请问什么是callateral contract ?

天野美羽

请问什么是callateral contract ? 英文水平较低。。。不是很明白






Collateral-contact doctrine is a principle that states that in a dispute concerning a written contract, proof of a second agreement, usually an oral agreement, will not be excluded under the parol-evidence rule if the oral agreement is independent of and consistent with the written contract. The information in the oral agreement would not ordinarily be expected to be included in the written contract. This is also termed as collateral-agreement doctrine

derekting2u

简单来说就是附属合约。
我们生活上常看到的例子如，我答应你如果跟我买 XYZ，我会送你礼品。不过，你签的合约里却没有说明会有礼品。“我会送你礼品”就是我和你的附属合约。
不过通常，你会听到这样的excuse ：我们的合约都没有提到送你礼品！法律的观点是，如果这是双方所要求的，他们会放在written contract里。
这也是 Parol evidence rule 的精神，如果有written contract 我们就不 refer 回口头合约。
不过有general rule 就会有exception。Collateral contract 就是 parol evidence rule 的exception。只要你comply with the legal requirement，和证明我有答应过送你礼品，法官就可以 add “我会送你礼品”as part of our contract。

天野美羽

简单来说就是附属合约。
我们生活上常看到的例子如，我答应你如果跟我买 XYZ，我会送你礼品。不过，你签的 ...
derekting2u 发表于 23-6-2012 05:52 PM

   oh~~~谢谢你。。。真的明白了很多。。。但是collateral contract 有什么重要的requirement 吗？

天野美羽

Two requirements must be fulfilled to establish the existence of a valid and binding collateral contract:

The representor must have intended the promise to be legally binding. (This merely fulfills the general requirement for legal intention to establish a contract in any case.)
The representee must have entered into the main contract on the basis of the statement and in reliance upon it. (Without that, the entering into of the main contract would not be good consideration.)

有谁可以解释一下吗？

derekting2u

例子，
The representor must have intended the promise to be legally binding.
我说我会送你礼品 （不是跟你开玩笑那种），我明白我和你有口头和约（这就是所谓的intention to create legal relationship）。

The representee must have entered into the main contract on the basis of the statement and in reliance upon it.
你会跟我买XYZ是因为我答应会送你礼品。

天野美羽

明白！谢谢你哦。。。你有读过法律吗？

天野美羽

想再请问你多一个问题，是关于Shanklin Pier v Detel Products case

这个案件是说Detel 确信的告诉Shanklin自己的漆可以7年不褪色，适用于他们。事后shanklin就吩咐painter在detel那边买漆为他的pier重新粉刷。后来不到三个月就褪色了。Shanklin为此而告Detel。

据我了解，在这个案件里Shanklin Pier是赢了这场官司.但他们（pier owner & Detel ）只是口头约定。真正有合约的是(painter & Detel)...为什么pier可以赢呢？
这关系到parallel rule ？

derekting2u

因为那 case, court create an exception to the doctrine of privity.

天野美羽

因为那 case, court create an exception to the doctrine of privity.
derekting2u 发表于 24-6-2012 02:54 PM

不是很明白。。。

derekting2u

简单来解释就是C 的 representation 造成 A enter into a contract with B。

例子，
C车产打广告说他们家的车会飞。
A 想要买会飞的车，B 有卖那brand。
A跟B 买，然后A 发现那车不会飞。

不过B没有说那车会飞，所以A 不能告B （他不是 rely on B representation）

法庭的责任是伸张正义，所以法官问为何A会跟B 买那车？
因为rely on C representation （C车产打广告说他们家的车会飞）

你可能会问这跟collateral contract 有何关系？
这case 的 significant 就是说，it is possible to have a collateral contract between a third party。

何谓 Doctrine of privity 和她有什么 exception，那就请你自己去研究吧

天野美羽

谢谢你。。。真的很厉害