国际商事合同模板法案例讲解大全.doc

2、国际商事合同法案例讲解大全邹岿 编第二章 国际商事合同法第一节 合同法概述第二节 合同的成立1、吉卜逊诉曼彻斯特市议会案〔Gibson v．Manchester City Counci1 19791970年9月,保守党占多数议席的英国曼彻斯特市议会决定出让该议会房子,写信给原告吉卜逊称："市议会有可能出让房子,价格约2725英镑,如你想买的话,请正式写份申请"原告按要求写好申请,并回了信正在此时,市议会重新选举,工党占了上风,决定不出让房子了原告遂要求法院强制执行法院认为市议会信中的"如你想买的话,请正式写份申请"属于要约邀请,原告的申请属于要约,市议会后来没有接受要约,所以没有意思表示一致,也就没有合同原告因此败诉2、林肯被刺国防部悬赏缉凶纠纷案林肯< Abraham Lincoln,1809-1865>是美国第16届总统林肯被暗杀后,有三个犯罪嫌疑人,其中两人被逮捕,剩下一人怎么也找不到为此,国防部悬赏25万美元查找这个嫌疑犯原来,这个人跑到意大利当兵去了隐姓埋名许多年之后,有一天,该人酒后吹牛,把当年暗杀林肯的事说了出来听到该话的意大利人大惊,就把消息通过意大利官方告知美国国防部。

由于长期没有音信,美国国防部已经撤回了这个悬赏但意大利方面并不知道后来,通风报信的人要求美国支付这25万美元的悬赏美国本土撤回的悬赏,在不知情的意大利人看来并未被撤回,后来起诉到法院最终双方达成妥协,美国国防部给了意大利报信人10万美元了结此案3、纽曼诉斯奇夫案 1985一个名叫斯奇夫的人,自称反税收者,在美国哥伦比亚广播公司〔CBSl凌晨3：00-4:00的一档夜间电视节目中,声称联邦政府并未要求美国公民申报所得税,并说："如果有人能从联邦税法中查到公民必须申报所得税的规定,并马上打给本档夜间节目,我将付给他100 000美元"哥伦比亚广播公司的早间新闻转播了夜间节目的这则报道一个名叫纽曼的律师看后,查了联邦税法,确认联邦税法要求公民必须申报所得税,随即打给哥伦比亚广播公司,要求得到100 000美元,CBS把这一要求转给斯奇夫,斯奇夫拒绝支付纽曼上法院告斯奇夫违约,法院认为斯奇夫的要约是有时间期限的,即当天夜里3：00-4：00的那档节目,在这期间若有承诺,合同遂告成立,斯奇夫就要支付100 000美元,过了这段时间,要约失效,无合同可言,原告败诉。

4、斯蒂克诉马立克案案 1809船方雇用一批海员作一次往返于伦敦与波罗的海的航行,途中两名船员开了小差,船长答应其他船员,如果他们努力把船开回伦敦,他将把那两名海员的工资分给他们,事后船长食言,船员到法院起诉,法院认为船长的允诺是不能执行的,因为缺少对价,理由是,船员在开船时,已经承担了义务,答应在航行中遇到一般普通意外情况应尽力而为,有两名船员开小差属普通意外情况,余下的船员依据原来签订的雇佣合同有义务尽力把船安全开回目的港,简而言之,凡属原来合同已经存在的义务,不能作为一项新的允诺对价5、蒙特夫特诉斯考特案〔Mountford v．Scott1971被告答应以1美元的价格把房子卖给原告,但后来被告反悔了,声称1美元是个不充分对价,法院认为对价并不要求对等或充分,合同能否执行取决于有没有对价,而不是对价充分与否,对价是否充分应由双方当事人在订约时自行考虑决定被告败诉只有在欺诈、误会、不正当影响等案件中,法院才会把对价不充分作为证明欺诈、误会、不正当影响的一种证据,当事人才可以要求解除合同6、哈特立诉鲍生比案< Hartlay v． Ponsonby>1857在本案中,1/3的船员开小差,船长答应分他们的工资给剩下的船员,到了目的港,船长反悔了,法院认为这种情况与前述斯蒂克诉马立克案中的情况不一样,本案船员走了1/3,已非普通意外事件,这时船员继续开船属履行了合同以外的义务,应视为对价,应得到额外工资。

