AS CIE Law: Formulae & Principles Quick Reference Guide | AS CIE法律：公式定理速查手册

📚 AS CIE Law: Formulae & Principles Quick Reference Guide | AS CIE法律：公式定理速查手册

In AS-level law, much like mathematics, legal rules often follow structured ‘formulae’ containing elements that must be proven to establish liability, form a contract, or succeed in a defence. This handbook compiles the essential legal tests, cause-and-effect equations, and key principles into an easy-to-memorise format.

在AS法律课程中，许多法律规则就像数学公式一样，需要按照结构化的要素进行证明，以确立责任、形成合同或成功抗辩。本手册将重要的法律测试、因果等式和关键原则汇编成便于记忆的格式。

1. Contract Formation: Offer vs Invitation to Treat | 合同成立：要约与要约邀请

Contract = Offer + Acceptance + Consideration + Intention to Create Legal Relations

合同 = 要约 + 承诺 + 对价 + 建立法律关系的意图

An offer is a definite promise to be bound on specific terms, made by the offeror to the offeree.

要约是要约人向受要约人作出的、愿意受特定条款约束的明确承诺。

An invitation to treat is an invitation to negotiate and is not capable of acceptance (Fisher v Bell; Pharmaceutical Society v Boots).

要约邀请是邀请谈判，不能构成承诺 (Fisher v Bell; Pharmaceutical Society v Boots)。

An offer may be terminated by revocation at any time before acceptance, unless supported by an option (Routledge v Grant).

要约可以在承诺前的任何时间撤回，除非存在选择权支持 (Routledge v Grant)。

Acceptance must be communicated to the offeror; however, the postal rule states that acceptance is effective upon posting (Adams v Lindsell).

承诺必须送达要约人；但邮寄规则规定，承诺在投递时即生效 (Adams v Lindsell)。

2. Consideration: Rules and Principles | 对价：规则与原则

Consideration is the ‘price’ for which the promise is bought; it must move from the promisee but need not move to the promisor.

对价是购买允诺的 “价格”；对价必须由受诺人提供，但不一定流向允诺人。

Past consideration is not valid consideration (Re McArdle).

过去的对价不是有效对价 (Re McArdle)。

Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate (Chappell v Nestlé).

对价必须充分但不要求对等 (Chappell v Nestlé)。

Performance of an existing contractual duty owed to a third party can be good consideration (Scotson v Pegg).

履行对第三人的现有合同义务可以构成有效对价 (Scotson v Pegg)。

Part payment of a debt is not consideration for the whole debt (Pinnel’s Case), unless there is an exception such as composition with creditors.

部分还款不能作为全部债务的对价 (Pinnel’s Case)，但债权人自愿和解等例外情况除外。

3. Intention to Create Legal Relations | 建立法律关系的意图

Intention to create legal relations is a presumption: social and domestic agreements are presumed not to be legally binding (Balfour v Balfour).

建立法律关系的意图是一种推定：社会与家庭协议推定为不具有法律约束力 (Balfour v Balfour)。

In commercial agreements, there is a strong presumption that parties intend to be legally bound (Esso Petroleum v Commissioners of Customs and Excise).

在商业协议中，有强烈的推定表明当事人意图受法律约束 (Esso Petroleum v Commissioners of Customs and Excise)。

These presumptions can be rebutted by clear evidence to the contrary (Jones v Vernon’s Pools Ltd).

这些推定可以通过明确的相反证据予以推翻 (Jones v Vernon’s Pools Ltd)。

4. Negligence: Duty of Care – Caparo Test | 过失侵权：注意义务的 Caparo 测试

To establish a duty of care, the three-stage Caparo test applies: (1) damage must be reasonably foreseeable; (2) there must be a relationship of proximity; and (3) it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a

Published by TutorHao | AS 法律 Revision Series | aleveler.com

更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）