国际商法教学案例(英文选编)粉皮书案例中英答案汇总

P279 Lucy et al v. Zehmer et al
1：回答是否定的，判决结果不一定对他不利。

结合本案，如果事实能证明被告Zelmer喝酒喝得烂醉，不能控制自己的行为，不明白自己所签署的文书所带来的法律后果，以致于失去理解协议内容的能力，那么Zehmer也就丧失了民事行为能力。

此时他签署的合同应是无效的或是可撤销的，则判决将倾向于对他有利。

但本案中双方醉酒之程度尚不致剥夺自由行使意思能力，故契约实已成立，原告应履行交付土地义务，以维护交易公平。

1: The answer is no, the ruling does not necessarily against him. Combination of the case, if the facts can prove that the defendant Zelmer drinking drunk, can not control their own behavior, do not understand their own instruments signed by the legal consequences, resulting in the loss of the ability to understand the agreement, it also lost the Zehmer capacity for civil conduct. At this time he signed the contract should be null and void or voidable, then the decision will tend in his favor. But the present case, the two sides of the level of drunkenness was not caused by deprivation of liberty and the ability to put the point, it really has set up a contract, the plaintiff should fulfill the obligation to deliver the land to maintain a fair deal.
2：被告先后签署了两份协议使判决结果向原告倾斜，因为这种行为表明了Zehmer 慎重行事及明白自己在干什么。

他虽喝了酒，但并未醉到丧失理智和判断能力，而且协议的重新拟订的过程是严肃认真的，做到了双方合意。

在第二份协议上被告让其妻也签名更表明他的诚意及这一过程的性质是正式的。

法官有理由认定这一协议为一有效的有约束力的合同。

2: The defendant has signed two agreements to make judgments to favor the plaintiff, since such an act shows Zehmer act with caution and understand what he was doing. Although he had drunk, but not drunk to the loss of ability to reason and judge, but agreed to re-drafting process is serious, so that both sides desired. In the second agreement signed on the defendant to his wife also stated that it was his sincerity and the nature of this process is formal. The judge finds that the agreement is a reasonably valid and binding contract.
3：目的在于说明订立合同双方合意的证据。

这些事实都表明双方的郑重其事，从而证明其性质为商业交易而不是一个随意夸大其词的玩笑。

3: The purpose is to describe the two sides entered into a contract satisfactory evidence. These facts indicate that both serious about their future and thus to prove that the nature of commercial transactions, rather than a random exaggerated joke.
4：法律所赋予人们的同意的意思表示应该以其意图在外的表示为准，而不应考察其未表示出来的真实的内心意思。

也就是说法律看重的是表示出来的意思，而不是内在的，不为人知的内在意图，所以法律基本假定是一个人的内在意图就是通过语言和行为表示出来的，与外在表示是一致的。

如果前后不一致，也只能按照合理表示出来的意图去理解和判断，而不再深究其内在想法。

除非向对方知道或有理由知道表示方真正的内心意思。

4: The law giving people the meaning of the agreement that should be outstanding, said its intent to subject, rather than investigate its not that out of the true inner meaning. That is the law looks to is to express the meaning out of, rather than internal, and unknown internal intentions, so the law basic assumption is that a person's inner intent is to be expressed through language and behavior, and that is consistent with the external . If the inconsistency can only be expressed in accordance with reasonable intent to understand and judge, rather than go into details about its inner thoughts. Unless the other party knows or has reason to know that the real inner meaning.
5：是不同的。

Zehmer 内心以为只是个玩笑而已，但他的行为表明是一个商业合同，尚未使Lucy知道其意在开玩笑。

但如前所述，一个合理第三人有理由通过Zehmer的言行相信他有订立合同的意图。

况且基于诚实信用原则，如果允许人人在订立合同后再反悔，那么有关交易岂不是变得很混乱？一个人不能仅仅因为“开玩笑”而撤销合同。

5: They are different. Zehmer inner thought it was only a joke, but his behavior indicates that a commercial
contract, not yet brought Lucy to know the intended joke. But as previously mentioned, a reasonable third person has reason to believe that he passed the words and deeds have Zehmer contract intent. Moreover, based on the principle of good faith, if allowed to enter into a contract and then go back on everyone, then the transaction is it not become chaotic? A person can not simply because the "joke" and rescind the contract.
相关知识点：
1：“合同成立”仅指合同订立的过程，其中最主要的内容是与要约和承诺有关的各种制度。

