便宜转手CUHK JD第一学期两门必修课教材！！附送课堂PPT和笔记！！

50centsUID: 3433868

逍遥无为 发表于 2013-5-14 22:10
好吧，3大tests一摆，感觉是刚考完试，不过瘾来这里练手的来了。。。

首先，我再次重申我的原意：不管 ...

不知道为什么，我发的帖子不能改动，说我帖子里面有 ”抱歉，您填写的内容包含不良信息而无法提交“

回答你的3个前提问题吧。。。
1，是不是有著作权的ppt-我不知道，我推测有的情况下回答的问题，这个涉及证据问题，不肯定是的情况，我刚才表明了自己的态度了也

### 回答这几个问题前，首先要确认什么法适用，你需要有个legal system框架下才能具体分析法律问题。这个你以后practice 时候，会懂的第一个很实际问题。 ppt/里面内容是否有copyrightable是个threshold question,不是看所谓简单证据问题。

first sale doctrine是否适用这个电子ppt - 不适用，简单举例，

###你没确认第一个问题，不知道是否有copyright情况下，怎么回答出这个问题了，要回答这个问题需contingent upon the answer to the first issue.


3，你认为这个是送而不是卖 - 我建议你买下楼主的Stephen Hall的contract law好好学习一下consideration这个章节，特别是Carbolic Smoke Ball 和 Chappell&Co v Nestle Co的区别 - 在前者吃了药感冒只是合同的一个条件，在后者巧克力的包装纸够成合同的consideration。 这里这些资料根据广告的上下文，显然可以理解为吸引低年级学生购买书籍的对价的一部分。  而且，即使是送，依然涉嫌侵犯了reproduction right 甚至 disstribution right。当然具体到个案，这里肯定有一个度的问题

###  太有意思了，你讲起consideration，如果这是个collateral contract, 不需要 consideration，适用的case是Shanklin Pier v Detel Products [1951] 2 KB 854.
， Evans & Sons Ltd v Andrea Merzario Ltd [1976] 1 WLR
但是你没有解决掉第一个问题，也是不能回答这个问题啊。回到重要issue，这个送的东西是sale吗？

逍遥无为UID: 3408932

50cents 发表于 2013-5-14 22:41
不知道为什么，我发的帖子不能改动，说我帖子里面有 ”抱歉，您填写的内容包含不良信息而无法提交“

...

您真是较真帝，好吧既然你认为在一个法律论坛回帖，明明人家已经说了是涉及香港JD资料的买卖，也有必要先讨论准据法问题才有资格作答，否则大律师您只能说一句：“不，不好，意思哦老板，你不告诉我我第一个问题的答案~我没法回答你接下来的问题哦” （此处麻烦蜡笔小新配音下），那在下真是闪了，你慢慢讨论如果该教授是英国的做客教授且该PPT的内容在英国最先出版且楼主现在身在巴西,该怎么办的问题吧。

其实你让我想起了以前JD读书期间听到的一位哥们mooting时候闹得笑话，一个关于货物买卖合同质量问题的案子这个哥们的第一个Argument是 My Lord, there is NO contract！-一时间，大家争相模仿。

然后，“等我practice以后，会懂的”？- 借用一个流行语——呵呵

first sale doctrine 是你自己提出来的如果ppt涉及知识产权的第二个问题，不是我提出来的。而事实是这个所谓的第二个“issue”很幼稚，因为这个defence只适用实物而不适用电子资料

后面的几个我就真懒得再回答了。。。稍微做做功课在回复吧。。。最起码搞懂什么是collateral contract先再提吧。。。看看楼主的原话，楼主的“卖书搭送笔记”明显是要和买方签订一个合同，书和笔记共同构成￥￥￥的对价。当然这里你可以use all the spaces you may want to show your "practical knowledge" to counter argue: It is always subject to the parties' intention evidenced by the express terms of the formal written agreement - if they choose to enter into.

50centsUID: 3433868

逍遥无为 发表于 2013-5-14 23:38
您真是较真帝，好吧既然你认为在一个法律论坛回帖，明明人家已经说了是涉及香港JD资料的买卖，也有必要先 ...

"明明人家已经说了是涉及香港JD资料的买卖，也有必要先讨论准据法问题才有资格作答，"
发现你conflict of laws的原理不清楚。

JD那个mooter，我觉得他的第一个argument不错的，本来游戏规则是：第一个argument认为合同都没构成，根本不用谈是否有breach和其他问题。你当然首先去attack the very existence of the contract at issue.

first sale doctrine要看是否适用和解释，根据区域不同，变化很大。但是如果是copyrighted materials，材料 是in digital form，这个doctrine 是适用的，

canon of interpretation第一个原则是interpret the offer in the sense of the words' ordinary and literal meaning:"卖书搭送笔记" I am selling my used books and giving away notes at one go. 然后你看标题”便宜转手CUHK JD第一学期两门必修课教材！！附送课堂PPT和笔记！！'  There are two parts, the first part is a proposition to sell used books at a bargain price, the second part which is disjunctive, giving away my notes and related ppt.

