国际商法中钳制的英文版讲解.pptVIP

Duress;Common Law;Civil Law;China;;案例分析（一）; The Privy Council advised that Mr Barton could avoid the contract for being under duress, and it did not matter that he may have agreed to the deal any way. Lord Cross, Lord Kilbrandon and Sir Garfield Barwick held that physical duress does not need to be the main reason, it must merely be one reason for entering an agreement. Lord Cross said the same rule should apply for duress as in misrepresentation, ‘that if Armstrong’s threats were ‘a’ reason for Barton’s executing the deed he is entitled to relief even though he might well have entered into the contract if Armstrong had uttered no threats to induce him to do so…’;案例分析（二）;The Privy Council held that if As threats were a reason for Bs executing the deed he was entitled to relief even though he might well have entered into the contract if A had uttered no threats to induce him to do so. The onus was on A to prove that the threats he made contributed nothing to Bs decision to sign.;案例分析（三）;The owners suggested that the company should subject their claim to arbitration, but they declined to do so, and requested the owners to give them a final and decisive reply to their demand for an increase by a certain date, failing which they would terminate the contract. The owners, who at that time were negotiating a very lucrative contract for the charter of the tanker, replied that although they were under no obligation to make additional payments, they would do so without prejudice to their rights, and requested that the company arrange for corresponding increases in the letter of credit. The company agreed to do so in June 1973, and the owners remitted the remaining instalments, including the 10 per cent. increase, without protest. The tanker was delivered to the owners in November 1974 but it was not until July 1975 that the company knew that the owners were claiming the return of the extra 10 per cent. paid on the four instalments with interest and the matter was referred to