1: "Contract set up a" refers only to the process of contract formation, in which the most important content is on offer and commitment to the various systems.
2：合同的要件：1)要约与承诺；2）对价；3）意思表示真实；4）当事人的订约能力；5）合同的合法性；6）合同的形式。

bb s. ka o y a n.c o m
2: Contract elements: 1) the offer and commitment; 2) price; 3) means that the true; 4) the parties contract; 5) the legality of the contract; 6) The form of the contract.
2.被告先后签订两份协议的事实，在本案中，显然对被告的主张不利。

首先，该事实表明原告对该拟订的协议的态度是认真的，是其真实的意识表示；其次，被告所表现出的态度也是认真的，否则不会对其进行修改从而起草第二份协议；再次，无论原告还是被告均未主张被告的妻子签订该协议的行为也是酒后行为，换言之，被告的妻子是清醒的，对所签订的协议具有完全判断力的。

那么，她对丈夫起草两份合同的行为未加任何制止，并在协议上签名的行为，对原告的诉讼请求提供了有利的证据。

2. The defendant has entered into two agreements with the fact that, in this case is clearly unfavorable to the defendant's claims. First, the facts show that the proposed agreement the plaintiff's attitude is serious, is its true sense of representation; Secondly, the attitude shown by the defendant is serious, otherwise they would not be modified to the drafting of a second protocol; Again, regardless of the plaintiff or the defendant, the defendant's wife were not advocating the signing of the agreement is also a drink act behavior, in other words, the defendant's wife was a sober, of the signed agreement is entirely sensible. Then, she was the drafting of the two contracts to her husband's behavior did not add any to stop and sign the agreement on the behavior of the plaintiff's claim provides a favorable evidence.
3.法官在第三段所列举的一系列的事实，其目的在于证明被告在签订该协议时其判断力并未因饮酒而受到影响，并进一步说明，该协议的签订是被告的真实意思表示。

3. The judges listed in the third paragraph of a series of facts, the purpose is to prove that the defendant signed the agreement in its discretion has not been affected by alcohol, and further stated that the signing of the agreement is the real meaning of the defendant said.
4.The Law imputes to a person an intention corresponding to the reasonable meaning of his words and acts. 本句英文表述的内容主要是说“一个人的言语和行为所表现出来的合理的意思足以表明这个人的意图”。

换言之，一个人的内心意志并不是一个合同成立的要件，反之，这个人通过其言语或其他行为所表现出来的合理的意思才是合同成立的条件，即“表意说”。

Expressed in this sentence in English mainly to say "a person's words and actions demonstrated by a reasonable means enough to show the person's intention." In other words, the will of a person's heart is not set up the elements of a contract, whereas a person through their words or actions demonstrated by other reasonable means is established in terms of the contract, namely, "ideographic said."
而在本案中，无论其是否相同，基于所有本案提供的证据，被告的“内心意思”已经不再重要，因为其表达出来的意思足以被认为是他在签订该协议时的真实意思表示，并对其具有法律上的约束力。

In this case, whether the same case based on all available evidence, the defendant's "inner meaning" is no
longer important, because it expressed the meaning of enough to be considered to be his signing of the agreement, the real intention, and its legally binding.
Hints: In the United States, the legislature, courts, and the legal academy has voiced a preference for relying on objective manifestations of the parties’ intentions. (See U.C.C.)
P284 Moulton v. Kershaw
1.使法官做出本案判决的关键事实是：被告写给原告的信中所使用的语言并不象一位商人在销售时所做出的要约。

