Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Hukum Kontrak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Dari Wikipedia Indonesia, ensiklopedia bebas berbahasa Indonesia

Jump to: navigation , search Langsung ke: navigasi, cari

A contract is an exchange of promises between two or more parties to do, or refrain from doing, an act which is enforceable in a court of law . Sebuah kontrak adalah pertukaran janji antara dua pihak atau lebih untuk melakukannya, atau menahan diri untuk melakukan, perbuatan yang dilaksanakan dalam pengadilan hukum. It is where an unqualified offer meets a qualified acceptance and the parties reach Consensus ad Idem . Ia adalah tempat yang menawarkan lengkap yang memenuhi kualifikasi penerimaan dan pihak-pihak mencapai konsensus iklan Idem. The parties must have the necessary capacity to contract and the contract must not be either trifling, indeterminate, impossible or illegal . Pihak-pihak harus memiliki kapasitas yang diperlukan untuk kontrak dan kontrak tidak boleh rincih baik, tdk, atau mungkin ilegal. Contract law is based on the principle expressed in the Latin phrase pacta sunt servanda ( pacts must be kept). [ 1 ] Breach of contract is recognised by the law and remedies can be provided. Kontrak hukum didasarkan pada prinsip dinyatakan dalam bahasa Latin phrase pacta sunt servanda (pacts harus dipelihara). [1] Breach kontrak yang diakui oleh hukum dan solusi dapat diberikan. Sometimes written contracts are required, such as when buying a house . [ 2 ] However, most contracts can be and are made orally , such as purchasing a book or a sandwich. Kadang-kadang kontrak tertulis yang diperlukan, seperti ketika membeli sebuah rumah. [2] Namun, sebagian besar kontrak dan dapat dibuat secara lisan, seperti membeli buku atau sandwich. Contract law can be classified, as is habitual in civil law systems, as part of a general law of obligations (along with tort , unjust enrichment or restitution ). Kontrak hukum dapat diklasifikasikan, seperti yang lumrah dalam hukum perdata, sistem sebagai bagian dari umum hukum kewajiban (bersama-sama dengan kesalahan, tidak adil penyuburan atau restitusi).

According to legal scholar Sir John William Salmond , a contract is "an agreement creating and defining the obligations between two or more parties ". Menurut sarjana hukum Sir John William Salmond, kontrak adalah "kesepakatan membuat dan mendefinisikan kewajiban antara dua atau lebih banyak pihak.

Contents Isi

[hide]

[ edit ] Contractual formation [Sunting] Kontrak formasi

Scales keadilan
Contract law Hukum kontrak
Part of the common law series Bagian dari hukum umum seri
Contract formation Kontrak formasi
Offer and acceptance · Mailbox rule Penawaran dan penerimaan Kotak aturan
Mirror image rule · Invitation to treat Mirror gambar aturan Undangan untuk merawat
Firm offer · Consideration Perusahaan menawarkan Pertimbangan
Defenses against formation Defenses terhadap pembentukan
Lack of capacity Kurangnya kapasitas
Duress · Undue influence Paksaan Undue mempengaruhi
Illusory promise · Statute of frauds Pura-pura janji dari Statuta frauds
Non est factum Non est kejadian
Contract interpretation Kontrak interpretasi
Parol evidence rule Parol bukti aturan
Contract of adhesion Kontrak dari adhesion
Integration clause Integrasi klausa
Contra proferentem Kontra proferentem
Excuses for non-performance Alasan untuk non-kinerja
Mistake · Misrepresentation Kesalahan Misrepresentation
Frustration of purpose · Impossibility Frustrasi tujuan ketidakmungkinan
Impracticability · Illegality Ketidakpraktisan ketidaksahan
Unclean hands · Unconscionability Tangan najis Unconscionability
Accord and satisfaction Accord dan kepuasan
Rights of third parties Hak pihak ketiga
Privity of contract Rahasia dari kontrak
Assignment · Delegation Assignment Delegasi
Novation · Third party beneficiary Sesuatu yg baru pihak ketiga penerima bantuan
Breach of contract Pelanggaran kontrak
Anticipatory repudiation · Cover Yg bersifat lebih dulu penyangkalan Cover
Exclusion clause · Efficient breach Pengecualian ayat Efisien pelanggaran
Fundamental breach Fundamental pelanggaran
Remedies Remedies
Specific performance Spesifik kinerja
Liquidated damages Liquidated kerusakan
Penal damages · Rescission Hukuman kerusakan peniadaan
Quasi-contractual obligations Quasi-kewajiban kontrak
Promissory estoppel Promes estoppel
Quantum meruit Quantum meruit
Related areas of law Yang berhubungan dengan bidang hukum
Conflict of laws · Commercial law Konflik undang-undang hukum Komersial
Other common law areas Lainnya hukum umum daerah
Tort law · Property law Tort hukum Properti hukum
Wills , trusts and estates Wills, percaya dan perkebunan
Criminal law · Evidence Hukum pidana Bukti
The Carbolic Smoke Ball offer Karbol Smoke Ball yang menawarkan

In common law systems, the five key requirements for the creation of a contract are: 1. offer and acceptance (agreement) 2. consideration 3. Dalam hukum adat, sistem lima kunci persyaratan untuk pembuatan kontrak adalah: 1. Menawarkan dan penerimaan (perjanjian) 2. Pertimbangan 3. an intention to create legal relations 4. legal capacity 5. formalities yang bermaksud untuk membuat hubungan hukum 4. hukum kapasitas 5. formalitas

In civil law systems, the concept of consideration is not central. Dalam hukum perdata, sistem konsep pertimbangan tidak pusat. In addition, for some contracts formalities must be complied with under what is sometimes called a statute of frauds . Selain itu, untuk beberapa kontrak formalitas harus sepenuhnya di bawah apa yang kadang-kadang disebut statute of frauds.

One of the most famous cases on forming a contract is Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [ 3 ] decided in nineteenth-century England . Salah satu yang paling terkenal pada kasus membentuk kontrak adalah Carlill ayat karbol Smoke Ball Perusahaan [3] memutuskan dalam abad kesembilanbelas-Inggris. A medical firm advertised that its new wonder drug , a smoke ball , would cure people's flu , and if it did not, buyers would receive £ 100. J medis perusahaan yang baru yang diiklankan heran narkoba, sebuah bom asap, rakyat akan menyembuhkan flu, dan jika tidak, pembeli akan menerima £ 100. When sued, Carbolic argued the ad was not to be taken as a serious, legally binding offer . Ketika digugat, karbol argumentasi iklan itu tidak boleh diambil sebagai serius, mengikat secara hukum tawarkan. It was merely an invitation to treat , and a gimmick . Ia hanyalah sebuah undangan untuk merawat, dan gimmick. But the court of appeal held that it would appear to a reasonable man that Carbolic had made a serious offer, primarily because of the reference to the £1000 deposited into the bank. Tetapi pengadilan banding yang menyatakan bahwa ia akan muncul ke orang yang wajar karbol yang telah menawarkan yang serius, terutama karena referensi ke £ 1000 didepositkan ke bank. People had given good " consideration " for it by going to the "distinct inconvenience" of using a faulty product. Orang yang telah diberikan baik "pertimbangan" untuk pergi ke oleh "berbeda ketidaknyamanan" penggunaan produk cacat. "Read the advertisement how you will, and twist it about as you will," said Lindley LJ , "here is a distinct promise expressed in language which is perfectly unmistakable". "Baca iklan bagaimana Anda akan, dan berliku-liku tentang hal yang Anda akan," kata Lindley LJ, "jelas di sini adalah janji yang dinyatakan dalam bahasa adalah hal yang terang".

Where a product in large quantities is advertised in a newspaper or on a poster, it is as an offer ; however, if the person who is to buy the advertised product is of importance, for instance because of his personality, etc., when buying land, it is regarded merely as an invitation to treat. Dimana produk dalam jumlah besar yang diiklankan di koran atau di poster, adalah sebagai menawarkan, namun jika orang yang membeli produk yang diiklankan adalah penting, misalnya karena pribadinya, dll, ketika membeli tanah, ia dianggap hanya sebagai undangan untuk merawat. In Carbolic Smoke Ball, the major difference was that a reward was included in the advertisement, which is a general exception to the rule and is then treated as an offer. Dalam karbol Smoke Ball, perbedaan utama adalah upah yang termasuk dalam iklan, yang merupakan pengecualian untuk umum dan aturan ini kemudian dirawat sebagai tawarkan.

