| 单词 | Self-induced frustration |
| 释义 | 自己的行為引起合約受挫失效 The frustration of a contract by a frustrating event that occurs because of default arising from an act or omission of one of the parties; for example Maritime National Fish Ltd v Ocean Trawlers Ltd [1935] AC 524. A deliberate act by one party may be sufficient to constitute self-induced frustration: Cricklewood Property and Investment Trust Ltd v Leighton’s Investment Trust Ltd [1945] AC 221. The burden of proof of fault lies upon the party alleging it, and not every degree of fault will constitute self-induced frustration: Constantine (Joseph) Steamship Line Ltd v Imperial Smelting Corp Ltd, The Kingswood [1942] AC 154, [1941] 2 All ER 165 (HL). Deliberate choice either not to perform or to put performance out of one’s power will certainly be fault within this rule (J Lauritzen AS v Wijsmuller BV, The super Servant Two [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1 (CA)); but it does not follow that in all contracts any act of negligence will deprive a party of the protection of the doctrine of frustration (Joseph Constantine SS Line Ltd v Imperial Smelting Corp Ltd). A contract cannot be discharged by a party who relies on self-induced frustration. See also Discharge; Frustration. 由破壞性的事情引致合約受挫失效，而該破壞性的事情是因為當事人其中一方的行為或不行為而產生失責行為所致；例如 Maritime National Fish Ltd v Ocean Trawlers Ltd [1935] AC 524。一方蓄意的行為可足以構成自己行為引起合約受挫失效：Cricklewood Property and Investment Trust Ltd v Leighton’s Investment Trust Ltd [1945] AC 221。證明過失的責任在於宣稱有過失的人的身上，此外，並非每項過失的程度會構成自己行為引起合約受挫失效：Joseph Constantine SS Line Ltd v Imperial Smelting Corp Ltd [1942] AC 154, [1941] 2 All ER 165（上議院）。故意選擇不履行或出於一方權力而履行則可確定是此原則的過失（JLauritzen AS v Wijsmuller BV, The super Servant Two [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1 （上訴法院））；但並不因而在所有合約，任何疏忽的行為會剝奪一方獲受挫失效原則的保障 (Joseph Constantine SS Line Ltd v Imperial Smelting Corp Ltd)。不可由倚賴自己行為引起合約受挫失效的一方解除合約。另見 Discharge; Frustration。 |
| 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。