ภาพแสตมป์จากพิพิธภัณฑ์แสตมป์สามเสนใน
Pictures from Museum of Thai Stamp Sam Saen Nai
แสตมป์ไข่มุก
pearl stamp
วันศุกร์ที่ 30 ธันวาคม พ.ศ. 2554
แสตมป์ 3 มิติ Hologram Stamp 3D (Space)
ภาพแสตมป์จากพิพิธภัณฑ์แสตมป์สามเสนใน
Pictures from Museum of Thai Stamp Sam Saen Nai
แสตมป์ไข่มุก
pearl stamp
วันศุกร์ที่ 23 ธันวาคม พ.ศ. 2554
ข้อมูลการขึ้นบัญชีนิติกรของราชการ
1 นิติกรปฏิบัติการสำนัก กพ
หลักกสูตรและวิธิธีกีการสอบภาคความร้ความสามารถที่่ใช้เฉพาะตำแหน่ง
ทดสอบความรู้ความสามารถ ดังต่อไปนี้ โดยวิธีการสอบข้อเขียน (คะแนนเต็ม 200 คะแนน)
1. กฎหมายสารบัญญัติ (50 คะแนน)
- หลักกฎหมายแพ่ง
- หลักกฎหมายอาญา
2. กฎหมายวิธีสบัญญัติ (50 คะแนน)
- กฎหมายว่าด้วยวิธีพิจารณาความแพ่ง
- กฎหมายว่าด้วยวิธีพิจารณาความอาญา
3. ความรู้เกี่ยวกับกฎหมายมหาชน (100 คะแนน)
- รัฐธรรมนูญแห่งราชอาณาจักรไทย พ.ศ. 2550
- พระราชบัญญัติวิธีปฏิบัติราชการทางปกครอง พ.ศ. 2539
และพระราชบัญญัติความรับผิดทางละเมิดของเจ้าหน้าที่ พ.ศ. 2539
- พระราชบัญญัติระเบียบบริหารราชการแผ่นดิน พ.ศ. 2534 และที่แก้ไขเพิ่มเติม
- พระราชบัญญัติข้อมูลข่าวสารของทางราชการ พ.ศ. 2540
- พระราชบัญญัติระเบียบข้าราชการพลเรือน พ.ศ. 2551
สมัครสอบ 4 - 25 มี.ค. 54
ประกาศรายชื่อผู้สมัครสอบฯกำหนดวัน เวลา และสถานที่สอบ 8 เม.ย. 54
สอบภาคความรู้ความสามารถที่ใช้เฉพาะตำแหน่ง (ภาค ข.) 24 เม.ย. 54 ทั้งกรุงเทพฯและปริมณฑล
ประกาศรายชื่อผู้มีสิทธิเข้าสอบภาคความเหมาะสมกับตำแหน่ง (ภาค ค.) 20 พ.ค. 54
สอบภาคความเหมาะสมกับตำแหน่ง (ภาค ค.)
ประกาศขึ้นบัญชีผู้สอบแข่งขันได้ 24 มิ.ย. 54
มีผู้สมัครสอบ 6,019 คน
นิติกรปฏิบัติการสำนัก กพ ณ วันที่ 19 ธันวาคม 2554 จำนวนที่ขึ้นบัญชีผู้สอบแข่งขันได้มีจำนวน 1,837 คน ซึ่งขณะนี้ถูกเรียกตัวเข้ารับราชการถึงลำดับที่ 127 แล้ว[1]
รวมข้อสอบอัตนัยนิติกรและนักกฎหมายของราชการ
รวมข้อสอบอัตนัยนิติกรและนักกฎหมายของราชการ
สอบนิติกร กรมบังคับคดี 17 พฤษภาคม 2552
ข้อ 1 เป็นข้อสอบบรรยายเกี่ยวกับอำนาจของเจ้าพนักงานพิทักษ์ทรัพย์ในการจัดการทรัพย์สินของลูกหนี้ หลังศาลมีคำสั่งพิทักษ์ทรัพย์เด็ดขาด และอำนาจในการจัดการทรัพย์สินของลูกหนี้ผู้ถูกพิทักษ์ทรัพย์เด็ดขาด และถามอีกอันว่าโจทก์ผู้ฟ้องคดีล้มละลายต้องยื่นคำขอรับชำระหนี้อีกหรือไม่
ข้อ 2 เป็นข้อสอบตุ๊กตาถามเกี่ยวกับการขอรับชำระหนี้ในคดีล้มละลาย มีสามข้อย่อย น่าจะเป็นประเด็นเกี่ยวกับหนี้ที่ขอรับชำระในคดีล้มละลายได้และระยะเวลายื่นคำขอรับชำระหนี้ในคดีล้มละลาย
ข้อ 3 เป็นกฎหมายวิธีพิจารณาความแพ่งภาคบังคับคดี เกี่ยวกับประเด็นว่าทรัพย์สินใดบ้างที่จะถูกบังคับคดี มีประเด็นเรื่องสินสมรสด้วย