最终被告败诉7、葛莱斯布劳克诉葛莱摩根案< Glasbrook v． Glamorgance> 1925被告是个煤矿业主,担心罢工的矿工会破坏煤矿设施,遂要求警察驻扎矿区,警察没同意,认为按常规的巡逻足以对付这一情况被告又答应付警察驻扎费后被告拒绝支付费用,法院认为警察的驻扎超出了常规的公共义务即巡逻,应视为对价,被告败诉8、Hamer V． SidwayOn March 20,1869,William E. Story Sr. had promised his nephew, William E. Story Jr. $5 000 if his nephew would abstain from drinking alcohol,using tobacco,and playing cards or billiard for money until the nephew reached 21 years of age. Story Jr. accepted the promise of his uncle and did refrain from the prohibited acts until he turned the agreed-upon age of 21. After celebrating his 21st birthday on January 31,1875,Story Jr. wrote to his uncle and requested the promised $5 000.The uncle responded to his nephew in a letter dated February 6,1875 in which he told his nephew that he would fulfill his promise. Story Sr. also stated that he would prefer to wait until his nephew was older before actually handing over the < then> extremely large sum of money < according to an online inflation calculator, $ 5 000 in 1890 would be worth approximately $ 118 000>.The Sr. also declared in his leter that the money owed to his nephew would accrue interest while he held it on his nephew’s behalf. The Jr. consented to his uncle’s wishes and agreed that the money would remain with his uncle until Jr. became older.William E. Story Sr. died on January 29,1887 without having transferred any of the money owed to his nephew. Story Jr. had meanwhile transferred the $ 5 000 financial interest to his wife;Story Jr. ‘s wife had later transferred this financial interest to Louisa Hamer on assignment. The Sr. ‘s estate executor refused to grant Hamer the money,believing there was no binding contract due to a lack of consideration. As a result,Hamer sued the estate’s executor,Franklin Sidway.Opinion of the courtThe Court of Appeals reversed and directed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed,with costs payable out of the estate. Judge Alton Parker ,writing for a unanimous court,wrote that the forbearance of legal rights by Story Jr. namely the consensual abstinence from " drinking liquor,using tobacco,swearing,and playing cards or billiards for money until he should become 21 years of age" constituted consideration in exchange for the promise given by Story Sr. . Because the forbearance was valid consideration given by a party in exchange for a promise to perform by another party < Story Sr.> ,the promise wascontractually obligated to fulfill the promise.本案例中,小威廉的叔叔老威廉曾答应向小威廉支付5 000美元,条件是小威廉在21岁之前不喝酒、不吸烟、不赌博。

小威廉如实履行了叔叔的要求,但一直未能得到老威廉所答应的5 000美元被告律师认为,老威廉与小威廉之间的合同没有对价,因而是无效的具体而言,受约人小威廉并未因戒酒戒烟而受到任何损害,反而从中受益,即使没有叔叔的允诺,小威廉所做的一切也对自己有益,因而除非要约人得到好处,合同是没有对价的上诉法院认为：本案中,受约人享有法律上的权利使用烟草或偶尔喝酒为了得到要约人答应支付的5 000美元,受约人在几年的时间里放弃了自己的合法权利,限制了自己的合法行为自由,充分履行了要约人所提出的条件,这足以构成支持要约人约定的对价9、克蒂斯诉化学洗染公司案< Curtis v．Chemical Cleaning Co．Ltd>1951原告去洗染公司洗衣服,洗染公司规定对所洗衣服受损、受污概不负责,但雇员对原告只说衣服受损不负责,后来衣服受污,洗染公司想以免责条款为由推脱责任,法院认为洗染公司虽规定有包括受损、受污的免责条款,但进入合同的只有受损免责条款,受污免责未进入合同,故不能免责,被告败诉10、奥立诉马立波夫有限公司案〔Olley v．Marlborough court Ltd1949原告进入被告所属的旅馆,在服务台办好手续走进房间时,发现一张"注意事项",上面写着"本旅馆对被偷物品概不负责",后原告东西被盗,法院认为原告在服务台办好手续,即订立了合同,注意事项型免责条款在合同订立之后,因此不进入合同,被告败诉。

11、苏顿诉休莱停车场案 < Thornton v. Shoelane Parking Ltd> 1971原告开车到停车场,把钱。