純粹一D 觀察
以下只係少少觀感, 如果覺得太多字就無須多想, 當係九龍皇帝寫大字就可以. 亦事先聲明, 係呢度我並非以律師 / 大律師身份行事. 以下觀察並非法律意見. 另外呢個只係初稿. 有時間我會執執.
就目前所見, 咁多位師兄要搞到話”網路公投”唔清晰既地方有以下兩點:
1.到底樓主係同場主應承俾錢交換場主唔再追究責任個陣是否已經承認責任? 及
2.對上面(1) 既答案係同唔係都好, 到底樓主是否違反任何協議?
由於目前有幾點重要事實都只可以依靠網上傳言或第三者傳言 (比如到底兩塊玻璃爛成點, 一支唔過火既槍可以點樣打爛/打唔爛兩塊玻璃, 雙方口頭協議內容及或其是否存在等等), 我儘量唔對事實作斷言. 有需要時我會明言話我作出某某假設以得到某推論.
議題(1): 不追究協議(forbearance to sue) 與法律責任關係
首先, 不追究協議係合約一種. 一方同意以”不再追究”作為代價換取另一方既”賠償”. 係樓主個情況 -- 假如呢個不追究協議真係存在 -- 場主”不再追究”既代價就係樓主及其朋友交付3千元.
一般而言, 到底呢種不追究協議是否可執行 (enforceable)要視乎到底背後所追究既事實是否真有其事 -- 即係話, 如果根本背後既追溯法律上根本無根據, 個協議就係無效.
Chitty on Contracts (31st Edn. Nov 2013) (唔好意思, 用電子書. 無最新版係手. 遲少少可以去確認有無改版) 3-050:
“Claims known to be invalid. A compromise of a claim which is legally invalid and which is either known by the party asserting it to be invalid or not believed by that party to be valid is not contractually binding. This rule can be explained either on the ground that merely making or performing a promise to give up a worthless claim cannot constitute consideration for the counterpromise, or (preferably) on grounds of public policy. As Tindal C.J. said in Wade v Simeon: ‘‘It is almost contra bonos mores and certainly contrary to all the principles of natural justice that a man should institute proceedings against another when he is conscious that he has no good cause of action.’’”
但係有呢種協議並不等如呢個協議係一定可以執行. 例如係追溯者隠暪有關事實. 係第3-053段:
“Two further conditions must be satisfied by a party who relies on his forbearance to enforce an invalid claim as the consideration for a promise made to him. He must not deliberately conceal from the other party (i.e. the promisor) facts which, if known to the latter, would enable him to defeat the claim. And he must show that he seriously intended to pursue the claim.”
同樣既原則亦適用係背後追溯存有事實性爭議既情況. 係3-054段:
“Claims on disputed facts. The cases considered in paras 3–051 and 3–052 above concern claims the validity of which is doubtful in law. It seems that the same principles can apply where the validity of a claim is in doubt because of a dispute about the facts. A settlement based on a simple mistake of fact shared by both parties may be void for mistake. But this would not be the case where both parties knowingly took the risk that the facts might turn out to be different from the facts as they were alleged or supposed to be. A negotiation of a settlement on disputed facts always takes such an element of risk into account.”
就目前根據樓主既講法, 我地可以知道既係有以下幾樣野:
I. 場主聲稱有兩塊玻璃爆左;
II. 場主聲稱個兩塊玻璃係俾樓主或其朋友整爆左;
III. 樓主因為場主聲稱(I) 同(II) 所以同意俾錢.
IV. 樓主似乎沒有確認到底玻璃幾時爆, 點樣爆.
因此, 只就目前有事實所見, 正如有一部份師兄留意到, 樓主只係單因為場主單方面之詞就同意俾錢想場主唔追究. 暫時只見到場主有可能係有得向樓主追討, 亦都有可能係場主根本就知道佢無可能證明到樓主或朋友是否打爛左塊玻璃 -- 亦因此觸及有部份師兄提及到底場主擺兩塊玻璃係場度係咪默認有被打爆既可能性既法律問題. 無進一步事實下只可以話呢個協議 -- 假如存在的話 -- 有可能係具約束力, 亦都有可能係無.
承1): 雙方關於“不追究協議”既協商內容是否等如樓主承認責任?
由於目前事實係樓主沒有根據可能存在既不追究協議履行合約義務, 我亦都無須考慮呢個合約本身是否等如樓主承認責任: 原因係, 就算係等如承認責任, 樓主都沒有履行合約, 場主係應該要違約黎做呢方面既追討基礎, 而唔係樓主承認責任. 而就侵權作為追溯原由, 都因為樓主沒有履行合約, 所以場主都依然可以提告.
反而更重要既問題係雙方既對話內容 -- 假設樓主所講既版本為事實 -- 可唔可以用黎支持場主作為樓主承認責任既證據. 只就目前有既野, 我地只係知道樓主似乎同意俾錢 (不等如雙方有協議) 叫場主唔好追究. 但係如前面所述, 樓主話會俾錢係基於場主所講既野, 而非佢知情, 更加唔可以同刑事裡面既招認混為一談.
議題(2): 到底樓主同場主間是否存有不追究協議?
根據樓主講法, 事情發生經過如下:
場主:”樓主或朋友打爆玻璃, 樓主要俾錢我唔好追究.”
樓主: “好”
場主: “咁你地俾3000 蚊”
樓主: “哦, 咁唔制”
合約成立既準則就係到底大家有無”心意一樣” (meeting of minds). 只就目前樓主講法, 睇落可以係已經有協議, 差在個價錢, 亦都有可能係大家依然商量緊. (參見Chitty on Contracts 第2-127 段) 而我亦留意到場主係同樓主 (而非樓主及朋友) 想確立協議. 而普通法亦確立左只因為其中一個侵權者同原告有協議叫原告唔好告, 唔等如原告唔可以告其他侵權者 (參見Duck v Mayeu [1892] 2 QB 511). 而目前到底呢個係”不追究協議”定係”釋除法律責任協議”, 到底個協議係同邊個協定, 到底代價係幾多, 無人知. 我見到有一個爭議點就係根本大家無協議.
[ 本帖最後由 derp 於 22-10-2017 02:03 編輯 ]
