f4中博基礎(chǔ)班02-acca講義part of contracts

1、A.Obviousness: terms may be impd by the courts if such terms are so obvioust the parties didnot bother to express them: The Moorcock 1889 (The court impd a termt the wharf must be safe forthe pure of the contract.).B.Nesary incidents: the court may also imply terms because the court bevech a term to

2、 be anesary incident of this type of contract: Livool City Council v Irwin 1977 (Tenants withheld rentsalleging the landlord had breached impd terms to maain lifts and stairs in good order, there was noformal tenancy agreement though. The court heldt tenants could only occupy the building wicsto sta

3、irs or lifts, so terms needed to be impd on these matters.).III. Classification of contract terms1. BackgroundUp until 50 years ago all terms were classified as either being a condition or being a warranty. Now thereis a thirdsibility - innominate terms.2. Distinguishing betn conditions and warranti

4、es2.1. Legislation:Sute often identifies impd terms specifically as either conditions or warranties, e.g. section12 of the- 45 -DefinitionRemedies for breach1.1 ConditionA condition is a vital term, going to the root of the contract.Breach of a condition entitles the injured party to decide to treat

5、 the contra discharged and/or to claim damages.1.2 WarrantyA warranty is a term subsidiary to the main pur e of the contract.Breach of warranty only entitles the injured party to claim damages.因欠繳房租被房東訴至。辯稱，不付房租的原因是因?yàn)殡娞輼翘菽昃檬奘褂?。房東主張，雙方之間并沒(méi)有正式租賃合同，也未約定房東有義務(wù)維修電梯樓梯。認(rèn)為，將電梯和樓梯保持在可使用狀態(tài)應(yīng)為合同的必要條款。經(jīng)營(yíng)者將其所頭租賃給

6、船主。船主將退潮時(shí)將船只駛?cè)氪a頭后船只擱淺，船體受到嚴(yán)重破壞。本案時(shí)，在合同中默視增加了碼頭必須可以供船只安全使用這一默視條款。SGA 1979.2.2. Case law:Case law may also identify particular types of clauses as conditions:2.3.ention of the parties:The court will look at theention of the parties at the time the contract was made.3. Innominate terms:3.1. Definition:

7、An innominate term is an“warranty”.ermediate term which cannot be defined as eithera “condition” or a3.2. Remedies for breach:- 46 -Poussard v SpiersBettini v GyePoussard 是某知名女高音，與 約定在 1874 年 11 月 28 日參加由 組織的歌劇會(huì)。Poussard 直到 12 月 4 日 趕到劇場(chǎng)，因此繼續(xù)參加演出。Poussard隨后將 訴至 。Bettini 是某知名男高音，就參加于 1875 年 3 月 30 日在

8、倫敦舉行的演出與 Gye 簽署合同。合同約定，Bettini必須提前 6 天到達(dá)倫敦進(jìn)行排練，但 Bettini 直到 3 月 28 日才趕到倫敦。Gye 因此 讓 Bettini 參加演出，并視其未到場(chǎng)參加排練為對(duì)合同條件的違約。Bettini隨后將 Gye 訴至 。認(rèn)為，女高音未能參加演出將對(duì)于合同條件的。認(rèn)為，男高音未能參加演出前的排練僅將對(duì)于合同保證的。A.If the effect of the breach is serious: if the breach deprives the injured party of substantially thewhole benefit o

9、f the contract, the injured party is entitled to discharge the contract and/or to claim damages.B.If the effect of the breach is trivial: the injured party can only claim damages.3.3. Illustration:Fir ShipCov Kawasaki Kisa Kaisha1962.IV. Excluclauses1. Definition:An excluclause is a clause in a cont

10、ract which purports (claims) to exclude liability (arising frombreach of contract) altogether or to restrict it by limiting damages or by iming other onerous conditions.- 47 -鐵路旅客規(guī)程第一百零一十四條 在運(yùn)送期間因承運(yùn)人過(guò)錯(cuò)給旅客造成身體損害或隨身攜帶品損失時(shí)，身體損害賠償金的最高限額為40000 元，隨身攜帶品賠償金的最高限額 800 元。經(jīng)承運(yùn)人證明事故是由承運(yùn)人和旅客或托運(yùn)人的共同過(guò)錯(cuò)所至，應(yīng)根據(jù)各自過(guò)錯(cuò)的程度分