原因在于：首先，在该信件中没有明确的销售数量；其次，在该信件中没有使用“出售”一词（原文中用词是“提供（Offer）”.
1.The judge was ruling the case made by the key fact is: the letter the defendant wrote to the plaintiff the language used not as a businessman made an offer of sale. The reason is: First, in the letter did not clearly sales; Second, in the letter did not use the "sale" (in the original text used the word "provides (Offer)".
2.该法官在决定被告的意思表示是否是一项要约时运用的法律标准是法官Fuller在Lyman v. Robinson案件中所做的判决。

该判决认为：当一方当事人仅仅想要邀请对方进行先合同谈判(Preliminary negotiations) 时，该种意思表示并不是合同关系中所要求的“要约”。

2. The judge, in deciding whether the accused means that when an offer of legal standards that judges use Fuller in the case of Lyman v. Robinson made decision. The ruling said: When a party simply want to invite the other to the first contract negotiations (Preliminary negotiations), the kinds of meaning that is not a contractual relationship called for in the "offer."
Hints:
1.Preliminary Negotiations: A manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain is not an offer if the person to whom it is addressed knows or has reason to know that the person making it does not intend to conclude a bargain until he had made a further manifestation of assent.
2 Offer: An offer is a promise, which is capable of acceptance, to be bound on particular terms.
3. Normally, there are elements regarded essential for formatting an offer: consideration, quantity, time for delivery, place to delivery, method for payment, and what the most important is that the offer shall be made to a particular person or to a group of people.
P287 Miller v. United States
1.当合同通过招标而订立时，投标被称作是要约的意思表示。

在此过程中，招标只是招标单
位向投标者所做出的要约邀约。

When the contract entered into through public bidding, the tender has been called the meaning of that offer. In this process, the bidding is just tender units to the offer made by the bidders offer.
2．本案中原告降低标价的原因是在开标之前，他的次承包者向原告发出通知，将标价降低5万美元。

This case, the plaintiff because the lower price before the bid opening, his sub-contractors to the plaintiff issued a notice will be price reduced by 5 million.
3．原告在签合同时所作的保留：原告与被告在合同中约定，该合同的对价虽然是643，000美圆，但该价钱并不是原告所投标书中的竟价。

即原告的有效竟价仍然是693，000美圆。

The plaintiff made the reservation contract: the plaintiff and the defendant agreed in the contract, the contract is 643,000 dollars to the price though, but the price is not the plaintiff tenders the price bidding. That the plaintiff's effective price bidding is still 693,000 dollars.
4．涉及原告10月22日下午12点43分发出的将标价降低5万美元的电报的效力，原告主张：既然被告没有在开标之前一小时收到调整标价的电报，那么，其最初的标价应为有效标价，并且该标价为最低报价，被告应将此标价视为原告的最终报价。

此外，原告已经委托Hager 向本次招标的执行人Skinner说明情况，并要求其将该调整标价的电报视为发送错误，作无效处理。

被告对此问题的观点却截然不同。

被告认为其在招标说明中所述的“招标单位将考虑投标者在开标之前一小时所发出的调整标价的电报”是为招标单位的利益而做出的，即招标单位对此有选择权，可以选择接受或者放弃。