[ edit ] Offer and acceptance [Sunting] Penawaran dan penerimaan

Main article: Offer and acceptance Artikel utama: Penawaran dan penerimaan

The most important feature of a contract is that one party makes an offer for an arrangement that another accepts . Fitur yang paling penting dari sebuah kontrak adalah salah satu pihak yang membuat sebuah tawaran untuk sebuah urusan yang lain menerima. This can be called a 'concurrence of wills' or 'ad idem' ( meeting of the minds ) of two or more parties. Ini dapat disebut 'pertepatan dari kehendak' atau 'iklan idem' (pertemuan pikiran) atau lebih dari dua pihak. There must be evidence that the parties had each from an objective perspective engaged in conduct manifesting their assent , and a contract will be formed when the parties have met such a requirement. [ 4 ] An objective perspective means that it is only necessary that somebody gives the impression of offering or accepting contractual terms in the eyes of a reasonable person , not that they actually did want to form a contract. Harus ada bukti bahwa pihak-pihak yang masing-masing dari tujuan perspektif yang terlibat dalam melakukan manifesting mereka assent, dan kontrak yang akan dibentuk bila pihak-pihak yang telah memenuhi persyaratan seperti itu. [4] Sebuah perspektif obyektif berarti hanya perlu seseorang yang memberikan kesan yang menawarkan atau menerima kontrak persyaratan di mata dari orang yang wajar, bahwa mereka tidak benar-benar tidak ingin membentuk sebuah kontrak.

The case of Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (above) is an example of a ' unilateral contract ', obligations are only imposed upon one party upon acceptance by performance of a condition . Kasus Carlill ayat karbol Smoke Ball Co (di atas) adalah contoh dari 'sepihak kontrak', kewajiban tersebut hanya dikenakan pada salah satu pihak atas kinerja penerimaan oleh kondisi. In the US, the general rule is that in "case of doubt, an offer is interpreted as inviting the offeree to accept either by promising to perform what the offer requests or by rendering the performance, as the offeree chooses." [ 5 ] Di AS, secara umum adalah aturan bahwa dalam kasus keraguan, yang menawarkan adalah sebagai mengundang offeree untuk menerima baik oleh menjanjikan untuk melakukan apa yang menawarkan atau permintaan rendering kinerja, sebagai offeree memilih. "[5]

Offer and acceptance does not always need to be expressed orally or in writing. Penawaran dan penerimaan tidak selalu harus diungkapkan secara lisan atau secara tertulis. An implied contract is one in which some of the terms are not expressed in words. An implied kontrak adalah salah satu yang dalam beberapa istilah yang tidak dinyatakan dalam kata-kata. This can take two forms. Hal ini dapat mengambil dua bentuk. A contract which is implied in fact is one in which the circumstances imply that parties have reached an agreement even though they have not done so expressly. Sebuah kontrak yang diterapkan sebenarnya adalah salah satu keadaan di mana menyiratkan bahwa pihak telah mencapai kesepakatan meskipun mereka tidak melakukannya tegas. For example, by going to a doctor for a checkup, a patient agrees that he will pay a fair price for the service. Misalnya, dengan pergi ke dokter untuk pemeriksaan, pasien setuju bahwa ia akan membayar harga yang adil untuk layanan ini. If one refuses to pay after being examined, the patient has breached a contract implied in fact. Jika satu menolak untuk membayar setelah diperiksa, pasien telah breached kontrak diterapkan dalam kenyataan. A contract which is implied in law is also called a quasi-contract , because it is not in fact a contract; rather, it is a means for the courts to remedy situations in which one party would be unjustly enriched were he or she not required to compensate the other. Sebuah kontrak yang diterapkan dalam hukum juga disebut setengah-kontrak, karena pada kenyataannya tidak kontrak;, namun merupakan alat untuk pengadilan untuk memperbaiki situasi di mana satu pihak akan memperkaya lalim itu dia tidak diperlukan untuk kompensasi yang lain. For example, a plumber accidentally installs a sprinkler system in the lawn of the wrong house. Misalnya, seorang tukang pipa tanpa sengaja menginstal sebuah sistem alat penyiram rumput di rumah yang salah. The owner of the house had learned the previous day that his neighbor was getting new sprinklers. Pemilik rumah telah belajar hari sebelumnya menyatakan telah mendapatkan tetangga baru sprinklers. That morning, he sees the plumber installing them in his lawn. Pagi itu, ia melihat tukang pipa menginstalnya di rumput. Pleased at the mistake, he says nothing, and then refuses to pay when the plumber delivers the bill. Senang pada kesalahan, ia mengatakan apa-apa, dan kemudian menolak untuk membayar tukang pipa ketika menyampaikan rancangan undang-undang. Will the man be held liable for payment? Apakah manusia merupakan tanggung jawab untuk pembayaran? Yes, if it could be proven that the man knew that the sprinklers were being installed mistakenly, the court would make him pay because of a quasi-contract . Ya, jika ia dapat membuktikan bahwa manusia tahu bahwa sprinklers sedang diinstal keliru, pengadilan akan membuat dia membayar karena adanya setengah-kontrak. If that knowledge could not be proven, he would not be liable . Jika itu tidak dapat dibuktikan, dia tidak akan bertanggung jawab. Such a claim is also referred to as " quantum meruit ". [ 6 ] Klaim seperti itu juga disebut sebagai "kuantum meruit". [6]

See also: Invitation to treat Lihat juga: Undangan untuk merawat

[ edit ] Consideration and estoppel [Sunting] Pertimbangan dan estoppel

Main articles: Consideration and estoppel Artikel utama: Pertimbangan dan estoppel

Consideration is known as 'the price of a promise' and is a controversial requirement for contracts under common law . Pertimbangan yang dikenal sebagai 'harga janji' kontroversial dan merupakan syarat untuk kontrak di bawah undang-undang umum. It is not necessary in all common law or civil law systems, [ 7 ] and is considered by some to be unnecessary as the requirement of intention to create legal relations by both parties meets the same requirement under contract. Hal ini tidak diperlukan dalam semua hukum umum atau hukum perdata sistem, [7] dan dianggap oleh beberapa menjadi tak perlu sebagai kebutuhan untuk menciptakan hubungan hukum oleh kedua belah pihak memenuhi persyaratan yang sama di bawah kontrak. The idea is that both parties to a contract must bring something to the bargain, that both parties must confer some benefit or detriment (for example, money, however in some cases money will not suffice as consideration - eg when one party agrees to make part payment of a debt in exchange for being released from the full amount [ 8 ] ). Intinya adalah bahwa kedua belah pihak untuk kontrak harus membawa sesuatu untuk tawaran, bahwa kedua belah pihak harus memberi beberapa keuntungan atau kerugian (misalnya, uang, namun dalam beberapa kasus tidak akan cukup uang sebagai pertimbangan - misalnya bila satu pihak setuju untuk membuat bagian pembayaran hutang di tukar karena dibebaskan dari seluruh jumlah [8]). This can be either conferring an advantage on the other party, or incurring some kind of detriment or inconvenience towards oneself. Ini dapat berupa conferring sebuah keuntungan pada pihak lain, atau incurring beberapa jenis kerugian atau gangguan terhadap diri. Three rules govern consideration. Pertimbangan tiga peraturan pemerintah.