ข้อ 4 เป็นเรื่องไม่บังคับคดีภายในกำหนด 10 ปีและขอไถ่ถอนจำนองเมื่อพ้นกำหนดเวลาบังคับคดี ดอกเบี้ยไถ่ถอนและเรื่องการวางทรัพย์[1]
สถิติการสมัครสอบผู้ช่วยผู้พิพากษา
ในการสมัครสอบผู้ช่วยผู้พิพากษา สนามใหญ่ปี 2554 จำนวนผู้มีสิทธิสอบผู้ช่วยผู้พิพากษา คือ 7642คน จากผู้ยื่นใบสมัคร 7737 คน ผู้ไม่มีสิทธิสอบมีจำนวน 95 คน แต่ภายหลังมีการประกาศเพิ่มเติมคืนสิทธิเข้าสอบให้แก่ผู้สมัครสอบอีกจำนวน 1 คน [1]
วันพฤหัสบดีที่ 15 ธันวาคม พ.ศ. 2554
วิธีตอบข้อสอบกฎหมาย
ข้อสังเกต
1.แต่ละย่อหน้าวางหลักกฎหมาย พยายามปรับข้อเท็จจริง
2.คำพิพากษาฎีกาจะวางหลักก่อนแล้วปรับข้อเท็จจริงเข้ากับหลัก
โจทย์
นาย ก.ยื่นฟ้อง B ต่อศาลชั้นต้นเรียกเงิน 1 แสน บาท โดยเสียค่าขึ้นศาลอย่างคดีไม่มีทุนทรัพย์ ข้อเท็จจริง ปรากฎว่าศาลชั้นต้นสั่งให้โจทก์เสียค่าธรรมเนียมไม่ถูกต้องให้เสียเพิ่ม 2 หมื่นบาท โจทก์วางโดยไม่ทักท้วง เมื่อโจทก์นำค่าขึ้นศาลมาวางศาลพิพากษาให้โจทก์แพ้คดี โจทก์ยื่นอุทธรณ์เฉพาะประเด็นคำสั่งให้วางค่าขึ้นศาลโดยไม่ได้วางค่าธรรมเนียมใช้แทนในการยื่นอุทธรณ์โดยมิได้ทักท้วง กรณีนี้โจทก์มีอำนาจอุทธรณ์หรือไม่
พิเคราะห์-อุทธรณ์ตัวคำสั่ง ประมวลกฎหมายวิธีพิจารณาความแพ่ง มาตรา 223 คำสั่งที่ให้โจทก์เสียค่าขึ้นศาลเพิ่มเป็นคำสั่งระหว่างพิจารณาตาม มาตรา 226 เนื่องจากไม่ใช่คำสั่งไม่รับ/คืนคำคู่ความตามมาตรา 18 และไม่ใช่การชี้ขาดเบื้องต้นตามมาตรา 24 คำสั่งระหว่างพิจารณาต้องโต้แย้งด้วย คำสั่งระหว่างพิจารณาเกี่ยวด้วยความสงบเรียบร้อยของประชาชน แม้ไม่โต้แย้งอุทธรณ์ได้ทั้งข้อเท็จจริงและข้อกฎหมาย มาตรา 229 การอุทธรณ์ที่มีผลให้ศาลอุทธรณ์ยกเลิกหรือเพิกถอนคำพิพากษาของศาลชั้นต้น อุทธรณ์นี้ต้องวางค่าธรรมเนียมใช้แทนโดยไม่ต้องคำนึงว่า จะต้องเป็นตัวคำพิพากษาหรือไม่ แม้เป็นการอุทธรณ์คำสั่งระหว่างพิจารณาหรือ คำร้องขอพิจารณาคดีใหม่ ถ้ามีผลให้ยกเลิกหรือเพิกถอนก็ต้องวาง
ตามปัญหามีประเด็นจะต้องวินิจฉัยว่า นาย ก.จะอุทธรณ์คำสั่งให้เสียค่าขึ้นศาลได้หรือไม่ พิเคราะห์แล้วเห็นว่าคำสั่งระหว่างพิจารณาคือคำสั่งที่ศาลสั่งไปแล้วไม่ทำให้คดีเสร็จไปจากศาลและคำสั่งต้องไม่ใช่คำสั่งตามที่บัญญัติไว้ในมาตรา 227 และมาตรา 228 ซึ่งคู่ความจะอุทธรณ์ได้ต้องโต้แย้งไว้ก่อนและจะโต้แย้งโดยชัดแจ้งหรือปริยายก็ได้และต้องโต้แย้งภายใน 1 เดือนหลังจากศาลชั้นต้นพิพากษา (ต้องดึงหลักมาผสมกับข้อเท็จจริงแล้วมาบอกว่าผิดต่อมาตรานี้ มันไม่น่าจะทำให้เราได้คะแนนดี)เมื่อข้อเท็จจริงฟังเป็นที่ยุติว่าศาลชั้นต้นสั่งให้โจทก์เสียค่าขึ้นศาลเพิ่มขึ้น คำสั่งของศาลชั้นต้นดังกล่าวเป็นคำสั่งระหว่างพิจารณาเพราะเป็นคำสั่งที่สั่งไปแล้วไม่ทำให้คดีเสร็จไปจากศาล ทั้งคำสั่งดังกล่าวก็ไม่ใช่คำสั่งไม่รับหรือคืนคำคู่ความอันบัญญัติไว้ใน มาตรา 18 ทั้งมิใช่การสั่งหรือชี้ขาดเบื้องต้นในปัญหาข้อกฏหมายตามมาตรา 27 เมื่อโจทก์ไม่ได้โต้แย้งไว้จึงต้องห้ามอุทธรณ์ตามประมวลกฎหมายวิธีพิจารณาความแพ่งมาตรา 226 (แล้วก็ปิดนิดหนึ่งว่า)อย่างไรก็ตามคำสั่งเรื่องค่าขึ้นศาลเป็นปัญหาข้อกฎหมายอันเกี่ยวกับความสงบเรียบร้อยของประชาชน แม้โจทก์จะมิได้โต้แย้งก็หยิบยกขึ้นอุทธรณ์ได้ตาม มาตรา 225 วรรค 2