因为原告的最初标价已经是最低，所以其他投标者对此次招标并无疑义。

而被告有权利在原告所做出的两个标价中选择最低的一个，虽然第二个标价做出的时间有些迟延，但他并不剥夺被告从中选择的权利。

法官在解决双方分歧时运用的法律规则是政府签订合同时所运用的特别程序或者是合同法的一般规定。

法官Madden认为原告根本没有做出一个有效的降低标价的要约。

因为在原告向被告发出降低标价的电报后，在该要约尚未到达被告之时，原告已经委托Hager 向本次招标的执行人Skinner做出了撤消要约的意思表示。

又因为该要约只有到达受要约人后才发生效力，那么，要约人的撤消通知只要在要约到达之前或者与要约同时到达受要约人，该撤消行为即为有效，要约不发生法律效力。

所以，本案中，该降低标价的要约无论是否即时送达，还是送达迟到都将不会发生效力，因为已经被原告撤消。

Related to the plaintiff at 12:43 on October 22 will be issued by price reduced by 5 million in the effectiveness of the telegraph, the plaintiffs claim: Since the defendant did not receive the adjustment of one hour before the bid opening price of the telegraph, then its initial price should be the effective price, and the price is the lowest offer, the defendant shall bring the price as the plaintiff's final offer. In addition, the plaintiff Hager has been entrusted to the executor of the tender Skinner to explain the situation and asked her to adjust the price to send a telegram as an error for invalid. Defendant's point of view on this issue very differently. The defendant that his statement referred to in the tender of "Tender unit will consider the bidders for one hour prior to the opening of tenders issued by the adjustment of price of the cable" is a unit for the benefit of the tender made, that the tender unit to have the right to choose, can choose to accept or give up. Because the plaintiff's initial price is so low, other bidders for the tender there is no doubt. The plaintiff and the defendant have the right to bid made by two select the lowest one, although the price made the second time some delay, but he does not deprive the accused of the right to choose. When the judge in resolving differences between the parties applied the rule of law when the government signed a contract to use special procedures or the general provisions of contract law. Judge Madden that the plaintiff did not reduce the price to make a valid offer. Because the plaintiff to the defendant a telegram issued by lower price after the offer has not yet arrived when the defendant, the plaintiff Hager has been entrusted to the executor of the tender offer Skinner made a withdrawal means that. And because the offer reaches the offeree before only to be valid, then the offeror's notice to withdraw as long as the offer or with the offer before the arrival of their arrival, the offeree, the act shall be withdrawn effective, offer no legal effect. Therefore, the present case, the lower the offer price, whether immediate delivery or late delivery will not be valid, because the plaintiff had been withdrawn. Gist: Termination of offers: If an offer is acceptable, then a contract is formed, but the offer can be brought to an end without involving the creation of a contract, as follows:
1. Rejection: if a person to whom an offer has been made rejects it, then they cannot subsequently accept the original offer;
2. A counter-offer: where the offeree tries to change the terms of the original offer, has the same effect;
3. Revocation of offer: where the offeror withdraws the offer, means that the offer cannot be accepted;
4. Lapse of offer要约失效: occurs where the parties agree, or the offeror sets, a time limit within which acceptance has to take place. If the offer is not accepted within that period, then it lapses and can no longer be accepted. Where no time limit has been set, it will still lapse after a reasonable time, depending on the circumstances of the case.
P293 Cohen v. Johnson
1．双方在7月1日的谈判没有订立一个有效的买卖煤的合同。