  • Consideration must be real, but need not be adequate. Pertimbangan harus nyata, namun tidak perlu memadai. For instance, agreeing to buy a car for a penny may constitute a binding contract. [ 9 ] While consideration need not be adequate, contracts in which the consideration of one party greatly exceeds that of another may nevertheless be held invalid for lack of real consideration. Misalnya, menyetujui untuk membeli mobil untuk penny Mei merupakan perjanjian yang mengikat. [9] Walaupun tidak perlu pertimbangan yang memadai, kontrak di mana salah satu pertimbangan pihak sangat melebihi yang lain yang akan diselenggarakan Mei bagaimanapun tidak sah karena kekurangan nyata pertimbangan . In such cases, the fact that the consideration is exceedingly inadequate can be evidence that there was no consideration at all. Dalam kasus tersebut, fakta bahwa pertimbangan yang sangat tidak memadai dapat bukti bahwa tidak ada pertimbangan sama sekali. Such contracts may also be held invalid for other reasons such as fraud , duress , or being contrary to public policy . Seperti kontrak Mei juga akan diadakan untuk alasan lain yang tidak sah seperti penipuan, paksaan, atau tidak bertentangan dengan kebijakan publik. In some situations, a collateral contract may exist, whereby the existence of one contract provides consideration for another. Dalam beberapa situasi, sebuah jaminan kontrak Mei ada, dimana keberadaan satu kontrak untuk memberikan pertimbangan lain. Critics say consideration can be so small as to make the requirement of any consideration meaningless. Kritik mengatakan bisa jadi pertimbangan kecil sebagai syarat untuk membuat suatu pertimbangan berarti.
  • Consideration must not be from the past. Pertimbangan tidak boleh dari masa lalu. For instance, in Eastwood v. Kenyon , [ 10 ] the guardian of a young girl obtained a loan to educate the girl and to improve her marriage prospects. Misalnya, dalam ayat Eastwood Kenyon, [10] yang wali dari gadis muda memperoleh pinjaman untuk mendidik dan gadis itu untuk meningkatkan prospek perkawinan. After her marriage, her husband promised to pay off the loan. Setelah dia menikah, suaminya berjanji untuk melunasi pinjaman. It was held that the guardian could not enforce the promise because taking out the loan to raise and educate the girl was past consideration--it was completed before the husband promised to repay it. Ia menyatakan bahwa wali yang tidak dapat melaksanakan janji karena untuk mengambil pinjaman untuk meningkatkan dan mendidik girl pertimbangan adalah masa lalu - ia selesai sebelum suami berjanji akan membalas itu.
  • Consideration must move from the promisee . Pertimbangan harus pindah dari promisee. For instance, it is good consideration for person A to pay person C in return for services rendered by person B. If there are joint promisees, then consideration need only to move from one of the promisees. Sebagai contoh, adalah pertimbangan yang baik untuk orang yang membayar orang C di kembali untuk layanan yang diberikan oleh orang B. Jika ada promisees bersama, maka perlu dipertimbangkan untuk berpindah dari hanya salah satu promisees.

Civil law systems take the approach that an exchange of promises, or a concurrence of wills alone, rather than an exchange in valuable rights is the correct basis. Hukum perdata sistem mengambil pendekatan bahwa pertukaran janji, atau persetujuan dari kehendak sendiri, daripada di tukar yang berharga adalah hak dasar yang benar. So if you promised to give me a book, and I accepted your offer without giving anything in return, I would have a legal right to the book and you could not change your mind about giving me it as a gift. Jadi jika Anda berjanji untuk memberikan buku saya, dan saya menerima tawaran tanpa memberikan sesuatu dalam kembali, saya akan memiliki hak hukum untuk buku dan Anda tidak dapat mengubah pikiran mengenai memberi saya sebagai hadiah. However, in common law systems the concept of culpa in contrahendo , a form of ' estoppel ', is increasingly used to create obligations during pre-contractual negotiations . [ 11 ] Estoppel is an equitable doctrine that provides for the creation of legal obligations if a party has given another an assurance and the other has relied on the assurance to his detriment . Namun, dalam sistem hukum umum konsep culpa di contrahendo, sebuah bentuk 'estoppel', semakin digunakan untuk membuat kewajiban selama pra-negosiasi kontrak. [11] Estoppel adalah adil doktrin yang menyediakan untuk penciptaan kewajiban hukum jika pihak lain yang telah memberikan jaminan dan yang lainnya telah diandalkan pada jaminan kepada kerugian. A number of commentators have suggested that consideration be abandoned, and estoppel be used to replace it as a basis for contracts. [ 12 ] However, legislation , rather than judicial development, has been touted as the only way to remove this entrenched common law doctrine. Lord Justice Denning famously stated that "The doctrine of consideration is too firmly fixed to be overthrown by a side-wind." [ 13 ] Sejumlah komentar yang menyatakan bahwa pertimbangan ditinggalkan, dan estoppel digunakan untuk menggantikannya sebagai dasar untuk kontrak. [12] Namun, peraturan perundangan, daripada pembangunan peradilan, telah touted sebagai satu-satunya cara untuk menghapus berurat doktrin umum hukum . Tuhan Justice Denning baik sekali dinyatakan bahwa "Doktrin pertimbangan terlalu kuat tetap menjadi terguling oleh pihak-angin." [13]

See also: Consideration under English law and Consideration under American law Lihat juga: Pertimbangan di bawah hukum Inggris dan Amerika di bawah Pertimbangan hukum

[ edit ] Intention to be legally bound [Sunting] Niat untuk terikat secara hukum

There is a presumption for commercial agreements that parties intend to be legally bound (unless the parties expressly state that they do not want to be bound, like in heads of agreement ). Ada dugaan untuk komersial kesepakatan pihak-pihak yang berniat untuk terikat secara hukum (kecuali pihak-pihak yang tegas menyatakan bahwa mereka tidak ingin terikat, seperti di kepala perjanjian). On the other hand, many kinds of domestic and social agreements are unenforceable on the basis of public policy , for instance between children and parents. Di sisi lain, berbagai jenis domestik dan sosial perjanjian yang unenforceable berdasarkan kebijakan publik, misalnya antara anak dan orang tua. One early example is found in Balfour v. Balfour . [ 14 ] Using contract-like terms, Mr. Balfour had agreed to give his wife £30 a month as maintenance while he was living in Ceylon ( Sri Lanka ). Salah satu contoh adalah awal ditemukan di Balfour ayat Balfour. [14] Menggunakan kontrak-istilah seperti, Bapak Balfour telah sepakat untuk memberikan istrinya £ 30 per bulan sebagai pemeliharaan ketika ia tinggal di Ceylon (Sri Lanka). Once he left, they separated and Mr. Balfour stopped payments. Setelah dia kiri, mereka dipisahkan dan Bapak Balfour dihentikan pembayaran. Mrs. Balfour brought an action to enforce the payments. Ibu Balfour membawa tindakan untuk menegakkan pembayaran. At the Court of Appeal, the Court held that there was no enforceable agreement as there was not enough evidence to suggest that they were intending to be legally bound by the promise. Di Pengadilan Banding, Pengadilan menyatakan bahwa tidak ada kesepakatan dilaksanakan karena tidak cukup bukti untuk menunjukkan bahwa mereka ingin secara hukum terikat oleh janji.

The case is often cited in conjunction with Merritt v. Merritt . [ 15 ] Here the court distinguished the case from Balfour v. Balfour because Mr. and Mrs. Merritt, although married again, were estranged at the time the agreement was made. Hal ini sering dikutip dalam hubungannya dengan ayat Merritt Merritt. [15] Di sini kasus pengadilan dibezakan dari Balfour ayat Balfour karena Bapak dan Ibu Merritt, walaupun menikah lagi, adalah estranged pada saat perjanjian dibuat. Therefore any agreement between them was made with the intention to create legal relations. Karena itu ada kesepakatan antara mereka telah dibuat dengan maksud untuk menciptakan hubungan hukum.

[ edit ] The abstraction principle [Sunting] The abstak prinsip

Main article: Abstraction principle Artikel utama: abstak prinsip

Germany has a special approach to contracts, which ties into property law . Jerman memiliki pendekatan khusus untuk kontrak, yang menjadi ikatan hukum properti. Their 'abstraction principle' ( Abstraktionsprinzip ) means that the personal obligation of contract forms separately to the title of property being conferred. Mereka 'abstak prinsip' (Abstraktionsprinzip) berarti pribadi kewajiban kontrak formulir secara terpisah dengan judul yang conferred properti. When contracts are invalidated for some reason, eg a car buyer was so drunk that he lacked legal capacity to contract, [ 16 ] the contractual obligation to pay can be invalidated separate from proprietary title of the car. Unjust enrichment law, rather than the law of contract, is then used to restore title to the rightful owner. Ketika kontrak tersebut batal karena alasan tertentu, misalnya pembeli mobil begitu mabuk sehingga ia kekurangan kapasitas untuk kontrak hukum, [16] yang kontrak kewajiban membayar dapat batal terpisah dari milik judul mobil. Unjust penyuburan hukum, bukan hukum dari kontrak, yang kemudian digunakan untuk mengembalikan hak kepada pemilik yang sebenarnya.

[ edit ] Formalities and writing [Sunting] Formalitas dan menulis

Main article: Statute of frauds Artikel utama: Statuta dari frauds

Contrary to common wisdom, an exchange of promises can still be binding and legally as valid as a written contract. Bertentangan dengan kebijaksanaan umum, sebuah pertukaran menjanjikan masih dapat mengikat secara hukum dan berlaku sebagai sebagai sebuah kontrak tertulis. A spoken contract should be called an oral contract , which might be considered a subset of verbal contracts . J diucapkan kontrak harus dipanggil secara lisan kontrak, yang mungkin dianggap sebagai subset dari kontrak lisan. Any contract that uses words, spoken or written, is a verbal contract. Setiap kontrak yang menggunakan kata-kata, lisan atau tertulis, adalah kontrak lisan. Thus, all oral contracts and written contracts are verbal contracts. Oleh karena itu, semua kontrak lisan dan tertulis kontrak adalah kontrak lisan. This is in contrast to a "non-verbal, non-oral contract," also known as "a contract implied by the acts of the parties", which can be either implied in fact or implied in law . Hal ini kontras dengan "non-verbal, non-kontrak lisan," yang juga dikenal sebagai "kontrak diterapkan oleh pihak-pihak yang bertindak", yang dapat dilakukan secara tersirat dalam fakta atau tersirat dalam hukum.