ประเด็นที่ต้องวินิจฉัยประการต่อมา อุทธรณ์โจทก์จะต้องวางค่าธรรมเนียมใช้แทนหรือไม่พิเคราะห์แล้วเห็นว่าอุทธรณ์ที่ยื่นต่อศาลกฎหมายบังคับให้ต้องวางค่าธรรมเนียมใช้แทนมิฉะนั้นเป็นอุทธรณ์ที่ไม่ชอบด้วยกฎหมายตามมาตรา 229 ซึ่งบทบัญญัติแห่งมาตราดังกล่าวหาใช่บังคับถึงอุทธรณ์อันเป็นเนื้อหาแห่งคดีเท่านั้น ดังนั้นอุทธรณ์เช่นนี้ก็ต้องวางค่าธรรมเนียมใช้แทน เมื่อข้อเท็จจริงเป็นที่ยุติว่าแม้คำสั่งเรื่องค่าขึ้นศาลจะเป็นคำสั่งระหว่างพิจารณาแต่ศาลอุทธรณ์พิพากษาให้โจทก์ชนะคดีตามอุทธรณ์ย่อมมีผลให้คำสั่งเรื่องค่าขึ้นศาลของศาลชั้นต้นได้ถูกยกเลิกและเพิกถอนไปในตัวอุทธรณ์นี้จึงต้องวางค่าธรรมเนียมใช้แทนเมื่อโจทก์ไม่วาง ศาลชั้นต้นชอบที่จะไม่รับตามมาตรา 229[1]
วันอาทิตย์ที่ 11 ธันวาคม พ.ศ. 2554
The benefit of studying English in English speaker countries ประโยชน์จากการเรียนภาษาอังกฤษในประเทศเจ้าของภาษา
The characteristic of Thai people generally is shy and afraid of English. They admire some Thai persons who pronounce English like native speaker and the most of Thai people think that their ability of English skill is inferior to them .Thus they discourage to learn and improve their English. The studying of English in English speaker countries, where are recognised as the original English speaker especially in UK, USA, Australia and New Zealand, may terminate such inferiority complex even though it could be said that the quality of English teaching of the famous institutions in Thailand (for example: British Council) is not different to the ones in the English countries. The improvement of English skill depends on many factors other than an effort. If you are talkative and associate with many English friends, your speaking and listening skills will be developed more quickly than the other ones who has only a chance to speak English in classroom. If you are in the different social, it will stimulate you to interest in history subject and to travel around there because you begin to observe a new experience.However bear in your mind that the English friends generally do not correct any error of your English.