法院认为，双方于7月1日所商定并签订的备忘录实际上只是一份报价单，而并不是一个要约。

在煤行业中，报价单只是邀请相对方与其订立合同或者是提供订单，即合同订立过程中的要约邀请。

提供报价的一方可以接受相对方所提出的订单，同样可以拒绝相对方的要约。

无论原告于7月3日做出的购买10,000吨煤的意思表示是否构成要约，被告对此并未接受。

被告之后所表示出的沉没或者所为的其他的行为，并不足以表明对原告购买10,000吨煤的要约的接受。

综上所述，原告与被告之间并不存在买卖合同关系。

同理，原告向被告所做出的于9月发货的要约，因被告的不接受，致使要约失败，没有买卖煤的合同因此而产生。

July 1 the two sides of the negotiations did not make a valid contract for the sale of coal. The court found that the two sides on July 1 and signed a memorandum agreed in fact just a quotation, not an offer. In the coal industry, pricing is relatively parties contracting with the invitation or the provision of order, that is, the process of contract formation, offer the invitation. The party to provide an acceptable offer made by the relative side orders, the same relative side can refuse an offer. Whether the plaintiff on July 3 to make the purchase of 10,000 tons of coal mean that constitutes an offer, the defendant has not accepted this. Expressed after the sinking of the defendant or the other of the acts is not sufficient to show that the plaintiff's offer to buy 10,000 tons of coal acceptance. In summary, the plaintiff and the defendant there is no contract of sale between the relationship. Similarly, the plaintiff to the defendant made an offer on September delivery, because the defendant does not accept the result, the offer fails, there is no contract for the sale of coal arising therefrom. 2．被告对于原告在7月3日提出一万吨煤的订货要求之后，发运了不足一万吨的煤，被告的这一行为并未使被告负有按双方在7月1日谈判中提到的价格供应全部一万吨煤的义务。

法院认为，被告向原告发运的20车的煤的行为构成对原告该部分要约的承诺，即在原告与被告之间存在这20车煤的买卖合同。

但是，该比买卖并非是被告对原告所提出的购买一万吨煤的承诺。

换言之，法院将原告的要约分成两部分，被告对其中一部分，即20车的煤以直接发送的行为做出了承诺，原告与被告之间就此部分发生合同关系；而对另外一部分，即原告的要约拟购买的一万吨煤中尚未发送的部分，被告并未做出承诺，所以，无合同关系存在，被告无需对此负任何责任。

The defendant for the plaintiff in the July 3 made 10,000 tons of coal order request, shipped less than 10,000 tons of coal, the defendant did not make the defendant bears the act by July 1 the two sides in negotiations referred to in Price All 10,000 tons of coal supply obligations. The court held that the defendant to the plaintiff shipped 20 cars of coal constitutes that part of the plaintiff's commitment to offer, that exists between the plaintiff and the defendant's contract for the sale of these 20 cars of coal. However, the sale is not a defendant than the plaintiff made the commitment to buy 10,000 tons of coal. In other words, the Court will be divided into two parts, the plaintiff's offer, the defendant on the part of the 20 cars of coal in order to act directly to make a commitment, between the plaintiff and the defendant took place on this part of the contractual relationship; while the other part, that the plaintiff's the proposed offer to purchase ten thousand tons of coal has not yet been sent part of the defendant did not make a commitment, therefore, no contractual relationship exists, the accused need not bear any responsibility.
GISTS: Acceptance of an offer creates a contract, but acceptance must correspond with the terms of the offer. Also, the following should be remembered:
1. Form of acceptance: acceptance may be in the form of express words, either spoken or written; but, equally, it may be implied from conduct;
2. Knowledge and motive: no one can accept an offer that they do not know about, but the motive for accepting is not important;
3. Communication of acceptance: acceptance must be communicated to the offeror: silence cannot amount to acceptance
P310 Gentral London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd
原告：Gentral London Property Trust Ltd
被告：High Trees House Ltd
1. 涉及对本案租约进行变更的形式要件，普通法与衡平法所作的不同规定表现为：普通法规定，一个加盖印章的租约是不能通过口头的方式加以变更的，而只能通过契约的方式达到此目的；衡平法规定，一个契约可以用简单的合同方式加以变更（就租约而言，需要以书面形式加以体现，即以书面形式为要件），法院可以对此变更确认其效力。

Changes related to the case in the form of lease elements of common law and equity by the different provisions were as follows: common law, a seal of the lease can not be changed orally manner, but only through contractual means of achieving for this purpose; Equity Act, a contract can be a simple way to change the contract (the lease is concerned, need to be reflected in writing, that is written in the form of elements), the court may have to change to confirm its effectiveness.
2. 根据传统的法律，衡平法不适用用本案的原因在于：本案中，合同的变更缺少对价。

According to traditional law, equity does not apply because the use case: this case, the lack of change in the contract price.
3. 根据19世纪末以来的判例，英国法院判决无对价的诺言并不是完全无约束力的条件是：作出承诺的一方意欲就此承诺建立一个具有约束力的法律关系，而该承诺的相对人（受诺言人）为了该承诺为一定行为。