Most jurisdictions have rules of law or statutes which may render otherwise valid oral contracts unenforceable. Sebagian besar jurisdiksi ada aturan hukum atau statutes lain yang dapat menyebabkan berlaku kontrak lisan unenforceable. This is especially true regarding oral contracts involving large amounts of money or real estate. Hal ini benar terutama mengenai kontrak lisan yang melibatkan banyak uang atau real estate. For example, in the US, generally speaking, a contract is unenforceable if it violates the common law statute of frauds or equivalent state statutes which require certain contracts to be in writing. Misalnya, di AS, umumnya, sebuah kontrak adalah unenforceable jika melanggar hukum umum dari undang-frauds atau setara statutes negara yang memerlukan kontrak tertentu untuk dibuat secara tertulis. An example of the above is an oral contract for the sale of a motorcycle for US$ 5,000 in a jurisdiction which requires a contract for the sale of goods over US $500 to be in writing to be enforceable. Contoh di atas adalah kontrak lisan untuk penjualan sepeda motor untuk US $ 5000 dalam yurisdiksi yang memerlukan kontrak untuk penjualan barang lebih dari US $ 500 untuk dibuat secara tertulis yang akan dilaksanakan. The point of the Statute of Frauds is to prevent false allegations of the existence of contracts that were never made, by requiring formal (ie written) evidence of the contract. Titik dari Statuta dari Frauds palsu adalah untuk mencegah dugaan adanya kontrak yang tidak pernah dibuat, dengan memerlukan formal (yakni tertulis) bukti kontrak. However, a common remark is that more frauds have been committed through the application of the Statute of Frauds than have ever been prevented. Namun, yang umum itu adalah yang lebih frauds telah berkomitmen melalui penerapan Statuta dari Frauds daripada sudah pernah dicegah. Contracts that do not meet the requirements of common law or statutory Statutes of Frauds are unenforceable, but are not necessarily thereby void . Kontrak yang tidak memenuhi persyaratan umum hukum atau undang-undang Statutes of Frauds adalah unenforceable, tetapi belum tentu itu tidak berlaku. However, a party unjustly enriched by an unenforceable contract may be required to provide restitution for unjust enrichment . Namun, pihak lalim oleh seorang kaya unenforceable kontrak mungkin diperlukan untuk memberikan restitusi untuk penyuburan tidak adil. Statutes of Frauds are typically codified in state statutes covering specific types of contracts, such as contracts for the sale of real estate . Statutes of Frauds biasanya statutes dikodifikasikan di negara tertentu yang meliputi jenis kontrak, seperti kontrak untuk penjualan real estate.

In Australia and many, if not all, jurisdictions which have adopted the common law of England , for contracts subject to legislation equivalent to the Statute of Frauds [ 17 ] , there is no requirement for the entire contract to be in writing. Di Australia dan banyak, jika tidak semua, yang mempunyai yurisdiksi mengadopsi hukum umum dari Inggris, untuk tunduk pada undang-undang kontrak setara dengan Statuta dari Frauds [17], tidak ada kewajiban bagi seluruh kontrak harus secara tertulis. Although for property transactions there must be a note or memorandum evidencing the contract, which may come into existence after the contract has been formed. Meskipun properti untuk transaksi harus ada catatan atau memorandum evidencing kontrak, yang mungkin menjadi setelah kontrak telah dibentuk. The note or memorandum must be signed in some way, and a series of documents may be used in place of a single note or memorandum. Catatan atau memorandum harus masuk beberapa cara, dan sejumlah dokumen yang dapat digunakan di tempat satu catatan atau memorandum. It must contain all material terms of the contract, the subject matter and the parties to the contract. Harus berisi semua bahan persyaratan kontrak, subjek dan pihak-pihak yang peduli dengan kontrak. In England and Wales , the common law Statute of Frauds is only now in force for guarantees, which must be evidenced in writing, although the agreement may be made orally. Di Inggris dan Wales, yang umum hukum dari Statuta Frauds sekarang hanya berlaku untuk menjamin, yang harus dibuktikan secara tertulis, meskipun kesepakatan dapat dilakukan secara lisan. Certain other kinds of contract must be in writing or they are void, for instance, for sale of land under s. Tertentu lainnya jenis kontrak harus dibuat secara tertulis atau mereka yang kosong, misalnya, untuk penjualan tanah di bawah s. 52, Law of Property Act 1925 . 52, Undang-undang Hukum Properti 1925.

If a contract is in a written form, and somebody signs the contract, then the person is bound by its terms regardless of whether they have read it or not, [ 18 ] provided the document is contractual in nature. [ 19 ] Furthermore, if a party wishes to use a document as the basis of a contract , reasonable notice of its terms must be given to the other party prior to their entry into the contract. [ 20 ] This includes such things as tickets issued at parking stations. Jika kontrak dalam bentuk tertulis, dan ada menandatangani kontrak, maka orang itu terikat dengan syarat-syarat tanpa memperhatikan apakah mereka telah membaca atau tidak, [18] yang disediakan dokumen kontrak di alam. [19] Selain itu, jika pihak yang ingin menggunakan dokumen sebagai dasar dari sebuah kontrak, wajar pemberitahuan dari istilah harus diberikan kepada pihak lain sebelum mereka masuk ke dalam kontrak. [20] Ini meliputi hal-hal sebagai tiket parkir yang dikeluarkan di stasiun.

See also: Non est factum Lihat juga: Non est kejadian

[ edit ] Bilateral v. unilateral contracts [Sunting] ayat sepihak kontrak bilateral

Unilateral contract of adhesion on timekeeping ticket dispensed by vending machine at parking lot entrance Kontrak sepihak dari adhesion pada timekeeping tiket dispensed oleh vending mesin di pintu masuk tempat parkir

Contracts may be bilateral or unilateral . Mungkin kontrak bilateral atau sepihak. The more common of the two [ citation needed ] , a bilateral contract , is an agreement in which each of the parties to the contract makes a promise or promises to the other party. Umum yang lebih dari dua [kutipan diperlukan], sebuah kontrak bilateral, adalah perjanjian di mana masing-masing pihak untuk membuat kontrak janji atau janji-janji kepada pihak lain. For example, in a contract for the sale of a home, the buyer promises to pay the seller $200,000 in exchange for the seller's promise to deliver title to the property. Misalnya, dalam kontrak untuk penjualan rumah, janji pembeli untuk membayar penjual $ 200.000 dalam pertukaran untuk penjual janji untuk memberikan judul ke properti.

In a unilateral contract, only one party to the contract makes a promise. Dalam sebuah kontrak sepihak, hanya satu pihak yang membuat kontrak janji. A typical example is the reward contract: A promises to pay a reward to B if B finds A's dog. Sebuah contoh khas adalah balasan kontrak: A berjanji untuk membayar upah ke B jika B menemukan A dog. B is not obliged to find A's dog, but A is obliged to pay the reward to B if B finds the dog. B tidak diwajibkan untuk menemukan A anjing, tetapi yang berkewajiban untuk membayar upah ke B jika B menemukan anjing. In this example, the finding of the dog is a condition precedent to A's obligation to pay. Dalam contoh ini, yang mencari anjing adalah kondisi preseden A dari kewajiban untuk membayar.

An offer of a unilateral contract may often be made to many people (or 'to the world') by means of an advertisement . Yang menawarkan sebuah kontrak sepihak Mei sering dibuat untuk banyak orang (atau 'dunia') dengan iklan. In that situation, acceptance will only occur on satisfaction of the condition (such as the finding of the offeror's dog). Dalam situasi itu, penerimaan hanya akan terjadi pada kepuasan kondisi (seperti mencari di offeror dari anjing). If the condition is something that only one party can perform, both the offeror and offeree are protected – the offeror is protected because he will only ever be contractually obliged to one of the many offerees; and the offeree is protected, because if she does perform the condition, the offeror will be contractually obliged to pay her. Jika kondisi adalah sesuatu yang hanya dapat melakukan satu pihak, baik offeror dan offeree dilindungi - offeror yang dilindungi karena ia hanya akan menjadi kontrak diwajibkan untuk salah satu dari banyak offerees; dan offeree dilindungi, karena jika ia tidak melakukan kondisi, maka akan offeror kontrak diwajibkan membayar dia.

