HND 商法导论oute 2每题用的Case(自己总结的).doc

HND 商法导论oute 2每题用的Case(自己总结的) Cases willbe usedfor eachquestion,including thefact andjudgment ofeach caseas well as thecontent fromthe textbook.This isjust thecase lawparty of the answers.Not theprehensive orplete answers.DO NOTSIMPLY COPYIT，USE YOUROWN WORDS.Some of the wordsfollows arejust acopy fromour textbook.以下部分是本次考试所要使用的案例，包含了案例的概括，法院的判决，以及课本提及的相关知识点（如果你使用别的案例，请自行总结）。 这些只是题目中所需要使用的案例，并不是完整的答案。 不要只是把这些内容抄上去，请用自己的话说。 因为有些内容只是直接从书上抄下来的。 Case1Question1:Carlill vCarbolic Smoke Ball Co1893Facts:the Carbolic SmokeBall Co madean advertisementthat anyonewho used“smoke ball”under aright mannerfor aspecified timeand thencaught theflu wouldget a100paid.Carlill didthe abovethings andCarbolicSmokeBallCorefused topay the100.Judgment:the performanceoftheconditions(catching fluafter usingthe smokeball)was aeptanceenough.Area oflaw fromtextbook:offers madeto generalpublic wherebythe publiconly haveto dosomething toaept.Question2:Spellman vSpellman1961Facts:Spellmans arehusband andwife.The husbandpurchased acar forhis wifeto savetheir marriage.However,after the car deliveredto theirhome,the husbandrefused totransfer tohis wife.Judgment:it washeld that this was a purelydomestic arrangementnot intendedto createany legalrelations andaordingly thewife acquiredno legalrights in thecar.Area oflaw fromtextbook:a personaor socialobligation willnot usuallybe classedas aLegal Obligation.Question3:Brinkibon Ltdv Stahag Stahl1983Facts:Brinkibon Ltd,a Londonpany,sent anaeptance toStahagStahl,an Australianbased panyin Vienna,via telex.The question at issuein thiscase isabout wherethe contractwas made.Judgment:instantaneous munication,the formationgenerally oursin theplace wherethe aeptanceis made.Area oflaw fromtextbook:contract couldbe formedamong partiesin theplace wherethe aeptanceis made.(the Formof Aeptances)Question4:Wolf&Wolf vForfar PotatoCo Ltd (1984)Facts:a ScottishCo offeredto sella quantityof potatoesto Dutch Co.DutchCocalled anaeptance withnew conditions.The ScottishCo ignoredthis andwere takento courtfor breach of contract.Judgment:the courtheld thatno contractwas formed.The secondtelex sentby DutchCo was a counteroffer whichmakes the original offerinvalid.Area oflaw fromtextbook:if theparty madea countoffer,theoriginaloffer hadbeen cancelled.Case2Question5:Smith vSim1954Facts:Sim advertisedhis pubfor sale.Smith relyingon thestatements concerningturnover suppliedby Simvia hissolicitors,bought thebusiness for21,600.Shortly after,Smith suedthat Simwas guiltyof fraudin falselyrepresenting theturnover.This provesto betrue.Judgment:the courtheld thatits fraudulentmisrepresentation.Smith canchoose amongrescind thecontract,claim damages,or bothrescind thecontract andclaim damages.Area oflaw fromtextbook:party who has reliedonafraudulent statementcan claimdamages aswellashaving thecontract rescinded.Question6No casesapplied.Question7:Smith vSim1954(see Question5)Question8:No casesapplied.Question9:Anderson vPringle of Scotland1998Facts:Mr Andersonwasacurrent employeeof PringleofScotland,and thepany isconsidering thatemployees wouldbe selectedfor redundancyon thebasis oflast infirst out”.However,Mr Andersonthought thismethod was not fair.Judgment:having regardto theterms ofthe interdictsought,Mr Andersonhad aprima faciecase forintervention.That beingso,there remainedthe questionofthebalance ofconvenience.The Courtwas satisfiedthatthisfavored maintainingthe statusquo,by grantingthe interiminterdict.If itwasnotgranted,Mr Andersonwould havelost hisjob,whereas thepany wasnot atany immediaterisk ofdisaster.Area oflaw fromtextbook:the legalremedies appliedto aninnocent partywhohassuffered abreachof contract isconsidering bywhat theterms areinthecontract andwhat damagethis breachof contractbring tothe innocentparty.Question10:James BFraser&Co Ltdv DennyMott&Dickson Ltd1944Facts:James BFraser&Co Ltd,a timbermerchant,would buywood fromDenny andlease atimber yardwith theoption tobuy itor takea longlease oncertain termswith DennyMott&Dikson Ltd,in1929.In1939,there wasa Controlof TimberOrder releasedand causedfurther transactionsbetween theparties becameimpossible fromthe endof September,1939.Judg