วันพฤหัสบดีที่ 8 ธันวาคม พ.ศ. 2554
หลักเกณฑ์ในการให้คะแนนข้อสอบกฏหมายตอบแบบอัตนัยแบบวินิจฉัยตุ๊กตา(ตรวจข้อสอบด้วยตนเอง)
เพื่อขจัดความลำเอียงในการตรวจให้คะแนนตนเอง จึงกำหนดหลักเกณฑ์นี้ขึ้น
1.คะแนนเต็มแต่ละข้อคือ 10 คะแนน
ก่อนตรวจข้อสอบที่ทำเสร็จแล้ว ถ้าธงคำตอบข้อหนึ่งนั้นมีหลายประเด็น ให้เฉลี่ยคะแนนในแต่ละประเด็นให้มีคะแนนเป็นตัวเลขจำนวนเต็มที่เสมอกัน หากเฉลี่ยคะแนนแล้ว ปรากฎว่า มีเศษคะแนนที่เฉลี่ยไม่ลงตัว ให้นำเศษคะแนนที่เฉลี่ยไม่ลงตัวไปเพิ่มคะแนนให้แก่ประเด็นที่ยากที่สุด
2.ในการให้คะแนนซึ่งข้อสอบมีหลายประเด็นนั้นจะให้คะแนนเกินกว่าที่คะแนนเฉลี่ยที่กำหนดไว้ในแต่ละประเด็นตามข้อ 1 วรรคสองไม่ได้ และต้องให้คะแนนให้ครบทุกประเด็นในแต่ละข้อก่อนแล้วจึงรวมเป็นคะแนนเต็มสำหรับข้อนั้น
วันอังคารที่ 6 ธันวาคม พ.ศ. 2554
It is highly misleading to say that the compensation of the plaintiff is the goal of contractual remedies. The discussion based on the American law.
The contract is valuable right for the parties. It is a mean to share the duty and benefit between promisor and promisee. The contract is made in daily life of everyone for example hire, buy, borrow and so on. The duty in contract should be respected and treated in good faith by both parties. However, in the fact there are parties who breach the contract or be impractical. Its affect is damage. The compensation is one part of contractual right to remedy that plaintiff has. The remedies might be classified 2 types by nature of action that is affirmative and defensive. However, the classification in this essay is 6 sorts as following
1) The Compensatory damage
The Compensatory damage (so called “actual damages”) occurs when the one party do the breach of contract which cause of loss of the other party who is not non-performance parties. The other party can claim for compensate. This remedy give full protection to the plaintiff’s expectation interest for the example, the Uniform Commercial Code section 1-106(1),2-709(1)(a).[1]
2) Mental Anguish and Punitive damages
The mental anguish or emotional distress damages are on the medium between contract and tort. However, the injury would claim for a “tort” rather than a “contract”. For the example in Gaglidari v Denny’s Restaurants,Inc, the court held that emotional were not obtainable for breach of an employment contract. The court stressed that an employment contract did not have “elements of personality” and that the parties had not agreed to protect those losses. According to the court, the type of contract involved rather than the nature of the breach or whether the loss was predictable was the decisive issue.
Punitive damage is grant in special case and its objective is reform and discourage the defendant form his awful conduct such as loss arising from malice. The punitive damages can be only granted by the due process of law due to the fifth and fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.[2]
3) The right to suspend performance
The right to suspend performance or cancellation may be called the promisee’s defensive remedies. This remedies is provided in the Uniform Commercial Code section 2-610 the option to “suspend his own performance”, the Uniform Commercial Code section 2-610(a)&(c) “ for a commercially reasonable time await performance by the repudiating party.” the Uniform Commercial Code section 2-611(1) “cancel or materially changed his position or otherwise indicated that he consider the repudiation final”[3]
In generally, the promisee has contractual obligation to perform .Nevertheless, if the promisor materially breach his duty, the promisee has legal right to withhold her own. Nonetheless, the utilization of the right to suspend may risk to be considered that the promisee breaches contract if a court holds that the other side did not breach the contract in material. There is the case which rule the important principle as following
Hochster v De La Tour
The defendant hired the plaintiff as a courier on April. The plaintiff‘s work started on the first June. The defendant repudiated the contract on May 11th, and the plaintiff sued on May 22nd for a salary of three months term. The material issue in this case is the plaintiff can sue before the date of performance. The court holds that the action of damage can appear immediately when the anticipatory refutation occurs.
