对外经济贸易大学国际商法案例参考资料案例篇.doc

最新下载(NewD) 中国最大、最专业的学习资料下载站 转载请保留本信息案例讨论1Lucyetal.v.Zehmeretal.84S.E.(2d)516,196Va.493(1954)ComplainantsinstitutedthissuittohavespecificperformanceofacontractbywhichitwasallegedthedefendantshadsoldtoW.O.Lucyfor$50,000atractoflandknownastheFergusonfarm,ownedbydefendantA.H.Zehmer.J.C.Lucy,theothercomplainant,isabrotherofW.O.Lucy,towhomW.O.Lucytransferredahalfinterestinhisallegedpurchase.TheinstrumentsoughttobeenforcedwaswrittenbyA.H.ZehmeronDecember20,1952,inthesewords:“WeherebyagreetoselltoW.O.LucytheFergusonfarmfor$50,000,titlesatisfactorytobuyer,”signedbybothdefendants.TheanswerofA.H.ZehmeradmittedthatatthetimementionedW.O.Lucyofferedhim$50,000cashforthefarmbutthathe(Zehmer)consideredthattheofferwasmadeinjest;thatsothinking,andbothheandLucyhavinghadseveraldrinks,hewroteoutthe“memorandum”quotedaboveandinducedhiswifetosignit;thathedidnotdeliverthememorandumtoLucy,butLucypickeditup,readit,putitinhispocket,andattemptedtoofferhim$5.00tobindthebargain;thatherefusedtoaccept,and,realizingforthefirsttimethatLucywasserious,assuredhimthathehadnointentionofsellingthefarm,andthathewholematterwasajoke.Lucyleftthepremisesinsistingthathehadpurchasedthefarm.OnMonday,December22nd,Lucyengagedanattorneytoexaminethetitle.TheattorneyreportedfavorablyonDecember31st,andonJanuary2ndLucywrotetoZehmerstatingthatthetitlewassatisfactoryandthathewasreadytopaythepurchasepriceincash,andaskingwhenZehmerwouldbereadytoclosethedeal.Zehmerrepliedbyletterassertingthathehadneveragreedorintendedtosellthefarm.Thereuponcomplainantsbroughtthissuit.Theissueiswhethertheagreementwasenteredintowithcontractualintentorwasmerelyajoke.Buchanan,J.InhistestimonyZehmerclaimedthathe“washighasaGeorgiapine,”andthatthetransaction“wasjustabunchoftwodoggoneddrunksbluffingtoseewhocouldtalkthebiggestandsaythemost.”ThatclaimisinconsistentwithhisattempttotestifyingreatdetailastowhatwassaidandwhatwasdoneTherecordisconvincingthatZehmerwasnotintoxicatedtotheextentofbeingunabletocomprehendthenatureandconsequenceoftheinstrumentheexecuted,andhencethatinstrumentisnottobeinvalidatedonthatground.TheevidenceisconvincingalsothatZehmerwrotetwoagreements,thefirstonebeginning“Iherebyagreetosell”;thatLucytoldhimthathewantedZehmerswifetosignthememorandum;andthatZehmertoreupthefirstagreementandthenmadeasecondonewhichread“Weherebyagreetosell.”Bothheandhiswifesignedthesecondmemorandum.Theappearanceofthecontract;thefactthatitwasunderdiscussionforfortyminutesormorebeforeitwassigned;LucysobjectiontothefirstdraftbecauseitwaswritteninthesingularandhewantedMrs.Zehmertosignitalso;therewritingtomeetthatobjectionandthesigningbyMrs.Zehmer;thediscussionofwhatwastobeincludedinthesale;theprovisionforexaminationofthetitle;thecompletenessoftheinstrumentthatwasexecuted;thetakingpossessionofitbyLucywithnorequestorsuggestionbyeitherofthedefendantsthathegiveitback,arefactswhichfurnishpersuasiveevidencethattheexecutionofthecontractwasaseriousbusinesstransactionratherthanacasual,jestingmatter,asdefendantsnowcontend.Inthefieldofcontracts,asgenerallyelsewhere,“Wemustlooktotheoutwardexpressionofapersonasmanifestinghisintentionratherthanhissecretorunexpressedintention.Thelawimputestoapersonanintentioncorrespondingtothereasonablemeaningofhiswordsandacts.”FirstNat.ExchangeBankofRoanokev.RoanokeOilCo.,169Va.99,192S.E.764.Thementalassentofthepartiesisnotrequisiteforaformationofacontract.Ifthewordsorotheractsofoneofthepartieshavebutonereasonablemeaning,hisundisclosedintentionisimmaterialexpectwhereanunreasonablemeaningwhichheattachestohismanifestationsisknowntotheotherparty.Anagreementormutualassentisofcourseessentialtoavalidcontractbutthelawimputestoapersonanintentioncorrespondingtothereasonablemeaningofhiswordsandacts.Soapersoncannotsetupthathewasmerelyjestingwhenhisconductandwordswouldwarrantareasonablepersoninbelievingthatheintendedarealagreement.Reversed.思考题：1你是否认为，不管被告喝了多少酒，醉到什么程度，判决结果都会对他不利？2被告先后签了两份协议对判决结果产生了什么影响？3法官在其判决意见的第三自然段列举了一系列的事实，其目的何在？4如何理解“Thelawimputestoapersonanintentioncorrespondingtothereasonablemeaningofhiswordsandacts.”?5你认为本案被告“表达出来的意思”与“保留与内心的意思”是相同的，还是不同的本案的issue为：“Whetherornotthefinalagreementwasenteredintowithcontractualintentorwasmerelyajoke.”就是说Zehmer后来所立的协议是否是一有拘束力的合同，并且其后来无意出售农场是否受到此协议的约束。我的分析：“TheevidenceisconvincingalsothatZehmerwrotetwoagreements,thefirstonebeginning“Iherebyagreetosell”;thatLucytoldhimthathewantedZehmerswifetosignthememorandum;andthatZehmertoreupthefirstagreementandthenmadeasecondonewhichread“Weherebyagreetosell.”Bothheandhiswifesignedthesecondmemorandum.”可以说明，协议的重新拟订的过程确实是严肃认真的，并且做到了双方的合意。“thatsothinking,andbothheandLucyhavinghadseveraldrinks,hewroteoutthe“memorandum”quotedaboveandinducedhiswifetosignit;thathedidnotdeliverthememorandumtoLucy,butLucypickeditup,readit,putitinhispocket,andattemptedtoofferhim$5.00tobindthebargain;”而且可以表明，Zehmer虽然喝了酒，但绝对没有到不能理解协议内容的程度。综上，被告Zehmer虽没有出卖的意思，但其外在行为已足使原告或者其他人相信其本人有订约的意思。所以，“Wemustlooktotheoutwardexpressionofapersonasmanifestinghisintentionratherthanhissecretorunexpressedintention.Thelawimputestoapersonanintentioncorrespondingtothereasonablemeaningofhiswordsandacts.”我们必须看当事人意图的外在表示，而不是其内在的未表示出来的秘不可测的意图。1思考题1，回答是否定的，也就是说不管被告喝了多少酒，醉到什么程度，判决结果不一定都对他不利，结合本案，如果被告喝酒喝得烂醉，以致于失去了理解协议内容的能力的话，我想判决就倾向于对他有利了。2。被告先后签了两份协议，如前所述，有理由使法官相信此一订立协议的过程是严肃认真的，且已做到了双方的合意，为一有效的有约束力的合同。3。其目的是为了说明订立合同有双方合意的证据，并不是开玩笑。4。结合本案，应理解为，法律所赋予人们的同意的意思表示应该以其意图的外在表示为准，而不应考察其未表示出来的真实的内心意思。5。我认为本案“表达出来的意思”与“保留于内心的意思”是不同的，也就是说，其实Zehmer内心是不愿意为此一订立合同的行为的，但是，如前所述，第三人有理由通过Zehmer的言行相信他有订合同的意图，况且，基于诚实信用原则，如果允许人人在订好合同后在反悔，那么有关交易岂不变得混乱了！