In unilateral contracts, the requirement that acceptance be communicated to the offeror is waived . Dalam kontrak sepihak, syarat penerimaan yang disampaikan ke offeror adalah dibebaskan. The offeree accepts by performing the condition, and the offeree's performance is also treated as the price, or consideration, for the offeror's promise. Offeree yang menerima dengan melakukan kondisi dan kinerja offeree juga diperlakukan sebagai harga, atau pertimbangan, untuk offeror janji.

The most common type of unilateral contract is the insurance contract . Yang paling umum jenis sepihak kontrak adalah kontrak asuransi. The insurance company promises to pay the insured a stated amount of money if a covered event occurs for which the insured pays premiums. Perusahaan asuransi berjanji untuk membayar diasuransikan yang dinyatakan jumlah uang jika terjadi tercakup acara yang akan digunakan membayar premi asuransi. Note that the insured does not make any promise to pay the premiums. Dicatat bahwa diasuransikan tidak membuat janji untuk membayar premi.

Courts generally favor bilateral contracts. Pengadilan umumnya favor kontrak bilateral. The general rule in the United States is: "In case of doubt, an offer is interpreted as inviting the offeree to accept either by promising to perform what the offer requests or by rendering the performance, as the offeree chooses." Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 32 (1981) (emphasis added). Aturan umum di Amerika Serikat adalah: "Dalam hal keraguan, yang menawarkan adalah sebagai mengundang offeree menerima baik oleh menjanjikan untuk melakukan apa yang menawarkan atau permintaan rendering kinerja, sebagai offeree memilih." Uraian (Second) Kontrak dari § 32 (1981) (penekanan ditambah). Here the law attempts to provide some protection from the risk of revocation in a unilateral contract to the offeree. Di sini hukum upaya untuk memberikan perlindungan dari risiko penarikan sepihak dalam kontrak dengan offeree. Note that if the offer specifically requests performance rather than a promise, a unilateral contract will exist. Perlu diketahui bahwa jika permintaan khusus menawarkan kinerja daripada janji, sepihak kontrak yang akan ada. See option contracts for more information on protection given to the offeree in a unilateral contract. Lihat opsi kontrak untuk informasi lebih lanjut tentang perlindungan diberikan kepada offeree dalam kontrak sepihak.

[ edit ] Uncertainty, incompleteness and severance [Sunting] Ketidakpastian, ketidaklengkapan dan pemutusan

If the terms of the contract are uncertain or incomplete, the parties cannot have reached an agreement in the eyes of the law. [ 21 ] An agreement to agree does not constitute a contract, and an inability to agree on key issues, which may include such things as price or safety, may cause the entire contract to fail. Jika syarat-syarat kontrak yang belum jelas atau tidak lengkap, pihak-pihak yang tidak dapat mencapai kesepakatan di mata hukum. [21] Sebuah perjanjian setuju untuk tidak merupakan sebuah kontrak, dan ketidakmampuan untuk setuju pada masalah-masalah utama, yang mungkin termasuk hal-hal sebagai harga atau keselamatan, dapat menyebabkan seluruh kontrak gagal. However, a court will attempt to give effect to commercial contracts where possible, by construing a reasonable construction of the contract. [ 22 ] Namun, pengadilan akan berusaha untuk memberikan efek untuk kontrak komersial di mana mungkin, oleh construing yang wajar dari kontrak konstruksi. [22]

Courts may also look to external standards, which are either mentioned explicitly in the contract [ 23 ] or implied by common practice in a certain field. [ 24 ] In addition, the court may also imply a term; if price is excluded, the court may imply a reasonable price, with the exception of land, and second-hand goods, which are unique. Pengadilan juga dapat melihat ke luar standar, baik yang disebutkan secara eksplisit dalam kontrak [23] atau diterapkan oleh praktek umum dalam bidang tertentu. [24] Di samping itu, pengadilan juga menyiratkan sebuah istilah, jika harga yang dikeluarkan, pengadilan Mei menyiratkan harga yang wajar, kecuali tanah, dan barang-barang bekas yang unik.

If there are uncertain or incomplete clauses in the contract, and all options in resolving its true meaning have failed, it may be possible to sever and void just those affected clauses if the contract includes a severability clause . Jika ada atau tidak lengkap clauses ketidakpastian dalam kontrak, dan semua opsi dalam arti yang benar telah gagal, mungkin dapat dibuat ke memutuskanapa void dan hanya orang-orang yang terkena clauses jika kontrak mencakup severability ayat. The test of whether a clause is severable is an objective test —whether a reasonable person would see the contract standing even without the clauses. Ujian dari apakah ayat severable adalah merupakan tujuan uji-apakah wajar orang akan melihat kontrak berdiri bahkan tanpa clauses.

See also: Contra proferentem Lihat juga: Contra proferentem

[ edit ] Contractual terms [Sunting] Kontrak istilah

Main article: Contractual term Artikel utama: Kontrak istilah

A contractual term is "[a]ny provision forming part of a contract" [ 25 ] . J kontrak istilah adalah "[a] ny ketentuan membentuk bagian dari kontrak" [25]. Each term gives rise to a contractual obligation, breach of which can give rise to litigation . Setiap istilah memberikan menimbulkan suatu kewajiban kontrak, pelanggaran yang dapat menimbulkan litigasi. Not all terms are stated expressly and some terms carry less legal weight as they are peripheral to the objectives of the contract. Tidak semua istilah yang dinyatakan secara eksplisit dan istilah kurang melaksanakan hukum berat karena pinggiran ke tujuan kontrak.

[ edit ] Boilerplate [Sunting] Boilerplate

As discussed in Tina L. Stark's Negotiating and Drafting Contract Boilerplate , when lawyers refer to a “ boilerplate ” provision, they are referring to any standardized, “ one size fits all ” contract provision. Seperti telah dibahas dalam Stark Tina L. 's negosiasi dan Drafting Kontrak Boilerplate, pengacara bila mengacu ke "boilerplate" ketentuan, mereka merujuk ke standar, "one size fits all" kontrak penyediaan. But lawyers also use the term in a more narrow context to refer to certain provisions that appear at the end of the contract. Pengacara tetapi juga menggunakan istilah dalam konteks yang lebih sempit untuk menunjuk ke beberapa ketentuan yang muncul pada akhir kontrak. Typically, these provisions tell the parties how to govern their relationship and administer the contract. Biasanya, ini ketentuan kirim ke pihak-pihak pemerintah bagaimana hubungan mereka dan administrasi kontrak. Although often thought to be of secondary importance, these provisions have significant business and legal consequences. [ 26 ] Common provisions include the governing law provision, venue, assignment and delegation provisions, waiver of jury trial provisions, notice provisions, and force majeure provisions. [ 27 ] Meskipun sering berpikir untuk menjadi yang kedua pentingnya, ketentuan ini memiliki bisnis yang signifikan dan konsekuensi hukum. [26] Common ketentuan termasuk mengenai ketentuan hukum, tempat, tugas dan delegasi ketentuan, surat pernyataan melepaskan tuntutan dari juri pengadilan ketentuan, pemberitahuan ketentuan, dan Force Majeure ketentuan. [27]

[ edit ] Classification of term [Sunting] Klasifikasi dari istilah

It is an objective matter of fact whether a term goes to the root of a contract. Merupakan tujuan bahkan apakah istilah pergi ke akar kontrak. By way of illustration, an actress' obligation to perform the opening night of a theatrical production is a condition, [ 29 ] whereas a singers obligation to perform during the first three days of rehearsal is a warranty. [ 30 ] Dengan cara ilustrasi, sebuah actress' kewajiban untuk melakukan pembukaan malam dari sandiwara produksi adalah suatu kondisi, [29] sedangkan yang singers kewajiban untuk melakukan selama tiga hari pertama dari latihan adalah garansi. [30]

Statute may also declare a term or nature of term to be a condition or warranty; for example the Sale of Goods Act 1979 s15A [ 31 ] provides that terms as to title, description, quality and sample (as described in the Act ) are conditions save in certain defined circumstances. Statuta Mei juga menyatakan istilah atau sifat istilah menjadi kondisi atau jaminan; misalnya Penjualan Goods Act 1979 s15A [31] menyatakan bahwa persyaratan untuk judul, keterangan, kualitas dan contoh (seperti yang dijelaskan dalam Undang-undang) adalah kondisi disimpan dalam keadaan tertentu yang ditetapkan.

