法律图书馆>>法律论文资料库>>全文
香港法院审理案件中的法律论证过程 ——以United Phosphorus LTD v. China Merchants Shipping & Enterprises Co Ltd 上诉审为例/陈汉瑛(18)
(i) The place of the tort. In "The Albaforth" [1984] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 91, Robert Goff LJ (as he then was) said at p. 96:
"If the substance of an alleged tort is committed within a certain jurisdiction, it is not easy to imagine what other facts could displace the conclusion that the Courts of that jurisdiction are the natural forum."
In the present case, many of the material events, including the issue and presentation of the "bills of lading", took place in Changsha (a place for which, on the evidence, the Guangzhou Maritime Court had jurisdiction in maritime cases). But the torts which the Plaintiff alleges were committed were the torts of fraudulent misrepresentation (deceit), negligent misstatement and conspiracy to defraud. An essential ingredient of the first two is that the plaintiff has to have relied on the misrepresentation or the misstatement to his detriment. To the extent that these causes of action are based on the Plaintiff's reliance on the statements contained in the documents which purported to be the bills of lading, that reliance took place in India. Thus, the acts which constituted two of the Plaintiff's causes of action occurred in more than one jurisdiction (neither of which, admittedly, is Hong Kong).


总共23页     [1]   [2]   [3]   [4]   [5]   [6]   [7]   [8]   [9]   [10]   [11]   [12]   [13]   [14]   [15]   [16]   [17]   18   [19]   [20]   [21]   [22]   [23]  
上一页     下一页    

声明:本论文由《法律图书馆》网站收藏,
仅供学术研究参考使用,
版权为原作者所有,未经作者同意,不得转载。
法律图书馆>>法律论文资料库