1 Performance of contract Paradine v Jane 1647

合约的履行 1. Performance of contract 合约履行的绝对责任: Paradine v. Jane (1647) 82 ER 897 合约履行的严格责任: Coggs v. Bernard (1703) 92 ER 109 (exempted Act of God and King’s enemy) 合约履行的第二种方式：赔偿金钱损失让受害方恢复 至合约被履行的地位 2/22/2021

合约受阻的权威说法 Lord Simon in National Carriers Ltd. v. Panalpina (Northern) Ltd. (1981) AC 675 : “Frustration of a contract takes place when there supervenes an event (without fault of either party and for which the contract makes no sufficient provision) which so significantly changes the nature (not merely the expense or onerousness) of the outstanding contractual rights and/or obligations from what the parties could reasonably have contemplated at the time of its execution that it would be unjust to hold them to the literal sense of its stipulations in the new circumstances; in such case the law declares both parties to be discharged from further performance. ” 2/22/2021

单方面履行合约赚取对价（或部分对价） 针对买卖合约条文与做法的不同， 1979年《货物销售 法》之Section 49(2)规定说： “ 49 Action for price… (2)Where, under a contract of sale, the price is payable on a day certain irrespective of delivery and the buyer wrongfully neglects or refuses to pay such price, the seller may maintain an action for the price, although the property in the goods has not passed and the goods have not been appropriated to the contract. ” Stocznia v. Latco (1996) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 132先例中，作 为无辜方的船厂可以通过安放龙骨赚取 20%预付船价， 并之后才接受违约/毁约。相比之下，最后交船时船价 的支付则涉及双方合作了。 2/22/2021

善意与诚实误解 Wright勋爵在T D Baily Son & Co v. Ross T Smyth & Co Ltd (1940) 67 Lloyd’s Rep 147先例中说： “Repudiation is a serious matter, not to be lightly found or inferred. … a mere honest misapprehension, especially if open to correction, does not justify a charge of repudiation. ” Woodar Investment Development Ltd v. Wimpey Construction UK Ltd (1980) 1 WLR 277先例与The "Nanfri" (1979) 1 Lloyd's Rep. 201先例的冲突 2/22/2021

没有接受违约就被视为确认合 约有效的危险 由于违约方拒绝履行合约通常与市场不利有关，所以 无辜方常常不会马上接受，而是会劝说或是施加压力 迫使违约方继续履行，就有危险会构成确认合约的有 效，而不能之后改变再接受并终止合约 W. E. Cox Toner (International) Ltd v Crook (1981) IRLR 443先例的传统说法： “Affirmation of the contract can be implied. Thus, it the innocent party calls on the guilty party for further performance of the contract, he will normally be taken to have affirmed the contract since his conduct is only consistent with the continued existence of the contractual obligation. Moreover, if the innocent party himself does acts which are only consistent with the continued existence of the contract, such act will normally show affirmation of the contract…” 2/22/2021

没有接受违约就被视为确认合 约有效的危险 Yukong Line Ltd. of Korea v. Rendsburg Investment Corporation (1996) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 604先例，Moore. Bick大法官警告说法院或仲裁庭不应该太僵化（ unduly technical approach）地解释无辜方的言行是 否构成确认合约： “… the Court should generally be slow to accept that the injured party has committed himself irrevocably to continuing with the contract in the knowledge that if, without finally committing himself, the injured party has made an unequivocal statement of some kind on which the party in repudiation has relied, the doctrine of estoppel is likely to prevent any injustice being done. ” 2/22/2021

弃权与禁止翻供 (Waiver and Estoppels) 2/22/2021

构成弃权的要求 弃权人清楚与无可争议的表述 沉默通常不构成弃权，但有例外（may amount to a representation sufficient to be a waiver when viewed in its context） 无 损 害 （ without prejudice） 、 保 留 权 利 （ reserve right）、不弃权条文（non-waiver clause）的作用 2/22/2021

构成弃权的要求 弃权要求弃权人知道自己的权利： Evans v. Bartlam (1937) AC 473; Kammins Ballroom Co Ltd v. Zenith Investments (Torquay) Ltd (1971) AC 850; HIH Casualty & General Ins. Ltd v. Axa Corp Solutions (2002) EWCA Civ 1253; etc. Peyman v. Lanjani (1984) 3 All ER 103先例 : “no binding election to affirm a contract without knowledge but where A acts so as to lead B to believe that he will exercise that election in a certain way, and B relied on his detriment, A may be estopped from denying a binding election. ” 2/22/2021

禁止翻供的权威说法 Chitty on Contracts, 31 st Ed (2012), Par. 3 -086: “For the equitable doctrine to operate there must be a legal relationship giving rise to rights and duties between the parties; a promise or a representation by one party that he will not enforce against the other his strict legal rights arising out of that relationship; an intention on the part of the former party that the latter will rely on the representation; and such reliance by the latter party. Even if these requirements are satisfied, the operation of the doctrine pay be excluded if it is …, not ‘equitable’ for the first party to go back on his promise. The doctrine most commonly applies to promises not to enforce contractual rights, but it also extends to certain other relationships. ” 2/22/2021

禁止翻供的类别与介绍 陈述性禁止翻供（Estoppel by representation） 承诺性禁止翻供（Promissory estoppel） 共识性禁止翻供（Estoppel by convention） 财产拥有人禁止翻供（Proprietary estoppel） 一事不再审（Res Judicata） 合约性禁止翻供（Contractual estoppel） 2/22/2021

禁止翻供的类别与介绍 一事不再审（Res Judicata），Virgin Atlantic Airways (2013) UKSC 46提到有5类一事不再审 1. 诉因的禁止翻供（cause of action estoppel） 2. 已胜诉的诉因再次起诉（plead former recovery） 3. 吸收原则（doctrine of merger） 4. 争端的禁止翻供（issue estoppel） 5. 滥用程序（abuse of process） 2/22/2021

一事不再审 滥用程序（abuse of process） 在以前的审理中，应该与合理去提出却没有提出的争端 或事情，不允许在后来再起诉去提出 Henderson v. Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100, 67 ER 313: “the plea of res judicata applies, except in special cases, not only to points upon which the court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which the p[arties exercising diligence might have brought forward at the times. ” 2/22/2021