  • Innominate term . Lord Diplock , in Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. , [ 32 ] created the concept of an innominate term, breach of which may or not go to the root of the contract depending upon the nature of the breach. Innominate istilah. Diplock Tuhan, di Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd ayat Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd, [32] menciptakan sebuah konsep innominate istilah, pelanggaran yang mungkin atau tidak pergi ke akar kontrak tergantung pada sifat dari pelanggaran. Breach of these terms, as with all terms, will give rise to damages. Pelanggaran syarat-syarat ini, karena dengan semua persyaratan, akan menimbulkan kerusakan. Whether or not it repudiates the contract depends upon whether legal benefit of the contract has been removed from the innocent party. Apakah ia repudiates kontrak tergantung pada apakah hukum keuntungan dari kontrak telah dihapus dari pihak yang bersalah. Megaw LJ, in 1970, preferred the legal certainty of using the classic categories of condition or warranty. [ 33 ] This was interpreted by the House of Lords as merely restricting its application in Reardon Smith Line Ltd. v Hansen-Tangen . [ 34 ] Megaw LJ, di tahun 1970, penawaran kepastian hukum klasik menggunakan kategori kondisi atau jaminan. [33] Ini adalah diinterpretasikan oleh House of Lords sebagai hanya membatasi penerapannya dalam Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Hansen-Tangen. [34]

[ edit ] Status as a term [Sunting] Status sebagai istilah

Status as a term is important as a party can only take legal action for the non fulfillment of a term as opposed to representations or mere puffery . Status sebagai istilah penting sebagai salah satu pihak hanya dapat mengambil tindakan hukum untuk tidak melaksanakan suatu istilah sebagai bertentangan dengan pernyataan atau sekedar hal mengiklankan. Legally speaking, only statements that amount to a term create contractual obligations. Berbicara secara hukum, hanya pernyataan bahwa jumlah istilah untuk membuat kontrak kewajiban. There are various factor that a court may take into account in determining the nature of a statement [ clarification needed ] . Ada beberapa faktor yang pengadilan Mei memperhitungkan dalam menentukan sifat pernyataan [klarifikasi diperlukan].

[ edit ] Implied terms [Sunting] Implied istilah

A term may either be expressed or implied. Sebuah istilah bisa disuarakan atau tersirat. An Express term is stated by the parties during negotiation or written in a contractual document. Express adalah sebuah istilah yang dinyatakan oleh pihak-pihak selama negosiasi atau tertulis dalam dokumen kontrak. Implied terms are not stated but nevertheless form a provision of the contract. Istilah yang diterapkan tidak dinyatakan tetapi bagaimanapun membentuk ketentuan dalam kontrak.

Some jurisdictions , notably Australia , Israel and India , imply a term of good faith into contracts. Beberapa yurisdiksi, khususnya Australia, Israel dan India, sebuah istilah yang menyiratkan itikad baik dalam kontrak. A final way in which terms may be implied due to fact is through a previous course of dealing or common trade practice . Sebuah cara yang terakhir istilah mungkin diterapkan karena sebenarnya adalah melalui sebelumnya saja yang menangani atau praktek perdagangan umum.

  • Terms may also be implied in law. Istilah juga dapat diterapkan dalam hukum.

These are terms that have been implied into standardized relationships. Ini adalah istilah yang telah diterapkan ke dalam hubungan standar.

Common law Umum hukum

These terms will be implied into all contracts of the same nature as a matter of law. Istilah tersebut akan diterapkan ke semua kontrak yang sama alam sebagai masalah hukum.

Statutory Statutory

The rules by which many contracts are governed are provided in specialized statutes that deal with particular subjects. Aturan-aturan yang banyak kontrak diatur dalam disediakan khusus statutes yang berhubungan dengan mata pelajaran tertentu. Most countries , for example, have statutes which deal directly with sale of goods, lease transactions, and trade practices. Sebagian besar negara, misalnya, ada statutes yang berurusan langsung dengan penjualan barang, transaksi sewa, dan praktek perdagangan. For example, most American states have adopted Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which regulates contracts for the sale of goods. Sebagai contoh, sebagian besar negara Amerika telah mengadopsi Pasal 2 dari Uniform Commercial Code, yang mengatur kontrak untuk penjualan barang. The most important legislation implying terms under United Kingdom law are the Sale of Goods Act 1979 , the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 and the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 which imply terms into all contracts whereby goods are sold or services provided. Yang paling penting perundang-undangan di bawah implying istilah Inggris hukum adalah Penjualan Goods Act 1979, Perlindungan Konsumen (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 dan Supply Barang dan Jasa Act 1982 yang berarti semua hal dalam kontrak dimana barang yang dijual atau layanan yang diberikan.

See also: Good faith Lihat juga: Bagus iman

Three ways of evaluating a contracted exchange as coercive or voluntary Tiga cara untuk mengevaluasi sebuah kontrak pertukaran sebagai paksaan atau sukarela

  • Moral consideration: Objective consideration of right or wrong outside of the objective cause, or the perceived cause. Pertimbangan moral: Objektif pertimbangan benar atau salah di luar tujuan menyebabkan, atau mengetahui penyebabnya. Example: X occurs everyday at 5 pm. Contoh: X terjadi setiap hari di 5. X is wrong. X adalah salah. Anything that avoids X is good, allowing X, even if all parties agree, is bad. Sesuatu yang baik untuk menghindari X, sehingga X, bahkan jika semua pihak setuju, adalah buruk.
  • Phenomenological consideration - what models did the participants have which influenced the perception of what was to occur or what had occurred. Phenomenological pertimbangan - apa model itu para peserta ada yang mempengaruhi persepsi tentang apa yang terjadi atau apa yang terjadi. Example: I observe X,Y every day at 5 pm. Contoh: saya perhatikan X, Y di setiap hari 5. I contract against X. Today I did / did not see Y occur. Aku kontrak terhadap X. Today I did / tidak melihat Y terjadi.
  • Statistical consideration - did the participants have a statistical prediction, likelihood of an event occurring which is covered by the contract. Statistik pertimbangan - peserta yang memiliki statistik ramalan, kemungkinan terjadi aktivitas yang tercakup dalam kontrak. Example: X happens every day at 5 pm, I enter a contract to avoid X. X does or does not occur. Contoh: X yang terjadi setiap hari di 5, saya memasuki kontrak untuk menghindari X. X atau tidak terjadi.

[ edit ] Setting aside the contract [Sunting] Pengaturan samping kontrak

There can be three different ways in which contracts can be set aside. Ada tiga cara yang berbeda dalam kontrak yang dapat menyisihkan. A contract may be deemed ' void ', ' voidable ' or ' unenforceable '. J kontrak Mei dianggap 'void', 'voidable' atau 'unenforceable'. Voidness implies that a contract never came into existence. Voidness menunjukkan bahwa kontrak tidak pernah datang ke dalam keberadaan. Voidability implies that one or both parties may declare a contract ineffective at their wish. Unenforceability implies that neither party may have recourse to a court for a remedy. Rescission is a term which means to take a contract back.

[ edit ] Misrepresentation

Main article: Misrepresentation

Misrepresentation means a false statement of fact made by one party to another party and has the effect of inducing that party into the contract. For example, under certain circumstances, false statements or promises made by a seller of goods regarding the quality or nature of the product that the seller has may constitute misrepresentation. A finding of misrepresentation allows for a remedy of rescission and sometimes damages depending on the type of misrepresentation.

There are two types of misrepresentation in contract law, fraud in the factum and fraud in inducement. Fraud in the factum focuses on whether the party in question knew they were creating a contract. If the party did not know that they were entering into a contract, there is no meeting of the minds, and the contract is void. Fraud in inducement focuses on misrepresentation attempting to get the party to enter into the contract. Misrepresentation of a material fact (if the party knew the truth, that party would not have entered into the contract) makes a contract voidable.

According to Gordon v. Selico [ 39 ] it is possible to make a misrepresentation either by words or by conduct, although not everything said or done is capable of constituting a misrepresentation. Generally, statements of opinion or intention are not statements of fact in the context of misrepresentation. [ 40 ] If one party claims specialist knowledge on the topic discussed, then it is more likely for the courts to hold a statement of opinion by that party as a statement of fact. [ 41 ]

[ edit ] Mistake

Main article: Mistake (contract law)

A mistake is an incorrect understanding by one or more parties to a contract and may be used as grounds to invalidate the agreement. Common law has identified three different types of mistake in contract: unilateral mistake, mutual mistake, and common mistake.

  • A common mistake is where both parties hold the same mistaken belief of the facts. This is demonstrated in the case of Bell v. Lever Brothers Ltd. , [ 42 ] which established that common mistake can only void a contract if the mistake of the subject-matter was sufficiently fundamental to render its identity different from what was contracted, making the performance of the contract impossible.
  • A mutual mistake is when both parties of a contract are mistaken as to the terms. Each believes they are contracting to something different. The court usually tries to uphold such a mistake if a reasonable interpretation of the terms can be found. However, a contract based on a mutual mistake in judgement does not cause the contract to be voidable by the party that is adversely affected. See Raffles v. Wichelhaus . [ 43 ]
  • A unilateral mistake is where only one party to a contract is mistaken as to the terms or subject-matter. The courts will uphold such a contract unless it was determined that the non-mistaken party was aware of the mistake and tried to take advantage of the mistake. [ 44 ] It is also possible for a contract to be void if there was a mistake in the identity of the contracting party. An example is in Lewis v. Avery [ 45 ] where Lord Denning MR held that the contract can only be avoided if the plaintiff can show that, at the time of agreement, the plaintiff believed the other party's identity was of vital importance. A mere mistaken belief as to the credibility of the other party is not sufficient.

[ edit ] Duress and undue influence

Duress has been defined as a "threat of harm made to compel a person to do something against his or her will or judgment; esp., a wrongful threat made by one person to compel a manifestation of seeming assent by another person to a transaction without real volition." [ 46 ] An example is in Barton v. Armstrong , [ 47 ] a decision of the Privy Council. Armstrong threatened to kill Barton if he did not sign a contract, so the court set the contract aside. An innocent party wishing to set aside a contract for duress to the person need only to prove that the threat was made and that it was a reason for entry into the contract; the burden of proof then shifts to the other party to prove that the threat had no effect in causing the party to enter into the contract. There can also be duress to goods and sometimes, the concept of 'economic duress' is used to vitiate contracts.

Undue influence is an equitable doctrine that involves one person taking advantage of a position of power over another person. The law presumes that in certain classes of special relationship, such as between parent and child, or solicitor and client, there will be a special risk of one party unduly influencing their conduct and motives for contracting. As an equitable doctrine, the court has the discretion to vitiate such a contract. When no special relationship exists, the general rule is whether there was a relationship of such trust and confidence that it should give rise to such a presumption. [ 48 ] See Odorizzi v. Bloomfield School District .

[ edit ] Incapacity

Main article: Capacity (law)

Sometimes the capacity of either natural or artificial persons to either enforce contracts, or have contracts enforced against them is restricted. For instance, very small children may not be held to bargains they have made, or errant employees or directors may be prevented from contracting for their company, because they have acted ultra vires (beyond their power). Another example might be people who are mentally incapacitated, either by disability or drunkenness. [ 49 ] When the law limits or bars a person from engaging in specified activities, any agreements or contracts to do so are either voidable or void for incapacity. The law on capacity can serve either a protective function or can be a way of restraining people who act as agents for others.

[ edit ] Illegal contracts

Main article: Illegal agreement

A contract is void if it is based on an illegal purpose or contrary to public policy . One example, from Canada , is Royal Bank of Canada v. Newell . [ 50 ] A woman forged her husband's signature on 40 checks, totalling over $58,000. To protect her from prosecution, her husband signed a letter of intent prepared by the bank in which he agreed to assume "all liability and responsibility" for the forged checks. However, the agreement was unenforceable, and struck down by the courts because of its essential goal, which was to "stifle a criminal prosecution." Because of the contract's illegality, and as a result voided status, the bank was forced to return the payments made by the husband.

In the US, one unusual type of unenforceable contract is a personal employment contract to work as a spy or secret agent. This is because the very secrecy of the contract is a condition of the contract (in order to maintain plausible deniability ). If the spy subsequently sues the government on the contract over issues like salary or benefits, then the spy has breached the contract by revealing its existence. It is thus unenforceable on that ground, as well as the public policy of maintaining national security (since a disgruntled agent might try to reveal all the government's secrets during his/her lawsuit). [ 51 ] Other types of unenforceable employment contracts include contracts agreeing to work for less than minimum wage and forfeiting the right to workman's compensation in cases where workman's compensation is due.

[ edit ] Remedies for breach of contract

Main article: Breach of contract

A breach of contract is failure to perform as stated in the contract. There are many ways to remedy a breached contract assuming it has not been waived. Typically, the remedy for breach of contract is an award of money damages . When dealing with unique subject matter, specific performance may be ordered.

As for many governments, it was not possible to sue the Crown in the UK for breach of contract before 1948. However, it was appreciated that contractors might be reluctant to deal on such a basis and claims were entertained under a petition of right that needed to be endorsed by the Home Secretary and Attorney-General . S.1 Crown Proceedings Act 1947 opened the Crown to ordinary contractual claims through the courts as for any other person.

[ edit ] Damages

Main article: Damages

There are four different types of damages.

  • Compensatory damages which are given to the party which was detrimented by the breach of contract. With compensatory damages, there are two kinds of branches, consequential damages and direct damages.
  • Exemplary damages which are used to make an example of the party at fault to discourage similar crimes. Fines can be multiplied by factors of up to 50 for such damages.
  • Liquidation Damages which are damages paid for permission to breach the contract with no further obligations. Liquidation damages must be expressly stated in the contract, and must be reasonable (as determined by the courts), depending on the nature of the contract.
  • Nominal damages which include minimal dollar amounts (often sought to obtain a legal record of who was at fault).
  • Punitive damages which are used to punish the party at fault. These are not usually given regarding contracts but possible in a fraudulent situation.

Compensatory damages (or expectation damages) are awarded to put the party in as good of a position as the party would have been in had the contract been performed as promised. There must be certainty, not estimates, of what the party could have benefited if the contract had been performed. Furthermore, once a breach has occurred, the non-breaching party has a duty to mitigate damages. Damages are not recoverable for harm that the plaintiff should have foreseen and could have avoided by reasonable effort without undue risk, expense, or humiliation. The UCC states, "Consequential damages... include any loss... which could not reasonably be prevented by cover or otherwise." UCC 2-715.

Hadley v. Baxendale establishes general and consequential damages. General damages are those damages which naturally flow from a breach of contract. Consequential damages are those damages which, although not naturally flowing from a breach, are naturally supposed by both parties at the time of contract formation. An example would be when someone rents a car to get to a business meeting, but when that person arrives to pick up the car, it is not there. General damages would be the cost of renting a different car. Consequential damages would be the lost business if that person was unable to get to the meeting, if both parties knew the reason the party was renting the car. However, there is still a duty to cover; the fact that the car was not there does not give the party a right to not attempt to rent another car.

Whenever you have a contract that requires completing something, and a person informs you before they begin your project that it will not be completed, this is referred to as anticipatory breach . When it is neither possible nor desirable to award damages measured in that way, a court may award money damages designed to restore the injured party to the economic position that he or she had occupied at the time the contract was entered (known as the "reliance measure"), or designed to prevent the breaching party from being unjustly enriched (" restitution ").

[ edit ] Specific performance

Main article: Specific performance

There may be circumstances in which it would be unjust to permit the defaulting party simply to buy out the injured party with damages. For example where an art collector purchases a rare painting and the vendor refuses to deliver, the collector's damages would be equal to the sum paid.

The court may make an order of what is called "specific performance", requiring that the contract be performed. In some circumstances a court will order a party to perform his or her promise (an order of " specific performance ") or issue an order, known as an "injunction," that a party refrain from doing something that would breach the contract. A specific performance is obtainable for the breach of a contract to sell land or real estate on such grounds that the property has a unique value. In the United States , specific performance is an illegal remedy for personal services contracts or employment contracts, due to the fact that such remedy is regarded as involuntary servitude, [ citation needed ] which, by way of the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution , is only legal " as punishment for a crime whereof the criminal shall be dully convicted ." [ 52 ]

Both an order for specific performance and an injunction are discretionary remedies, originating for the most part in equity . Neither is available as of right and in most jurisdictions and most circumstances a court will not normally order specific performance. A contract for the sale of real property is a notable exception. In most jurisdictions, the sale of real property is enforceable by specific performance. Even in this case the defenses to an action in equity (such as laches , the bona fide purchaser rule, or unclean hands ) may act as a bar to specific performance.

Related to orders for specific performance, an injunction may be requested when the contract prohibits a certain action. Action for injunction would prohibit the person from performing the act specified in the contract.

