|
|
发表于 7-7-2011 01:21:38|来自：新加坡
|
显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 ratemouse 于 7-7-2011 01:49 编辑
ratemouse 发表于 6-7-2011 22:35 
去国图在关门前复印了一些资料出来。文章里的两个案子，第一个大概胜了（我还没搞确定，一审？）。第二个 ...
总算差不多研究明白了，对楼主来讲一好消息一坏消息。好消息是高庭判诉方/买家胜。案子有些复杂，我挑和支票跳票相关的来引用（练打字）和翻译：
… In this view, there was nothing in the terms of the option which expressly or impliedly stated that the contract of sale would not come into existence at all unless the cheque was honoured upon its presentation for payment. [OTP没有任何一条要求支票是可兑现的] In the circumstances the plaintiff had complied with the term relating to the exercise of the option notwithstanding its subsequent dishonor. [诉方/买家已按规定执行了OTP，即使之后其支票跳票了]
坏消息是，判决完了，法官把这个案件提交给司法委员会，但司法委员会给了一些不同意见/纠正(?)：
Although the word “cheque” was used in the preamble, it could hardly be the parties’ intention that even if the cheque was dishonoured, the option would be deemed exercised. [尽管使用了cheque一词，但是很难说双方的本意是使用一张不能兑现的支票就可以被认为是执行了OTP] Indeed, one would have thought that in order to give business efficacy to the agreement, the implication should have been exactly the opposite: that the cheque had to be honoured upon presentation for payment in order for the option to be considered properly exercised (subject to the joint vendor’s duty to present the cheque for payment within a reasonable time). [一般上，为了合约效率，人们认为递交支票之后应该隐含有这样的条文：OTP的正确执行需要支票是可以兑现的（前提是卖家在一段合理的时间内去兑现这张支票）]
案件名称是Ng Soo Khim v Heng Teo Bong [1993] 1 SLR 407
这个案子发生在1985年，判决是1993年？
|
|
IP卡
狗仔卡
显身卡