luiswu1983Iagreewithericinallaspectsbutone,whichisthelastquestionpresentedabove.whythedefendantrefusedtoperformthecontractwhichhasbeenlegallyformedbetweenthetwopartieswedonotknowuponthewholecontextofthisjudgement.butonemustbeemphasizedisthattheoutwardexpressionofthedefendantistandemwithhissecretorunexpressedintention.sincetheintentionofdefendantforconcludingthiscontractissoserious(thereasonisclearlyclaifiedbyericabove)andthedefendant,althoughdrinkssomuch,canunderstandthecontextandconsequencesofthiscontractandhiswifewhoisanresonablepersonhadsignedhernameontheagreementcollaterally,wehasnoreasaontoconcludethatoutwardexpressionofthedefendantwasincontraventionofhissecretorunexpressedintention.welcometodiscussbelow!谢谢ERIC，我也一直想问这个案子，但太怕麻烦。我的疑问是1.被告的妻子的签名是否具有法律约束力，（是不是还要考虑房产是否为夫妻共同财产的问题，其妻是否有代理权的问题我晕，可能我把问题复杂化了），如果有约束力，那被告就是喝的再醉，在判决也对他不利了。（但奇怪，原告怎么没提这点呢，可能还有一些其他事实罢？）2.我觉得本案还有一个重要事实就是，当原告提出支付5美金作为对价时，被告意识到原告认真了，所以拒绝了，并说他是开玩笑的。他之所以没有进一步行动以阻止合同生效，就可以归结为当时的被告的精神状况（喝了很多酒），所以我认为，被告隐藏于心的意思与表达在外的意思是不同的。（但法官并没有强调这个事实，如果我是法官我可能就要作出有利被告的判决了，呵呵）既然被告已明确告诉了原告他是开玩笑的，为什么原告还可以合理以为合同成立？大家怎么认为呢？其实着案子除了外在表现出的客观真实意思外-客观标准我认为还涉及了缔约能力醉酒的人是否有缔约能力-认识标准（cognitivestandard)，他是否有能力合理的理解交易的性质和后果见笑了！从英美法上说醉酒的人属于缺乏定约能力的人,依美国的法例,酗酒者订立的合同原则上有强制执行力,但如果酗酒者在定约时由于醉酒而失去了姓为能力,则可要求撤销合同.所以还是要具体分析的.案例讨论2二“格式之战”ButlerMachineToolCo.v.ExCell-OCorp.19791W.L.R.401,19791ALLE.R.956(C.A.)On23rdMay1969,inresponsetoaninquirybythebuyers,thesellersquotedapriceforamachinetoolof75,535,withdeliverytobegivenin10months.Onthebackoftheirofferwereanumberoftermsandconditions,whichstipulatedthattheywereto“prevailoveranytermsandconditionsinthebuyersorder”.Oneoftheconditionspurportedtoallowthesellertochargethebuyersthepriceforthemachineprevailingatthetimeofdelivery.Thebuyersrepliedbyplacinganorderforthepurchaseofthemachine.Theirdocumentnbspstipulatedthattheorderwassubjecttoanumberoftermsandconditionswhichdifferedfromthoseputforwardbythesellersandwhich,inparticular,madenoprovisionforanyincreaseinprice.Atthefootofthebuyersorderform,therewasatear-offslipuponwhichthesellerswereinvitedtoaccepttheorder“onthetermsandconditionsstatedthereon”.On5thJune1969,thesellerscompletedandreturnedthissliptothebuyerswithaletterstatingthatthebuyersorderwasbeingenteredinaccordancewiththesellersquotationof23rdMay1969.Whenthesellersultimatelycametodeliverthemachine,theyclaimedtobeentitledtoanadditional2,892,underthepriceformulaoftheiroriginaloffer.Thebuyerstookthepositionthattheirorderprevailedandthattherewasaccordinglyafixedpricecontract.Thesellersactionfordamagessucceededattrialonthegroundthatthepricevariationclauseinthesellersofferwasatermwhichwasintendedtoprevail.LordDenningM.R.Nodoubtacontractwasconcluded.Butonwhatterms?Thesellersrelyontheirgeneralconditionsandontheirlastletterwhichsaidinaccordancewithourrevisedquotationof23rdMay(whichhadonthebackthepricevariationclause).Thebuyersrelyontheacknowledgmentsignedbythesellerswhichacceptedthebuyersorderonthetermsandconditionsstatedthereon(whichdidnotincludeapricevariationclause).Ifthosedocumentareanalyzedinourtraditionalmethod,theresultwouldseemtometobethis:thequotationof23rdMay1969wasanofferbythesellerstothebuyerscontainingthetermsandconditionsontheback.Theorderof27thMay1969purportedtobeanacceptanceofthatofferinthatitwasforthesamemachineatthesameprice,butitcontainedsuchadditionsastocostofinstallation,dateofdeliveryandsoforth,thatitwasinlawarejectionoftheofferandconstitutedacounter-offer.ThatisclearfromHydev.Wrenchsupra,at33.AsMegawJsaidinTrollope&Collsv.AtomicPowerConstructions19623AllE.R.1035at1038“thecounter-offerkillstheoriginaloffer”.Theletterofthesellersof5thJune1969wasanacceptanceofthatcounter-offer,asisshownbytheacknowledgmentwhichthesellerssignedandreturnedtothebuyers.Thereferencetothequotationof23rdMay1969referredonlytothepriceandidentityofthemachine.Thebetterwayistolookatallthedocumentpassingbetweenthepartiesandgleanfromthem,orfromtheconductoftheparties,whethertheyhavereachedagreementonallmaterialpoints,eventhoughtheremaybedifferencesbetweentheformsandconditionsprintedonthebackofthem.AsLordCairnsLCsaidinBrogdenv.MetropolitanRailwayCo.(1877),2App.Cas.666at672:theremaybeaconsensusbetweenthepartiesfarshortofacompletemodeofexpressingit,andthatconsensusmaybediscoveredfromlettersorfromotherdocumentofanimperfectandincompletedescription.Applyingthisguide,itwillbefoundthatinmostcaseswhenthereisabattleofformsthereisacontractassoonasthelastoftheformsissentandreceivedwithoutobjectionbeingtakentoit.ThatiswellobservedinBenjaminonSale9thed.(1974),84-85.Thedifficultyistodecidewhichform,orwhichpartofwhichform,isatermorconditionofthecontract.Insomecasesthebattleiswonbythemanwhofiresthelastshot.Heisthemanwhoputsforwardthelatesttermandconditions;and,iftheyarenotobjectedtobytheotherparty,hemaybetakentohaveagreedtothem.SuchwasBritishRoadServicesLtd.V.ArthurV.Crutchley*Co.,19681AllE.R.8llat816-817(C.A.)perLordPearson;andtheillustrationgivenbyProfessorGuestinAnsonsLawofContract24thed.(1975),37-38wherehesaysthat“thetermsofthecontractconsistofthetermsoftheoffersubjecttothemodificationscontainedintheacceptance”.Thatmayhowevergotoofar.Insomecases,however,thebattleiswonbythemanwhogetstheblowinfirst.Ifheofferstosellatanamedpriceonthetermsandconditionsstatedonthebackandthebuyerordersthegoodspurportingtoaccepttheofferonanorderformwithhisowndifferenttermsandconditionsontheback,then,ifthedifferenceissomaterialthatitwouldaffecttheprice,thebuyeroughtnottobeallowedtotakeadvantageofthedifferenceunlesshedrawsitspecificallytotheattentionoftheseller.Thereareyetothercaseswherethebattledependsontheshotsfiredonbothsides.Thereisaconcludedcontractbuttheformsvary.Thetermsandconditionsofbothpartiesaretobeconstruedtogether.Iftheycanbereconciledsoastogiveaharmoniousresult,allwellandgood.Ifdifferencesareirreconcilable,sothattheyaremutuallycontradictory,thentheconflictingtermsmayhavetobescrappedandreplacedbyareasonableimplication.Inthepresentcasethejudgethoughtthatthesellersintheiroriginalquotationgottheirblowinfirst,especiallybytheprovisionthatThesetermsandconditionsshallprevailoveranytermsandconditionsintheBuyersorder.Itwassoemphaticthatthepricevariationclausecontinuedthroughallthesubsequentdealingsandthatthebuyermustbetakentohaveagreedtoit.Icanunderstandthatpointofview.ButIthinkthatthedocumenthavetobeconsideredasawhole.And,asamatterofconstruction,Ithinktheacknowledgmentof5thJune1969isthedecisivedocumentItmakesitclearthatthecontractwasonthebuyerstermsandnotonthesellersterms;andthebuyerstermsdidnotincludeapricevariationclause.Iwouldthereforeallowtheappealandenterjudgmentforthebuyers.LawtonandBridgeL.JJ.deliveredconcurringjudgments.