还给我cite2个cases, carbolic smoke ball,这是 unilateral contract，timely performance furnished the necessary consideration原理,然后搞个Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd，是个consideration只需要sufficient,不需要 adequate原理， 这是个basis to establish the presence of consideration用的case.你那这2个来具体证明什么问题？

逍遥无为UID: 3408932

50cents 发表于 2013-5-14 23:52
"明明人家已经说了是涉及香港JD资料的买卖，也有必要先讨论准据法问题才有资格作答，"
发现你conflict ...

The "there is no contract" example, in which the student was using his valuable time to argue on an uncontested issue, is by no means but to imply that your conflict of laws argument is redundant, bearing in mind we are only discussing about whether there is a potential legal issue by selling the text book together with the course materials (though free of charge) without the authorization of the author - substantial issue. Actually, what you should say is even if there is a breach of any legal liability, the bloody fact is that Dr. Xi will never go after a girl for such a trivial issue.

Collateral contract (which is a very rarely used concept in common law) is not an issue here at all. A principal reason for seeking to establish a collateral contract used to be the need to neutralise the common law rule that damages are not available for Innocent Misrepresentation - which is now available under s.3 of the Misrepresentation Ordinance.

And the case Shanklin pier Ltd v Detel Products Ltd you provided is a trilateral collateral contract whereby X made a promise to Y in exchange for Y entering into a contract with Z. Yes, the collateral warranty given by X allowed Y to take a legal action against X although there was no privity of contract between X and Y.  SO WHAT???? This is totally irrelevant with the current discussion

Yes, I agree with the literal approach of construing the contract. However whatever you said in that paragraph has only polished my argument that a straightforward solution of a single agreement is sufficient to resolve this intended selling provided the terms remain the same. The contract is a simple sale and purchase agreement. The consideration for the seller is the $. The consideration for the buyer is the text book and the course materials. It does not matter whether the course materials are worthless to the seller, it suffices as long as they are of benefit to the buyer. On the contrary, even if the course materials are of substantial value, the original contractual price would still be sufficient as consideration.

I provided those two leading cases just for your reference...It is good that you understand the basic concept of consideration!

Again, although the seller has used the words "附送", it does not change the nature of the course materials as part of the consideration of this contract. Indeed, It is very likely that the discounted price proposed by the seller, which is nearly 80% of the original price, has already reflected value of the course materials.

50centsUID: 3433868

逍遥无为 发表于 2013-5-15 02:19
The "there is no contract" example, in which the student was using his valuable time to argue on a ...

上面这个帖子，系统又不让我修改。有几处typo：

Wow, it sounds like we will head into a legalistic debate as to how contract law principles should be applied in the given facts.

First and foremost, it appears I have overestimated your contract know-how,legal analysis and argumentative skills.As stated in my preceding post,the seller only proposed to sell second hand books, her own notes and course ppt do not form part of the underlying sales transaction.There is a nuanced and sophisticated way to argue that the notes and ppts constitute a separate contract(then open it to attack there is an unauthorized distribution, if we assume Prof.Xi's ppt materials are entitled to these protections), this side contract would be invalid for lack consideration. However, if we try to harness the collateral contract principle, this argument as existence of a separate contract(sales of notes and ppt) would not fail for lack of consideration. It seems you don't have a good grasp of collateral contract doctrine and pertinent rules developed by the Courts,we can find consideration for the second contract. I suggest you go revisit the case law and distilled legal rules. In the meantime, I also suggest that you go beyond the headnote of the Shanklin case, to peruse the full judgment ,I am convinced you will come to appreciate how this is related to the legal issues raised here.

Your concluding paragraph is patently wrong in legal analysis and determination. Let me recap,the underlying transaction is two second hand books, excluding the notes and ppt.(which are gifts in legal characterization).When assigned literal meaning to her careful choice of word "附送",construing it in context of lengthy description she proffered in connection with the said proposition, it's manifest to a contract interpreter that the proposed sales transaction is only in relation to two books which would garner commercial value for their utility to a 1L at CU Law.

逍遥无为UID: 3408932

I am sorry, I can see nothing but bare allegation and slander from ur reply. If you think you are more comfortable when slandering other people - so be it. If you are insistant that the intended gift can only be construed as a collateral warranty instead of part of the consideration of the contract - so be it. I am not gonna play this high school game with you, cocky boy.

50centsUID: 3433868

逍遥无为 发表于 2013-5-15 03:34
I am sorry, I can see nothing but bare allegation and slander from ur reply. If you think you are mo ...

what, a collateral warranty?I did assert a word about this legal notion in my argument.  I hope a disinterested bystander with bit of good knowledge about collateral contract to yank this discussion from the wrong track.

