Celkem hlasů: 0
If you want to know more about the things that distinguish our contract law from Anglo-Saxon contract law, we advise you to read this entry: 3 keys to understanding contract law. By law, some contracts must necessarily be issued in writing. This applies to negotiable instruments (Article 3.1 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, z.B credit contracts (Articles 60 and 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974) and contracts for the sale of real rights (Article 2.1 of Property Law 1989). The following sentence sums up this conceptual difference very well, which we have just explained. Great article, Ruth. The subtle difference between the time of agreement and the timing of the contract itself is something that confuses a lot of people and that, as you rightly explain in the article, makes a difference at the time of execution. It is important that translators also take these uses into account. Another advantage is that the doctrine of consideration does not apply as strictly to acts. The consideration was born in a historical context where only formal contracts had legal value.
The Common Law then observed a very rigid system of procedural documents (the writings) and only contracts issued and sealed in writing – that is, the acts of the time – had the procedural possibility of demanding their respect (by titling). The rest of the contracts were a little less than wet paper. Over time, the system became more flexible and a criterion had to be sought to distinguish non-elegy promises from binding ones. The courts found it in the existence of a consideration or consideration. Acts are binding by compliance with formal requirements, so no review is necessary. This makes it an ideal instrument for unilateral promises or pacts in which one of the parties clearly benefits from the agreement. If another type of document were used, the Anglo-Saxon courts could overturn it for lack of consideration. 9) Hyper-nim – Em um agreement, no h` necessidade de quid pro quo, abrangendo, portanto, or pro`prio termo contract e, assim, allowing uma maior approx.com or nosso legal system.
In addition to this first type of contract, we find a second contract, called „special“, which requires certain formalities. The common minimum requirement of all is that there must be some kind of written documentation. Special contracts are divided into three types. This is reminiscent of the Fraud Act of 1677, which remains in force for the bonding contract. In accordance with Article 4 of the Act, the contract may also be drawn up by a document signed by the surety („a few memorandums or notes“). Most English contracts are headlines using terms such as agreement, contract or deed. Although the differences between these substants often do not matter much to a translator for practical purposes, it is not enough to know exactly what is said in English, as it can sometimes have some legal relevance. The difference between the agreement and the contract has already been mentioned in a previous article on this blog, but I have not yet had the opportunity to explain what an act is with regard to contracts, and why this name is used in some. c) CARVALHO, L. (2007) By trash in common law contracts . . .
luz da Linguistics de Corpus. [Dissertacao de Mestrado] FFLCH/USP. Hello! Very explained concepts, I would just like to base it on something, a little book, jurisprudence, the thesis of what has been said and its differences.