思考题：1。为什么法官说“Nodoubtacontractwasconcluded?”2。对于“格式之战”的不同解决方法对要约人和受要约人的利益有何影响？综合本案，我认为原告（seller）于23rdMay,1969年的文书为一要约，并且包含了“prevailoveranytermsandconditionsinthebuyersorder.”条款；被告（buyer）于27thMay,1969年的回复，正如案中所述，实际上已构成一反要约（counter-offer），并且包含有“onthetermsandconditionsthereon”的条款，而且，其中不包括调整价格的条款（whichdidnotincludeapricevariationclause）。尔后在5thMay,1969年，原告接受了被告这一反要约，但在其中原告只提及品质及价格的有关条件，并未对众多的条款加以明确“Thereferencetothequotationof23rdMay1969referredonlytothepriceandidentityofthemachine”,“Thebetterwayistolookatallthedocumentpassingbetweentheparties”,此一举动并不能使原告适用其于23rdMay1969所加的条款“prevailoveranytermsandconditionsinthebuyersorder.”,也就是说原告并不能因此而有权调整价格，所以，应该以被告的反要约为准来确定合同条款的适用，法院就是这样判定的。思考题：1我认为法官的意思是，不管合同的有关条款的适用以哪一份合同格式为准，在本案中，合同业已成立，即其中要约与承诺两个因素都已具备。2。对于“格式之战”的不同解决方法，在本案中，包括以下三种情况：（1）。“thebattleiswonbythemanwhofiresthelastshot”，也就是说要是另一方不反对而接受有关合同的格式文件的话，那么合同应以此格式为准而约束当事人双方。-“Heisthemanwhoputsforwardthelatesttermandconditions;and,iftheyarenotobjectedtobytheotherparty,hemaybetakentohaveagreedtothem.”（2）。“thebattleiswonbythemanwhogetstheblowinfirst.”，在此种情形之下，比如说卖方出示一offer的合同格式文件，而买方也回复其自身的另一不同的格式文件，那么除非当买方充分地提出所有的条款都遵循己方为准，则一般来说都对卖方有利，合同格式应以原先的卖方的为准。-“Ifheofferstosellatanamedpriceonthetermsandconditionsstatedonthebackandthebuyerordersthegoodspurportingtoaccepttheofferonanorderformwithhisowndifferenttermsandconditionsontheback,then,ifthedifferenceissomaterialthatitwouldaffecttheprice,thebuyeroughtnottobeallowedtotakeadvantageofthedifferenceunlesshedrawsitspecificallytotheattentionoftheseller.”（3）。“thebattledependsontheshotsfiredonbothsides.”，按照案中所述，双方的条款和条件在此情况下应该合并起来考虑和处理：当能够彼此协调进而得出合理平衡的结果的话，那最好；当不能做到协调时，那么双方之间的彼此冲突的条款或条件应舍去，代之以合理的解释或推定。-“Thereisaconcludedcontractbuttheformsvary.Thetermsandconditionsofbothpartiesaretobeconstruedtogether.Iftheycanbereconciledsoastogiveaharmoniousresult,allwellandgood.Ifdifferencesareirreconcilable,sothattheyaremutuallycontradictory,thentheconflictingtermsmayhavetobescrappedandreplacedbyareasonableimplication.”LeadingCase:中央伦敦财产信托有限公司诉高树房产有限公司案下面这个案例是中英文对照的，也是确立英国合同法上的允诺上禁止反言原则(promissoryestoppel)的重要判例。CENTRALLONDONPROPERTYTRUSTLIMITEDv.HIGHTREESHOUSELIMITED.1946July18.DenningJ.Contract-Agreementintendedtocreatelegalrelations-Promisemadethereunder-Knowledgeofpromisorthatpromiseewillactonpromise-Promiseactedon-Enforceabilityofagreementwithoutstrictconsideration-Agreementunderseal-Variationofbyagreementoflesservalue-Estoppel.ByaleaseundersealdatedSeptember24,1937,theplaintiffcompanylettothedefendantcompany(asubsidiaryoftheplaintiffs)ablockofflatsforatermofninety-nineyearsfromSeptember29,1937,atagr