4) Cancellation
In case of repudiation or failure of the other party to perform a material part of the agreed exchange. The remedy in the minimum level is to suspend and in the maximum level is to “cancel”. The cancellation is provided in Uniform Commercial Code section 2-106 as following
“(3)”Termination” occurs when either party pursuant to a power created by agreement or law puts an end to the contract otherwise than for its breach. On “termination “all obligations which are still executor on both sides are discharged but any right based on prior breach or performance survives.
(4) “Cancellation “occurs when either party puts an end to the contract for breach by the other and its effect is the same as that of “termination “except that the cancelling party also retains any remedy for breach of the whole contract or any unperformed balance.”
First, it is necessary to separate a claim for damages occurring from breach from the cancellation remedy. This remedies is obtainable for non-breaching parties.
5) Equitable remedy
Equitable remedy is specific performance. Its historical roots derived from English law of equity. Firstly, it is necessary to explain about the damage which is the basic remedy in common law system. Then, the common law evaluated the second system for the purpose that it will handle ever system properly-damages. If the Damages are inadequate, fall back to second system-system of equity that is 2 possible remedies: One is specific performance that are told what to do perform the primary obligation and the other one is negative injunction that are told to refrain from doing something.
Equitable remedies give the right to the plaintiff to acquire the actual performance agreed by the defendant rather than damages. The courts empower to issue an order to the defendant, directing conduct of a specified sort, and to punish nonconformity by a fine or imprisonment for disdain. Specific performance is not available as a right but obtainable according to the discretion of the court. The court has to evaluate the balances: The plaintiff has to show inadequate damages and specific performance would not be tedious on the defendant, on the other hand, the defendant would prove need to show his client is going to get thoroughly cruelly difficult. In practical, the court issues an injunction as the main form of this personal. [4]But it is not easy to gain equitable remedies, the plaintiff need to uphill battle to obtain.
Curtice Brothers Co. v.Catts
Catts entered into agreement to purchase the whole tomato crop of a certain piece of land for tomato canning company Curtice Brothers Co. that had a capability of 1 million cans of tomatoes and the tomato packing season lasted 6 weeks. Curtice Brother had planned to product the tomato canning during the six week packing season. Curtice Brothers want to obtain specific performance. Catts contend the authority of the court to award specific performance. The Court of Chancery of New Jersey held that Curtice Brother engaged immense effort to secure a sufficient supply of tomatoes for efficient use of sources in its canning production and specific performance was a proper remedy.
Northern Indianna Public Service Co. v. Carbon County Coal Co.
NIPSCO and Carbon County concluded a 20-year agreement under which NIPSCO agreed to purchase around 1.5 million tons of coal every year for 20 years, at a price of $24 a ton, subject to increasing escalation. In 1985, the agreement price rose to $44 per ton but there were changing of the economic circumstances; NIPSCO could not buy electricity at the price lower than the cost of generation. NIPSCO searched for a declaratory judgment to excuse from the contract. Carbon County counterclaimed for breach of agreement and shift for a preliminary injunction and specific performance. The district court awarded the preliminary injunction but, court refused specific performance. NIPSCO appealed from the verdict and Carbon County appealed from the refutation of specific performance. The court speaking through Judge Posner, first affirmed the verdict against NIPSCO.
This case has the important issue that should be consider:
(i)The defendant only wanted damages; they did not prefer to do a performance which cost more than $181 million. The defendant can breach of contract but they have to bare consequences either damage for $181 million or specific performance. Nonetheless, the specific performance was no granted. Because the court believed that even if they grant the specific performance, the defendant still did not perform the contract and it is possible that when the plaintiff has been given a right, the plaintiff could claim the performance against the defendant but the defendant could pay money to the plaintiff not to exercise this specific performance right.
