帮帮忙。。。解释案子

天野美羽

Preston-Corporation-Sdn-Bhd-v-Edward-Leong-Ors。。。有没有人懂这个案子？这是什么案件？能解释一下吗？

niki_chow

Appellantsreston Corporation Sdn. Bhd.

Respondents:Edward Leong & ORS.

Judges: y Suffian L.P,y Salleh Abas andy Abdul Hamid F.JJ.

Court:Federal Court Civil Appeal (Kuala Lumpur)

In this case the appellants were a company carrying on the business of publishing booksand the respondents were a firm of printers. There was a relationship between the appellantsand the respondents. The appellants paid all the printing charges except the disputed sum of $500 which they claimed was an overcharged by the respondents. They also withheldpayment of the extra charges claimed by the respondents for reproducing the film positivesused in the printing of the books because the respondents claimed ownership of the films. Therespondents sued the appellants for the sum of $500 which they alleged was the balance of printing charges and a further sum of $28,052 as extra charges for reproducing the filmspositive whose ownership was disputed. The respondents pleaded that they were entitled tothe ownership of the film positives because of the express terms of the contract between themto that effect and also because of a trade usage prevalent in the printing industry. Theappellants on the other hand denied that the contract contained such terms and alleged tradeusage.

niki_chow

The Issues:

- Whether or not the appellants were bound to pay the disputed sum of $500 to therespondents.
-Whether the respondents were entitled to the payment for the extra charges.
- Whether the respondents can claim ownership of the film positives on the basis of trade usage.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the fact intended to be proved.

niki_chow

The Principles:

- No contract between the parties could come into existence at the moment when theappellants printing orders were issued, but did so only at the time when these orderswere confirmed or accepted by the respondents.
-The quotation was merely a supply of information or an invitation to enter into acontract.
- The characteristics of usage are notoriety, certainty and reasonableness. Thus, a usagewhich outrages the sense of justice and common sense is not reasonable.
-The alleged usage is completely unilateral as it does not take into consideration themutual interest of printers¶ customers.

niki_chow

Ratio Decidendi ? (Judgement):

The judgment of learned judge must be reversed and that the appeal should be allowed with acost. Therefore, the respondent¶s claim was dismissed and the deposit should be refunded tothe appellant. The judgement was on the basis ground of :

1) The learned judge¶s finding and order as regards the sum $500 were clearly erroneousand could not be supported by the evidence as he took no account at all of theadmissions made by the respondents that the disputed item was an overcharge.

2) The contracts was formed and existed with offers of printing orders from the appellantand the acceptance by respondent¶s confirmation. Consequently, the film ownershipclause contained in the quotations was completely irrelevant which not part of contract at all.

3) The alleged trade usage was not sufficiently proved by the respondents which isreproduced film positives belonged to printers who reproduce them, although their reproduction costs are borne by the customer.

4) The basis of the alleged trade usage seemed unreasonable because it conflicted withthe ordinary sense of justice commonly understood by reasonable men in that a personwho pays for an article or for making it should be entitled to it and not be deprived of its ownership for which he has paid or required to pay.

niki_chow

Conclusion:

This case signifies one of the principles in contract law which is to distinguish offer frominvitation to treat (ITT) in order to identify existence of a contract between two parties. Asthe quotations stated by the respondents are merely a supply of information for appellants inthe inquiries of the price of printed books and their delivery dates. Thus, there was nocontract formed at the time but only was concluded with an effective communication throughoffer of printing orders by the appellants and acceptance of confirmation by respondents.Plus, the ownership of the reproduced film positives should not be claimed by respondents asterms in the quotations submitted by them because it was neither a binding offer nor a part of contract at all.

天野美羽

谢谢你^^但可以大略翻译一下这个案子吗？(不是很明白)

derekting2u

这case 是关于formation of contract 和 implied terms 。

他的main issue 是那底片是否属于被告的。
他的故事就象，你拿底片到照相馆冲洗，对方把冲洗好的照片给你，不过底片没有还你，然后他根你说这是industrial practice，那底片属于他们的。（Implied terms是指某些terms你没有同意过，不过这是行业里的customary or trade，是不言而语的）

我已经给你basic idea了，剩下请你去Google 然后读他的judgment。

天野美羽

这case 是关于formation of contract 和 implied terms 。

他的main issue 是那底片是否属于被告的。
他 ...
derekting2u 发表于 18-6-2012 01:17 AM

   wow。。感谢你真的很有帮助～～～