换言之，该承诺的作出目的在于使双方受此约束，并为承诺的实现为一定行为。

只要上述条件被满足，那么，该承诺就有可能被认定是有法律效力的。

According to the jurisprudence since the late 19th century, the British court decision without the promise of price is not entirely a non-binding conditions are: commitment to this commitment to the party intended to establish a binding legal relationship, and the commitment of the relative person (who by the promise of ) In order that the commitment to a certain behavior. In other words, this commitment with the intent to bring the parties bound by, and committed to the realization of a certain behavior. As long as these conditions are met, then there is likely to be found that commitment is legally binding.
4. 当英国法院认为诺言人“不得自食其言“时，受诺言人可获救济的程度是法院通常会要求诺言的作出方履行其诺言。

迄今为止，法院不曾要求不遵守诺言一方对其食言行为赔偿对方的损失。

这种救济在本案中体现为：在合同签定后至1945年前，因为整体环境的影响，房屋无法完全出租，在这种情况下，房租被降低，这是双方共同协商的结果。

但是，双方均明白，该协议是仅仅在当时特定时期所作出的，并且也只在该特定时期有效。

换言之，当所有的房屋可以完全出租时，即情况发生好转后，1945年初，该协议中所约定的租金的降低将不在执行，价格应恢复到最初标准。

When the British court held that the word person "shall not eat its own words," and when one is given by the promise of relief to the extent that the court will usually require parties to fulfill their promise to make promises. To date, the court never asked the party not keep their promises for compensation for their acts to go back on
each other's losses. This relief in this case embodied as follows: After the signing of the contract to 1945 years ago, because the overall environmental impact, housing can not fully let, in this case, the rent has been reduced, which is the result of consultations both sides. However, both sides understand that the agreement was only made at the time specified period, and only valid in the specific period of time. In other words, when all the houses can be fully leased, that is to happen has improved, in early 1945, the agreement reduces the rent agreed upon will not be implemented, the price should be restored to its original standard.
P313 Schoenung v. Gallet
原告：Schoenung
被告：Gallet
1. 审理本案的法官对原告已经脱离其父母监护这一事实的看法是：原告是否已经脱离其父母的监护的事实并不是本案的主要问题所在。

The judge hearing the case the plaintiff is already out of custody of their parents the fact that the view is: whether the plaintiff is already out of custody of their parents is not the case, the fact that the main problem lies.
2. 在本案中，法官要决定汽车对原告来说是否是生活必需品的原因在于：法院认为未成年人只有在签订购买生活必须品时，其本身无行为能力的事实才有可能受到影响，换言之，只有在该种情况下，其所签订的合同才有可能有效。

原告用该汽车作为上下班的交通工具这一事实对于决定本案合同可否撤销具有的重要意义：本案中仅有的事实是原告的工作地点在三公里以外的地方，由于与他共同居住的人原因，这一事实不足以使他有理由购买汽车；另外，原告在工作过程中，偶尔会将汽车用作工具，但是，这同样不能为其购具有买汽车的行为能力加以有利的辩护。

In this case, the judge to determine whether the vehicle is on the plaintiff because the necessities of life: The court held that only if the signing of minors to purchase necessities of life, their own incapacity, the fact that only may be affected, in other words, only the In that case, they have signed a contract likely to be effective. The plaintiff used the vehicle as a means of transport to work the fact that the contract for determining whether to withdraw the case has major implications: the case, only the fact that the plaintiff's place of work three kilometers away, as a person residing with him the reasons for The fact that he has reason enough to make buying a car; In addition, the plaintiff in the course of its work, the occasional car will be used as a tool, but it also does not have to buy the car for their purchase capacity to be beneficial to the defense.
3. 对于汽车是不是生活必需品法律上没有一般性的规定。

是否是生活必需品的判断是建立在个案特定的事实以及发生的环境而定。

换言之，一般情况下，判断一件物品并不是生活必需品，其物品本身并不是真正的判断依据，而其购买人因生活以及工作关系对依赖的程度往往是最能说服法官赋予该购买行为有效性的砝码。

