I. The case of Pria is subjected to several sources as the courts closely reach their judgment. They tend to seek direct consultation on the existing legislations of the land. For instance, cases involving exemption clauses are subject to the terms and conditions held in Cap. 71 of the laws in Hong Kong. More specifically, the decision of the judges will be based on the classification of the Control of Exemption Clauses Ordinance on whether an exemption clause is valid or not. On the other hand, the courts may also consider the case of Pria based on the judicial interpretation of the laws. For instance, certain terms that fall under the Control of Exemption Clauses Ordinance have already been regarded previously by past cases heard in the judiciary. The courts could regard the interpretation of these courts and use it to support to their own judgment of the case. In the context of Hong Kong, its judicial system has been deeply ingrained with colonial heritage that there are seminal English case laws that are still used for judicial interpretation. This means that the judgment on the case of Pria is basically subject to the applicability of statutory principles in the land and/or by the existing judicial interpretation of these laws.
II. In its simplest sense, the legal term of estoppel averts any possibility for an individual from stating or refuting in court that has been already been established as the truth. However, the decisions in the case of Walton’s Stores v Maher provided more developments in the definition of estoppel. More specifically, the said case has been regarded as a cornerstone in modern regard of promissory estoppel. In common law, promissory estoppel essentially makes a promise binding, in certain conditions, devoid of proper consideration from the parties. Thus, is a promised is made by person A, and person B carried on with the new terms, person A is estopped from rescinding that promise regardless of the absence of consideration on person B. In the case of Central London Property Trust Ltd. v High Trees House Ltd, the court provided several elements that should be present to establish whether promissory estoppel is indeed operational. These factors include the existence of a promise; reliance on the promise; loss or harm on the part of the promisee if the promisor is permitted to rescind the promise.
After the decision of the Walton’s case was established, a new item is added that intimates the actual implementation of promissory estoppel. Specifically, the said case made it only applicable for promissory estoppel to transpire when it would be unconscionable for the one who made the promise to rescind it. Moreover, the facts of the said case intimated that the plaintiffs were using the estoppel argument as a means to compel the defendant to execute their promise. In this regard, the courts maintained that if plaintiffs should use this legal doctrine the way Maher used it, then they have to establish unconscionability aside from mere existence of reasonable reliance and an existing promise.
III. The rule of postal acceptance is covered by common law in the administration of offer and acceptance in contract law. As established by the principle of contracts, once an acceptance is made and properly communicated to the offeror, then a contract is made. However, in instances where it is impossible for the parties to physically communicate their acceptance, the use of post also applies. This is where the postal rule comes in. It maintains that the acceptance is made and communicated to the offeror once the mail is posted. Thus, the time of the acceptance lies on the moment the offeree posts the correspondence and not when the offeror received the letter.
In the context of Hong Kong, they have enacted the Electronic Transactions Ordinance (Cap 553). Traditionally, common law principles do not consider the postal rule applicable to instantaneous communication. However, the enactment of the Ordinance made it acceptable in Hong Kong to use electronic records to conclude a contract. (s17) The problem in this regard is that the exact timing of the acceptance is not intimated, whether the instance the electronic correspondence is sent or when it is received by the offeree. In any case, the changes made in the postal rule in the enactment of the Ordinance basically consist of the consent of using electronic records as an acceptable means of verifying the existence of a contract.
IV. References
Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] 1 KB 130
Control of Exemption Clauses Ordinance
Electronic Transactions Ordinance (Cap 553)
Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment