeormoralitythatforanactofnegligence,howeverslightorvenial,whichresultsinsometrivialforeseeabledamagetheactorshouldbeliableforallconsequenceshoweverunforeseeableandhowevergrave,solongastheycanbesaidtobe'direct.'"[1]"Itisaprincipleofcivilliability...thatamanmustbeconsideredtoberesponsiblefortheprobableconsequencesofhisact.Todemandmoreofhimistooharsharule."[2]"ItisnottheactbuttheconsequencesonwhichtortiousliabilityisQuotingDonoghuevStevenson,"Theliabilityfornegligence...isnodoubtbaseduponageneralpublicsentimentofmoralwrongngforwhichtheoffendermust"Itisadeparturefromthissovereignprincipleifliabilityismadetodependsolelyonthedamagebeingthe'direct'or'natural'consequenceoftheprecedentact...Butifitwouldbewrongthatamanshouldbeheldliablefordamageunpredictablebyareasonablemanbecauseitwas"direct"or"natural,"equallyitwouldbewrongthatheshouldescapeliability,however"indirect"thedamage,ifheforesaworcouldreasonablyforeseetheinterveningeventswhichledtoitsbeingdone;cf.Woodsv.Duncan.[1946]A.C.atp442.Thusforeseeability estheeffectivetest." esthetestforremoteness,andtheDefendantcouldnothavereasonablyforeseenthattheoilwouldcatchalight.Thus,theDefendantisnotliableforthedamages,becausetheyaretooConclusion:Remoteness——tooremote——DisonlyliableforreasonablyforeseeableTheWagonMound(No.2)[1967]1ACFact:shipisdamagedandcausefire——riskoffireveryremotebutnotimpossiblesothefireisConclusio