(ii) The denial of courts to issue injunctions that would compel an undue hardship on defendants has the effect of preventing the plaintiff from applying an equitable remedy to force an over compensatory settlement. But repudiating to award an injunction on such equitable bases also increases the chance plaintiffs will be under compensated by monetary damage.[5]
5) Liquidated damages
Liquidated damages are damages whose the parties determinate during the formation of an agreement for the injured party to obtain as compensation on a specific breach for the example: late performance. In case that the damage is not predetermining, the court will make a decision. However, a liquidated damage cannot be enforceable if it has an objective to punish the breach party.[6]
6) Other remedy
Uniform Commercial code 2000, we can find several remedies on part 7 which is the modern and broadly recover the right of injury for the example:
section 2-703 provided “Seller’s Remedies in General
Where the buyer wrongfully rejects or revokes acceptance of goods or fails to make a payment due on or repudiates with respect to a part or the whole, then with respect to any goods directly affected and, if the breach is of the whole contract (Section 2-612),then also with respect to the whole undelivered balance, then also with respect to the whole undelivered balance,the aggrieved seller may
(a) withhold delivery of such goods:
(b) stop delivery by any bailee as hereafter provided (Section 2-705)
(c) proceed under the next section respecting goods still unidentified to the contract
(d) resell and recover damages as hereafter provided (Section2-706)
(e) recover damages for non-acceptance (Section 2-708) or in a proper case the price (Section -709)
(f) cancel
Or section 2-712 “Cover”;Buyer’s Procurement of Substitute Goods
(1)After a breach within the preceding section the buyer may “cover” by making in good faith and without unreasonable delay any reasonable purchase of or contract to purchase goods in substitution for those due from the seller.
(2)The buyer may recover from the seller as damages the difference between the cost of cover and the contract price together with any incidental or consequential damages as hereinafter defined(section 2-715),but less expenses saved in consequence of the seller’s breach.
(3)Failure of the buyer to effect cover within this section does not bar him from any other remedy.
In conclusion, the contractual remedies are not the pecuniary measure like compensation because the goal of law is to prevent the non-breach party from additional loss such as suspends performance or cancel. Some measure designed for deter the party who is malice. Nonetheless, the real goal of contract law is “Pacta sunt servanda” (agreement must be keep).If there are too many person who breach of contracts, it will destroy the economics of the country. Therefore each contractual remedy relieve and restore the damage of injury party from the breach at the same time, it enforce both parties to respect the contract.
[5] Ian Ayres and Kristin, Threatening Inefficient Performance of Injunctions and Contract, University of Pennsylvania Law Review,1999,P.35-36
The objective standard of agreement makes it impossible for a defendant to plead mistake as an excuse for non-performance. The discussion based on the American law ?
1. The objective standard of agreement makes it impossible for a defendant to plead mistake as an excuse for non-performance. Discuss
Firstly, it is necessary to delineate the theory concerning the manifestation as following
1. The subjective theory emphasizes the intention of the speaker rather than his manifestation on the hearer. For the example If X offer to sell his book to Z in the condition that Z have to accept or refuse no later than 1 pm of tomorrow. In case that X did not have intention to sell his book .There is no need for X to communicate to withdrawal (revocation) of the offer ,it only require to prove one has no longer in his mind to contract when the other party agreed to accept.(see Cook v Oxley,3 Term.R.653,,100 Eng.Rep.785(1790)) or For another example if One said “I agree to purchase my house to you for $500,000” One truly meant to say “I agree to purchase house for $40,000”.
2. The objective theory accept that the manifestation on the hearer rather than the intention of the speaker. It protects the hearer form refusing the binding of manifestation. Following the American law, it is not required to have the psychological consent for the formation of an agreement. The unrevealed purpose is immaterial except when an irrational meaning that he attaches to his manifestations is known to the other side.[1]The objective theory was broadly recognized in the United State of American, It stabilized the contractual relationship. It did not give any chance the offerer to excuse that what was said was different from what was intend. And because the objective theory pay an importance to the external expression, the inside intension is not binding. Hence both offerer and offeree have to take care of the written word which might entail to lose power or benefit.
Nevertheless, the court does not look only the language to interpret the agreement but the circumstance in the transaction It is consistent with the statement of this objective theory of assent was given by Williston:
“The modern law rightly construes both acts and words as having the meaning which a reasonable person present would put upon them in view of the surrounding circumstances. Even where words are used, “a contract includes not only what the parties said, but also what is necessarily to be implied from what they said” And it may be said broadly that any conduct of one party, from which the other may reasonably draw the inference of a promise, is effective in law as such[2]
The objective test supports the court to control private exchange manners through utilize the term of the “reasonable” person as Professor J. Willard Hurst said.[3]Additionally, Professor Horwitz has recommended that the objective approach ground on the outward expression of reciprocal concur was a pro-commercial market replace the theory of intrinsic value that recognize equity idea of contract.
