翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ Pan–tilt–zoom camera
・ Pao
・ Pao (fish)
・ Pao (unit)
・ Pao abei
・ Pao baileyi
・ Pao cai
・ Pao cambodgiensis
・ Pao cochinchinensis
・ Pao de San Juan Bautista Municipality
・ Pao Fa Temple
・ Pao Ham Phan
・ Pao language
・ Pao leiurus
・ Pao Ming Pu
Pao On v Lau Yiu Long
・ Pao palembangensis
・ Pao Pao
・ Pao Pao (disambiguation)
・ Pao River, Thailand
・ Pao Sarasin
・ Pao suvattii
・ Pao Tcheou
・ PAO Thriamvos Athens
・ Pao turgidus
・ Pao v. Kleiner Perkins
・ PAO Varda F.C.
・ Pao Yu-Kong and Pao Zhao-Long Scholarship for Chinese Students Studying Abroad
・ Pao'a Point
・ Pao, Pangasinan


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Pao On v Lau Yiu Long : ウィキペディア英語版
Pao On v Lau Yiu Long

''Pao On v Lau Yiu Long'' () (UKPC 17 ) is a contract law appeal case from the Court of Appeal of Hong Kong decided by the Privy Council, concerning duress. It is relevant for English contract law.
==Facts==
Fu Chip Investment Co Ltd, a newly public company majority owned by Yiu-Long Lau and his younger brother Benjamin (the defendants), wished to buy a building called 'Wing On', owned by Tsuen Wan Shing On Estate Co. Ltd., whose majority shareholder was On Pao and family (the claimants). Instead of simply selling the building for cash, Lau and Pao did a swap deal for the shares in their companies. Tseun Wan would get 4.2m $1 shares in Fu Chip, and Fu Chip bought all the shares of Tsuen Wan. To ensure the share price of Fu Chip suffered no shock, Pao agreed to not sell 60% of the shares for at least one year. Also, in case the share price dropped in that year, Lau agreed to buy 60% of the shares back from Pao at $2.50. But then Pao realised, if the share price rose over $2.50 in the year, the price would stay fixed and he would not get the gains. So he demanded that instead of that, Lau would merely indemnify Pao if the share price fell below $2.50. Pao made clear that unless he got this "guarantee agreement", he would not complete the main contract. It was signed on 4 May 1973. But as it turned out the shares did slump in value. Pao tried to enforce the guarantee agreement. Lau argued the guarantee agreement was not valid (1) because there was no consideration, only in the past and under a pre-existing duty, and (2) because it was a contract procured by duress.

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「Pao On v Lau Yiu Long」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.