11、別承擔(dān)責(zé)任。自 處租賃船只，租期 24 個(gè)月。合同約定， 必須在租賃期內(nèi)保證船只“適合用于貨運(yùn)服務(wù)”（”in every way fitted for ordinary cargo service”）。由于引擎老化及水手的不當(dāng)處理，船只由利物浦出航時(shí)已耽誤 5 個(gè)月，在到達(dá)大阪后又進(jìn)行了約 2 個(gè)月整修， 因此決定解除合同。認(rèn)為 無(wú)權(quán)解除合同，故將 訴至 。2. Incorporation rule:Excluclauses must be incorporatedo a contract before theye legal effect. It can beincorporated by

12、signature, notice, or previous dealings.2.1. SignatureObtaining signature is enough. The party who renders his or her signature on a written contract is deemedtoe agreed to all terms sed in it, even though he or she did not read or understand them:LEstrange v Graucob 1939.2.2. Notice:A.Reasonablenes

13、s: reasonable steps must be taken to bring the clause to the attention of the otherparty. What are reasonable steps depends on circumstan: Thompson vRailway 1930.B.Timing of notice: the giving of notice must occur before or at the time of making the contract: Olleyv Marlborough Court 1949.2.3. Previ

14、ous dealing:There must be a consistent course of dealings: Spurling v Bradshaw 1956.- 48 -Olley 在酒店處辦理住宿手續(xù)后，在酒店房間內(nèi)發(fā)現(xiàn)免責(zé)條款，規(guī)定旅客在酒店丟失任何財(cái)物，酒店概不予以賠償。問(wèn)題：該免責(zé)條款是否為合同的內(nèi)容之一？Thompson 大字不識(shí)一字，前往火車(chē)站購(gòu)火車(chē)票一張?；疖?chē)票正面書(shū)有“具體條款條件請(qǐng)見(jiàn) ”，火車(chē)票 書(shū)有“ 條款條件請(qǐng)參見(jiàn)火車(chē)站時(shí)刻表”。這些條款條件中規(guī)定了免責(zé)條款，免除公司就人身?yè)p害所應(yīng)承擔(dān)的責(zé)任。問(wèn)題：該免責(zé)條款是否為原 合同的內(nèi)容之一？ 認(rèn)為， 已經(jīng)采取合理步驟向

15、 提示免責(zé)條款的存在，所以該免責(zé)條款是合同的一部分。咖啡店經(jīng)營(yíng)者（買(mǎi)方）與賣(mài)方簽署合同一臺(tái)自動(dòng)售賣(mài)機(jī)，合同內(nèi)容中約定了免責(zé)條款。買(mǎi)方在簽字時(shí)既沒(méi)有看合同，也不知道其中有約定免責(zé)條款。問(wèn)題：該免責(zé)條款是否為合同的一部分（即合同內(nèi)容之一）？2.4. Red-hand rule for onerous terms:Where a term is particularly unusual and onerous it should be highlighted; failure to do so meanst itdoes notProgrammese incorporated in to the c

16、ontract:1988.erfoto Picture Library v Stiletto Visual3. The contra proferentem rule:3.1. Definition:Liability can only be excluded or restricted by clear words. In deciding what an excluclause means,the court willret any ambiguity against thewho res on the excluclause.3.2. Illustration:In Holr v Ram

17、bler Motors 1972, the excluclause on thesedt “company is notresponsible for damage caused by fire to customers cars on the premises”, the court heldt it shouldbereted against the garagehe narrower sense sot it did not give exemption from fire damagedue to negligence. If a negligence the courts requireincluded.wishes sucsfully to exclude or limit liability for loss caused byt the word “negligence”, or an accepted synonym for it, should be- 49 -將他的轎車(chē)拖至 的車(chē)庫(kù)進(jìn)行維修。在修理過(guò)程中，員工過(guò)失火災(zāi)，的轎車(chē)被燒毀。事發(fā)前五年內(nèi)，先后 4 次在處修車(chē)，每次均簽署了一