There are cases concerning the objective theory which it should be mentioned as following
Embry v Hargadine ,McKittrick Dry Goods Co.
Embry worked as employee of Hargadine, McKittrick Dry Goods co. with the contract expired on 15 December 1903 On 23 December, Embry said that he would search for a new job unless his contract was renewed. Harradine’s president, McKittrick, told Embry ‘Go ahead, you’re all right. Get your men out and don’t let that worry you.’ Embry believed that the contract had been renew and he did not try to find another employment, he still worked for the company until. When his employment was rescinded. He brought an action to the court for breach of contract. The instruction was given to the jury that It was necessary for both sides to have had a subjective intent to contract or there would be no contract. In this case, there is an important question is that did the court recognized a contract of re-employment on regardless of the intention of McKittrick?
A Meeting of mind of the parties is the important principle of contract law. This principle respect that both parties must agree to the same thing in the same sense[4]. The basic purpose of contract law is to seek the intention of the parties which is including in the words which the parties have used. Trial court ruled that the formation of contract depended on the intention (Subjective) to enter into the contract. The decision of trial court was appealed and the judgment of St Louis Court of Appeals is reversed and remanded.
The rule of this case is the Contract formation ground on the external manifest (objective) ,there is no need to consider the intention in one ‘s mind.
Lucy v. Zehmer
Lucy was a farmer who had known Zehmer for 15 to 20 years. He wanted to buy the Zehmer’s farm. Zehmer had refused his offer to buy it for $20, 000.Anyway, Lucy offered to purchase it again .Zehmer sign the contract to purchase the farm on restaurant bill while they had had a several drink. And the contract was done by his joke .After the contract was signed, Lucy persuaded his brother to pay half of the money. He also reached a half benefit in the land. Moreover he hire a lawyer to verify the title, the next night ,he return to Zehmer’s place and at the first time , Zehmer told him, Lucy said he wasn't going to sell and he told Zehmer "You know you sold that place fair and square.”. Then, he sent a letter to Zehmer that he was ready to perform his debt after his lawyer report that the title was no problem. All the testimony shows that he trusted in good faith that the contract is a serious business transaction. In General, we have to contemplate the outward expression of a person is more important than his hidden intention or unexpressed intention.
Zehmer proved that he was not serious about purchasing the farm. He put his signed paper on the counter in front of Lucy. Lucy said that he passed it to him. Both sides said Lucy keep the signed paper in the pocket then tender Zehmer $5 to seal the negotiate. However, both Zehmer showed that whilst Zehmer asked his wife to sign, he whispered that it was a joke .The trial court held that Lucy and J.C. (claimants) were unsuccessful to establish their right to specific performance, and dismissing their bill. The assignment of error is to action of the court .And then, the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
The abovementioned two case, the objective test protect Embry and Lucy from excuse that the defendants did not have the real intention to binding with theirs outward manifestation that made the reasonable man to understand in good faith that the defendants wanted to be bound in legal relation.
Southworth v Oliver
The defendant came up to the plaintiff about a trade of land. The plaintiff expressed interest. Both sides communicated each other by the telephone to negotiate about the deal. The Defendant afterwards sent a letter to the plaintiff with 2 attachments (Attachment 1: selling 2933 acres,$324 K:29% down, Rest over 5 years at 5% ,Also selling: grazing permits Attachment 2:selling 6365 acres).The Plaintiff thought it was an offer, and accepted the first attachment save the part that said “also selling: grazing permits.” The Defendant’s lawyer sent a letter of return to the Plaintiff stating this wasn’t an offer, and certainly it wasn’t for you to “pick and choose “The Plaintiff then sued. In this case ,the court hold that there was an offer when the landlord propose a letter citing prices to create an enforceable contract because the court considered that it can be implied from what was said and circumstance that made the plaintiff reasonably understood there was an offer. Thus the rights to accept pass on the plaintiff.
Bretz v. Portland General Electric co.