[ edit ] Procedure

In the United States, in order to obtain damages for breach of contract or to obtain specific performance or other equitable relief, the aggrieved injured party may file a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit in state court (unless there is diversity of citizenship giving rise to federal jurisdiction). If the contract contains an arbitration clause, the aggrieved party must submit an arbitration claim in accordance with the procedures set forth in the agreement.

Many contracts provide that all disputes arising thereunder will be resolved by arbitration, rather than litigated in courts. Customer claims against securities brokers and dealers are almost always resolved by arbitration because securities dealers are required, under the terms of their membership in self-regulatory organizations such as the NASD or NYSE to arbitrate disputes with their customers. The firms then began including arbitration agreements in their customer agreements, requiring their customers to arbitrate disputes. [ 53 ] On the other hand, certain claims have been held to be non-arbitrable if they implicate a public interest that goes beyond the narrow interests of the parties to the agreement (ie, claims that a party violated a contract by engaging in illegal anticompetitive conduct or civil rights violations). Arbitration judgments may generally be enforced in the same manner as ordinary court judgements. However, arbitral decisions are generally immune from appeal in the United States unless there is a showing that the arbitrator's decision was irrational or tainted by fraud . Virtually all states have adopted the Uniform Arbitration Act to facilitate the enforcement of arbitrated judgements. Notably, New York State, where a sizable portion of major commercial agreements are executed and performed, has not adopted the Uniform Arbitration Act. [ 54 ]

In England and Wales , a contract may be enforced by use of a claim , or in urgent cases by applying for an interim injunction to prevent a breach. Likewise, in the United States, an aggrieved party may apply for injunctive relief to prevent a threatened breach of contract, where such breach would result in irreparable harm that could not be adequately remedied by money damages.

[ edit ] Third parties

Main article: Privity of contract

The doctrine of privity of contract means that only those involved in striking a bargain would have standing to enforce it. In general this is still the case, only parties to a contract may sue for the breach of a contract, although in recent years the rule of privity has eroded somewhat and third party beneficiaries have been allowed to recover damages for breaches of contracts they were not party to. There are two times where third party beneficiaries are allowed to fall under the contract. The duty owed test looks to see if the third party was agreeing to pay a debt for the original party. The intent to benefit test looks to see if circumstances indicate that the promisee intends to give the beneficiary the benefit of the promised performance. Any defense allowed to parties of the original contract extend to third party beneficiaries. [ 55 ] A recent example is in England, where the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 was introduced.

[ edit ] Contractual theory

Main article: Contract theory

Contract theory is the body of legal theory that addresses normative and conceptual questions in contract law. One of the most important questions asked in contract theory is why contracts are enforced. One prominent answer to this question focuses on the economic benefits of enforcing bargains. Another approach, associated with Charles Fried, maintains that the purpose of contract law is to enforce promises. This theory is developed in Fried's book, Contract as Promise. Other approaches to contract theory are found in the writings of legal realists and critical legal studies theorists.

Another dimension of the theoretical debate in contract is its place within, and relationship to a the wider law of obligations . Obligations have traditionally been divided into contracts, which are voluntarily undertaken and owed to a specific person or persons, and obligations in tort which are based on the wrongful infliction of harm to certain protected interests, primarily imposed by the law, and typically owed to a wider class of persons.

Recently it has been accepted that there is a third category, restitutionary obligations, based on the unjust enrichment of the defendant at the plaintiff’s expense. Contractual liability, reflecting the constitutive function of contract, is generally for failing to make things better (by not rendering the expected performance), liability in tort is generally for action (as opposed to omission) making things worse, and liability in restitution is for unjustly taking or retaining the benefit of the plaintiff’s money or work. [ 56 ]

Compare with the US context, the Uniform Commercial Code defining "Contract" as "the total legal obligation which results from the parties agreement" [ citation needed ] and does not attempt to state what act is essential to create a legal duty to perform a promise. The common law describes the circumstances under which the law will recognise the existence of rights, privilege or power arising out of a promise.

[ edit ] References [Sunting] Referensi

  1. ^ Hans Wehberg , Pacta Sunt Servanda , The American Journal of International Law , Vol. 53, No. 4 (Oct., 1959), p.775.]
  2. ^ eg In England , s. 52, Law of Property Act 1900
  3. ^ [1893] 2 QB 256
  4. ^ eg Lord Steyn, Contract Law: Fulfilling the Reasonable Expectations of Honest Men (1997) 113 LQR 433; cf § 133 BGB in Germany, where "the actual will of the contracting party, not the literal sense of words, is to be determined"
  5. ^ Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 32 (1981) (emphasis added)
  6. ^ law.com Law Dictionary
  7. ^ eg In Germany, § 311 BGB
  8. ^ The rule in Pinnel's case - Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605
  9. ^ Chappell & Co Ltd v. Nestle Co Ltd [1959] 2 All ER 701.
  10. ^ Eastwood v. Kenyon (1840) 11 Ad&E 438
  11. ^ Austotel v. Franklins (1989) 16 NSWLR 582
  12. ^ eg PS Atiyah, 'Consideration: A Restatement' in Essays on Contract (1986) p.195, Oxford University Press
  13. ^ Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd. [1947] KB 130
  14. ^ Balfour v. Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571
  15. ^ Merritt v. Merritt [1970] 2 All ER 760; [1970] 1 WLR 1211; CA
  16. ^ § 105, II BGB
  17. ^ in Australia it is known as the Sales of Goods Act in most states, and in Victoria the Goods Act 1958
  18. ^ L'Estrange v. Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394
  19. ^ Curtis v. Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co [1951] 1 KB 805
  20. ^ Balmain New Ferry Company Ltd v. Robertson (1906) 4 CLR 379
  21. ^ Fry v. Barnes (1953) 2 DLR 817 (BCSC)
  22. ^ Hillas and Co. Ltd. v. Arcos Ltd. (1932) 147 LT 503
  23. ^ Whitlock v. Brew (1968) 118 CLR 445
  24. ^ Three Rivers Trading Co., Ltd. v. Gwinear & District Farmers, Ltd. (1967) 111 Sol. J. 831
  25. ^ Martin, E [ed] & Law, J [ed], Oxford Dictionary of Law , ed6 (2006, London:OUP).
  26. ^ Jamie Wodetzki, "Boilerplate that Bites: The Arbitration Clause", 2006
  27. ^ Tina L. Stark, Negotiating and Drafting Contract Boilerplate , ( ALM Publishing 2003, pp.5-7). ISBN 9781588521057
  28. ^ Not to be confused with a product warranty , which is always referred to as a 'guarantee' in law .
  29. ^ Poussard v. Spiers and Pond (1876) 1 QBD 410
  30. ^ Bettini v. Gye (1876) 1 QBD 183
  31. ^ As added by the Sale of Goods Act 1994 s4(1).
  32. ^ [1962] 1 All ER 474
  33. ^ Maredelanto Compania Naviera SA v Bergbau-Handel GmbH. The Mihalis Angelos [1970] 3 All ER 125.
  34. ^ [1976] 3 All ER 570
  35. ^ (1977) 180 CLR 266
  36. ^ 'Byrne and Frew v. Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410
  37. ^ [1976] 2 WLR 562
  38. ^ [1995] 4 All ER 745
  39. ^ Gordon v. Selico (1986) 18 HLR 219
  40. ^ Bisset v Wilkinson and others [1927] AC 177
  41. ^ Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 305
  42. ^ Bell v. Lever Brothers Ltd. [1931] ALL ER Rep. 1, [1932] AC 161
  43. ^ Raffles v. Wichelhaus (1864) 2 Hurl. & C. 906.
  44. ^ Smith v. Hughes [1871]
  45. ^ Lewis v. Avery [1971] 3 All ER 907
  46. ^ Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004)
  47. ^ Barton v. Armstrong [1976] AC 104
  48. ^ Johnson v. Buttress (1936) 56 CLR 113
  49. ^ see in the UK egs3(2) Sale of Goods Act 1979
  50. ^ Royal Bank of Canada v. Newell 147 DLR (4th) 268 (NCSA)
  51. ^ Tenet v. Doe , 544 US 1 (2005) .
  52. ^ " 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution ". Retrieved on 2008-10-10.
  53. ^ Introduction to Securities Arbitration - an Overview from SECLaw.com the online leader in securities law news, information and commentary
  54. ^ New York Civil Procedure Law and Rules § 7501, et seq.
  55. ^ Beatson (1998)" Anson's Law of Contract", 27th ed. (Oxford: OUP), p.246
  56. ^ Beatson, Anson’s Law of Contract (1998) 27th ed. OUP, p.21

[ edit ]

No comments:

Post a Comment

Post a Comment