- 1、本文档共52页,可阅读全部内容。
- 2、有哪些信誉好的足球投注网站(book118)网站文档一经付费(服务费),不意味着购买了该文档的版权,仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用,不得用于商业用途,未经授权,严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等,侵权必究。
- 3、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传,本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺!文档内容仅供研究参考,付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费,意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险,本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务;查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档,您可以点击 这里二次下载。
- 4、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等,请点击“版权申诉”(推荐),也可以打举报电话:400-050-0827(电话支持时间:9:00-18:30)。
查看更多
国际商法3 Enforcea的bility of Contract
Unit 3 Enforceability of Contract;Capacity of Parties;Effect of Lack of Capacity;Capacity of Minors;In UK;Exercise: Nash v. Inman;Capacity of Mentally Impaired Persons;Contracts of Intoxicated Persons;Capacity of civil conduct in China (中国对当事人能力的规定);Limited capacity;No capacity;中国法下的意思真实;重大误解;胁迫;欺诈;显失公平;英美合同法下的意思真实;Misrepresentation and Fraud;Misrepresentation and Fraud;Mistake;Duress;Factors taken into account;胁迫的案例;Economic Duress;经济胁迫的案例;Undue Influence;Two different types of undue influence;Presumed undue influence;推定非适当影响案例;Case: actual undue influence;Illegality;Illegal contract;Classification of illegality ;?classification of illegality;D. Restrictive trading
Esso Petroleum Ltd v. Harper’s Garage Ltd
A garage company, which owned two garages, entered into a solus agreement with Esso under which it agreed to buy all its petrol from Esso, to keep the garage open at all reasonable hours and not to sell the garage without ensuring that the purchaser entered into a similar agreement with Esso. One agreement was to last 5 years and the other for 21 years. In effect, the garage owners were tied to Esso for 21 years. It was held that the 21 year agreement was invalid, but the 5 year agreement with Esso was valid.
;Consideration (约因或对价 );What’s consideration;Adequacy of Consideration;Moral obligation;Preexisting Legal Duties;Preexisting Contractual Duties ;Case: Stilk v. Myrick (1809);Williams v. Roffey Bros Nicholls Ltd;Trivial acts;Compromise and forbearance to sue;Cook v. Wright; Past Consideration;已过时的约因 (past consideration ); Consideration must move from the promisee; 1968年白斯韦克夫人诉小白斯韦克案中,某煤炭商与其侄子订立了一项书面合同。根据该合同煤炭商将其企业卖给其侄子,而其侄子则答应在煤炭商死后每周向其寡妻支付5镑。但当该煤炭商死后,其侄子拒绝履约,并因此受诉。法庭裁定,原告作为死者的遗产管理人有权得到此款;但由于她不是该合同当事人,故不能以其个人名义诉请该合同强制执行。
However, as a result of the enactment of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, English law now confers on third parties a much wider right to sue to enforce a term of a contract which has been concluded between two other p
您可能关注的文档
最近下载
- 内蒙古版综合实践活动五年级下册第三课 今天我是小交警 课件.ppt
- 道德与法治四年级上册第一单元 与班级共成长 大单元整体学历案教案 教学设计附作业设计(基于新课标教学评一致性).docx
- 公安寄递物流业治安管理.pptx VIP
- 2024年苏科版九年级数学下册第六章《相似图形》课件.ppt VIP
- 故事——小羊过桥.ppt
- 自动售货机plc控制系统设计.doc
- 股先知周线指标公式通达信版(1).docx VIP
- 选择结构程序设计-C语言程序试验报告.pdf
- 以廉洁风险防控为核心的“三不腐”机制应用-来源:现代企业文化(第2020010期)-中国工人出版社.pdf VIP
- 疯狂星期二_13610597.pdf
文档评论(0)