Bretz and Portland General Electric co.(PGE.) entered into negotiations for Bretz to purchase stock from PGE. Letters were swapped back and forth. PGE mailed a letter to plaintiff requesting for modification of 2 problem that they have. PGE fulfilled the letter saying that “I would appreciate your resubmitting your offer on the above basis.” And then Bretz submitted PGE an revised version of his previous offer titled “Acceptance of Offer,” and wrote that “a contract for sale exists “When the PGE infringed the supposed contract, Bretz filed a suit. The court held for PGE that the writings were insufficient for Montana’s statue of frauds and PGE was not equitably estopped to raise the statute of frauds defense.The United States Court of Appeals held to affirm the inferior court. This judgement insist the rule that acts and words is construed as containing of the meaning that a reasonable person would put upon them in vision of the surrounding circumstances.
Furthermore, in testimony, there is the problem of proof. The range of “objective” evidence concerning to the question of what the parties knew or should have to known and who ought to make a decision of reasonableness.[5]
In my opinion, the objective standard does not absolutely exclude the defendant’s plead of mistake as an excuse for non-performance. There are opportunities for the defendant as following
The Restatement (Second) of Contract section 152 and 153 provide the condition of mistake which grant power to the court to void contractual duty.
“Section 152 when Mistake of Both Parties Makes a Contract Voidable
(1)Where a mistake of both parties at the time a contract was made as to a basic assumption on which the contract was made has a material effect on the agreed exchange of performances, The contract is voidable by the adversely affected party unless he bears the risk of mistake………
Section 153 When Mistake of One Party Make a Contract Voidable
Where a mistake of one party at the time a contract was made as to basic assumption on which he made the contract has a material effect on the agreed exchange of performances that is adverse to him, the contract is voidable by him if he does not bear the risk of the mistake…,and
(a) The effect of the mistake is such that enforcement of the contract would be unconscionable, or (b) the other party had reason to know of the mistake or his fault caused the mistake.”
The excuse of one party can be used to avoid the enforcement of a contract, it require the element as following
1) A mistake by one party deals with a basic assumption on which that party made the contract:
2) The mistake has a material effect on the agreed exchange:
3) Enforcement of the contract would be unconscionable ,or the other party knew of the mistake:
Furthermore, there are the examples of mistake which can be pleaded to excuse for non-performance.
Boise Junior College District v. Mattefs Construction Co.
Boise Junior College District [Boise] was admitting bids for a construction agreement which the expenditure was estimated about $150,000. Mattefs Construction [Mattefs] put a bid for a construction agreement with Boise for $141,048,comprising a clause to pay the difference B/W its bid and the next higher bid if it ultimately repudiate to perform. Mattefs’s bid was very cheap because of mistake, and declines to perform. Boise finished up using the next cheapest bidder for $148,915 and sued Mattefs to try and collect on the bond (for the difference).Trial court judge not favor of Boise and Boise appealed. The Supreme Court of Idaho holds affirm and rescinded the contract.
Sherwood v Walker
Sherwood entered into the agreement to buy the cow from Walker. The cow was showed to Sherwood. Sherwood thought that the cow was baron. So the price of this cow was $80.If the cow had been productive, it price should worth more than that. The judge taught the jury that it was not material whether the cow was barren. The jury reversed a verdict in favor of Sherwood and Walker appealed. The Supreme Court of Michigan ruled that a mutual mistake deeming the substance of the subject matter of an agreement might cause the contract to be unenforceable.
According to the Sherwood v Walker, it can be observed that a contractual mistake is a faith that does not match with the fact (Restatement (second) section 151) and the incorrect faith of one or both of the parties have to relate to a fact which is existence at the time that the contract is executed. The belief which is discovered to be in inaccuracy might not be, in substance, a prediction regarding a future occurrence or non-occurrence or non-occurrence.
In conclusion, the objective theory ensures both parties to conclude a contract with no suspect in the internal intension of each other. The internal intention cannot render the contract to be void. Although the American law applies the objective theory in the contract but the mistake still alive as an exception of the objective .The mistake help the common law to make the objective standard of agreement to be more flexible and fair for both party.
[1] Ian Ayres & Richard E. Speidel ,Studies in contract law seventh edition, p.232
[2] Williston,A Treatise on the law of Contracts 22A,at 49-50 (3rd edition 1957)
[3] J.W.Hurst, Law and the Conditions of Freedom in Nineteenth Century America
[4]Ian Ayres & Richard E. Speidel, Studies in contract law seventh edition, p.229
สมัครสมาชิก:
บทความ (Atom)