50centsUID: 3433868

"Collateral contract (which is a very rarely used concept in common law) is not an issue here at all. "

Well, I trekked to hk law database to look up recent case pertaining to collateral contract being litigated in HK courts, this principle is widely and pervasively argued in many cases:
我简单搜一下hk的judiciary免费database,关键词 "collateral contract "and "consideration", in a split second, it yielded 123 results.

     
SUI KAN (HK) LTD v. KINGSPOWER BULLION LTD (HCA937/2010)

GOOGLE BOOK还不错，可以给你看一页 关于collateral contract 在香港common law的情况，见Contract Law in Hong Kong - Page 166

Michael J. Fisher, Desmond G. Greenwood - 2011   

Shanklin Pier Ltd v Detel Products Ltd 这个case is relevant to the present discussion,pertinent part is the provenance of consideration for the promise。这个case 是privity of k的controversy，但是对于consideration 和collateral contract分析是relevant的。

mosquito-dingUID: 2984064

跟大家说个奇葩事。

一个cu 新生昨天聊了好久，最后定下要我的contract书。我还答应也额外送她Xi chao课的资料。我下午还把contract的部分资料发给了她。然后说好给我转帐后我把其余资料和书一起给她。为此我昨天推掉了两个同学的购买意向，说是已经先答应别人了，我得讲信用。但是事实证明我太天真了！今天早晨那个女生说可不可以300，我说昨天已经说好了的，况且还要给她发资料，这些资料还包括我的笔记。后来她又要求我把其他课的资料发给她，我说这本身已经是有争议的行为了，在贴子里也引起了两位前辈的讨论。况且我跟其他professor并不熟，实在不便给他们发邮件争得他们所有人的同意。然后那女生就说不买了。我刚发送过去说人要讲诚信，结果就发送不成功了。那朵奇葩显然把我拉黑了！

昨天你已accept了我的offer,我也为你推掉了其他同学，在我发给你资料后你却反悔！你这叫毁约，好吗？！如果你的一系列奇葩要求昨天早早提出，咱们也好商量。可你却在装单纯小白兔骗取资料后以把我拉黑的方式人间蒸发！真是令人气愤！你这是学法律的人应该有的素质吗？！

我跟我的cu jd同学打电话，只说了句：＂昨天要买我书的那人反悔了。＂我还没说他的奇葩行为呢，我同学就惊讶地说：＂那人这么恶心？！＂是啊，言而无信的行为是每个法律人都所不耻的！

同学，俗话说，不以恶小而为之。我不会追究你的毁约责任，但是我提醒你，所有法律人都鄙视欺骗！

打算买我contract书的同学，不要要求我发其他课的资料了。还有，如果你要有什么疑问，请在accept my offer前提出，我乐意回答。而且，作为过来人，我也愿意分享我的学习和考试经验给你。我第一个term最烂的那门也没有烂过B+.GPA远高于去年进pcll要去的GPA！作为对后面同学守诚信的鼓励，我可以再便宜20，以380元卖出。邮寄采用顺丰到付。深圳的同学也可在本周五或六前来自取。总之，你给我380，我给你书和两门课的资料。咱们都真心不缺这几百块，就不要把这么简单的事情搞复杂了，好吗？

PS：只卖contract,因legal system 书已经卖出。

阿泰UID: 209473

mosquito-ding 发表于 2013-5-16 12:08
跟大家说个奇葩事。

一个cu 新生昨天聊了好久，最后定下要我的contract书。我还答应也额外送她Xi chao课 ...

你可以要她先给你个押金

mosquito-dingUID: 2984064

哎以为都是学生，比较单纯。谁知.......

阿泰UID: 209473

mosquito-ding 发表于 2013-5-16 15:07
哎以为都是学生，比较单纯。谁知.......

谁说学生单纯了，你看看那个叫BANANA的就知道江湖险恶了。。。

mosquito-dingUID: 2984064

阿泰 发表于 2013-5-16 15:35
谁说学生单纯了，你看看那个叫BANANA的就知道江湖险恶了。。。

你是在说蕉版咩（＿；）

逍遥无为UID: 3408932

mosquito-ding 发表于 2013-5-16 15:07
哎以为都是学生，比较单纯。谁知.......

在那些JD学生眼里你的笔记比那个书值钱。。。你这种高分的人的笔记到手了目的也就达到8成了，书随便复印就好了。人品道德＂有些人＂是不在乎的。在你的帖子里你就可以看到了：）

阿泰UID: 209473

逍遥无为 发表于 2013-5-17 14:09
在那些JD学生眼里你的笔记比那个书值钱。。。你这种高分的人的笔记到手了目的也就达到8成了，书随便复印就 ...

后半句可不好这么说哦