| 单词 | Non est factum |
| 释义 | 非其所為／否認訂立契約 Lat – it is not my deed. A plea by a person who seeks to disown a deed or other document which it is alleged he or she sealed or signed, that the mind of the signer did not accompany the signature: Saunders v Anglia Building Society [1971] AC 1004, [1970] 3 All ER 961 (HL). A common law defence of which the basis is that the signatory is mistaken as to the nature of the transaction: Halsbury’s Laws of Hong Kong, Vol 7, Contract [115.084]. Where the plea of non est factum is available, the promises contained in the document are completely void as against the signatory entitled to plead the defence, no matter into whose hands the document may come: Gilman & Co Ltd v Ho So Wah (t/a Fai Wah Photo Copying Service Co) [1985] HKDCLR 29 (DC). The burden of establishing the plea falls on the signatory seeking to disown the document; and he must show that, in signing the document, he acted with reasonable care: Kincheng Banking Corp v Kao Yu Kuei [1986] HKC 212 (CA); Union Bank of Hong Kong Ltd v Ng Yiu-hing [1975] HKLR 26. The plea is not available where the signer was careless or did not find out, at least, the general effect of the document: Sun Hung Kai Credit Ltd v Szeto Yuk Mei & Ors [1985] 1 HKC 345 (DC). For the plea to succeed, it is essential to show that there is as regards the transaction a radical or fundamental distinction between what the person seeking to set up the plea actually signed and what he thought he was signing: Saunders v Anglia Building Society, supra. See also Contract. 拉丁語 ─ 這非我的所為。一項答辯，即簽署人的精神沒有伴隨簽名而某人以此否認指稱經他或她蓋章、簽署而訂立的契約或其他文件：Saunders v Anglia Building Society [1971] AC 1004, [1970] 3 All ER 961 (上議院)。一個普通法的抗辯理由，其論據為簽署人誤會了該項交易的性質：Halsbury’s Laws of Hong Kong, 第7冊，合約，第[115.084]段。凡可作出非其所為的答辯時，不論文件到了誰人的手中，在針對有權提出抗辯的簽署人而言，有關文件所包含的承諾完全無效：Gilman & Co Ltd v Ho So Wah (t/a Fai Wah Photo Copying Service Co) [1985] HKDCLR 29（區域法院）。尋求否認該文件的簽署人有就答辯的舉證責任；他必須證明在簽署該文件時，他合理謹慎地行事：Kincheng Banking Corp v Kao Yu Kuei [1986] HKC 212 (上訴法庭)； Union Bank of Hong Kong Ltd v Ng Yiu-hing [1975] HKLR 26。如簽署人不小心，或沒有在簽署前了解該文件的作用，或至少沒有了解該文件的一般作用者，則簽署人不能使用這項答辯理由： Sun Hung Kai Credit Ltd v Szeto Yuk Mei & Ors [1985] 1 HKC 345 (地方法院)。要答辯成功，就得證明就有關交易，提出該答辯的人實際簽署了甚麼，和他以為自己在簽署甚麼，這兩者之間存在著根本或基本的分別：Saunders v Anglia Building Society, 見上文。另見 Contract。 |
| 随便看 |
|
法律词典收录了8080条英汉双解法律词条，基本涵盖了常用法律英语单词及短语词组的翻译及用法，是法律学习的有利工具。