For the car is not the necessities of life there is no general legal requirements. To determine whether the necessities of life is based on case-specific facts and circumstances of each case occurred. In other words, under normal circumstances, determine an item is not a necessity to have their goods in itself is not really judge based on the purchaser because of its life and the working relationship between the degree of dependence is often the most able to persuade the judge to give the validity of purchasing behavior of the weights.
BROCK V. BUTTON
1、本案合同属于“不在一年内履行的合同”是基于以下法律规定、事实和证据：
This case the contract are "not to perform the contract within a year" is based on the law, the facts and evidence:
（1）法律规定：Rev. Stat.,Sec. 5825 , subd1:依据合同约定的条款，从合同订立起的一年内该合同不会被履行。

The law: Rev. Stat., Sec. 5825, subd1: pursuant to the terms of the contract, from the contract within one year from the date of the contract is not being fulfilled.
（2）事实及证据：The facts and evidence:
A．在本案Button与Brock在1931年5月1日达成的口头协议中虽然没有约定结婚的日期，但是以下证据可以证明他们的口头协议不会在一年内履行。

In this case Button with Brock in the May 1, 1931 reached an oral agreement Although there is no agreed date of marriage, but the following evidence to prove that their oral agreement is not performed within a year. B．依据原告宣誓做证和双方所讨论和理解的情况表明：合同双方打算在被告的儿子进入大学后结婚，而被告的儿子进入大学至少还需要三年。

因此本案的合同将会订立后的至少3年才履行，所以属于法律规定的“不在一年内履行的合同”Based on the plaintiff to testify under oath, and the two sides discussed the situation and understand that: The parties intend to enter university after the defendant's son, married the defendant's son to enter university at least three years.
Thus the case after the conclusion of the contract will be for at least three years to fulfill, so part of the law "is not performed within one year contract"
1、本案的合同不属于“就婚姻的对价订立的合同”。

因为：本案的合同是双方许诺结婚，以结婚为目的，而不是以结婚作为订立本合同的条件。

This case the contract is not a "right price on the marriage contract." Because: the case of a contract that both sides promised to marry for the purpose of marriage rather than marriage entered into this contract as a condition.
2、合理。

因为本案合同属于“不在一年内履行的合同”，而“不在一年内履行的合同”规定有书面形式才有效，是基于不信赖证人超过一年的记忆。

本案是在3年内都不会履行的合同，所以该合同对当事人因该没有约束力，被告可以不受其约束。

Reasonable. Because this case the contract are "not to perform the contract within a year," while "is not performed within one year contract" provides for writing to be valid, is based on more than one year does not trust the memory of witnesses. This case was three years, will not perform the contract, so the contract is not binding on the parties because of the defendant can not bound.
3、本案合同属于无效合同。

因为依据《防止欺诈条例》，“不在一年内履行的合同”需要有书面形式方有效。

This case the contract was null and void the contract. Because the basis of "Regulations to prevent fraud," "is not performed within one year of the contract" requires a written form has been effective.
1、因双方约定婚姻时，皆知婚姻须在被告儿子高中毕业之后方能履行，而被告儿子高中毕业
至少得等三年，故该合同属无法在一年内履行之合同。

The two sides agreed a result of marriage, the marriage must be known to the defendant, after his son graduated from high school can only discharge the defendant his son graduated from high school to wait at least three years, so the contract is unable to perform the contract within a year.
2、只是双方约定婚姻的合同，而不是以婚姻为对价之合同。

（英美法中，以婚姻为对家的合同一般只限于处理财产、金钱、物品等为结婚条件，与本案不同）
But the two sides agreed a contract of marriage, rather than marriage to the price of the contract. (Anglo-American law, the marriage contract for the right home is generally limited to dealing with property, money, goods and other conditions for marriage, and the case different)
3、因被告与原告的婚姻协议属不能在一年之内履行之协议，故在没有书面形式签定之要件的。