10.02.2023 [ 陳震威大律師 ] 之 給十九歲的我 -- 契約法

[@wytsui8126]

陳大狀分析非常好 👍👍

[@charlespoon6182]

陳大狀 這期提材非常好 讃！我認為當然同合重要❗️

[@rosannatang5708]

yes all about contract

[@fayu2452]

多謝陳大狀, 其實我性格思想好有問題, 成日都在壞的方面去諗, 我又覺得乜導演, 乜校長, 無理由唔理解呢啲咁簡單的道理, 分明就係霸王硬上弓, 老實講, 明知個個都大個女了, 仲係攞埋成人身份證, 唔好講咁多法律問題, 就係最基本的尊重的未識, 起碼都問吓當時人, 喂喂喂, 靚女, 你介唔介意我哋放妳上枱(唔係, 係上戲)? 人哋個個都大個女, 可能身為人母, 一陣間, 佢啲仔女話, 阿媽, 當年妳都係咁做啦, 點解點解我而家唔做得, 即時跪低啦..., 我真係唔信乜華呢啲咁高質的校長, 無理由諗唔到呢啲道理...

[@richardwong4861]

支持你💕🇨🇳🇭🇰💡💪👍👍

[@法律縱橫談]

thx

[@8051881]

陳律師講得好！👍👍👏👏

[@suetmuiwong2537]

多謝陳大狀👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻🎉🌟🙏😍👍🏻

[@oimuitin522]

大狀，講得很中肯，三度空间看事真是舆众不同。GOOD

[@williamchan8569]

😊

[@mokmok5832]

三度空间？第三類接觸！🥰😍🤩

[@joannfan269]

Thanks Barrister Chan 😀 Have a nice weekend 🎤🍹

[@williamchan8569]

Thx

[@ymca7242]

支持陳狀： 法律就係法律，睇契約係點寫了。

[@stellatsang1871]

謝陳大狀的資訊，長知識！

[@zhaojiehe3838]

感謝陳律師分享法律 👍👍👍

[@法律縱橫談]

you are welcome

[@yeungyeungjohn]

感謝你，陳sir

[@tonytsuihulk]

陳狀👍💪🏻

[@zhongsiwei3705]

😎🇭🇰😎🇭🇰😎🇭🇰😎

[@yvonneto3483]

多謝分享新信息。

[@林中人武]

問題的發生是因為十年後學生長大了有了自己的想法，再經過香港發生的數件大事件影響心態而有所改變！ 導演和學校從來沒去想過會有可能發生的問題就發生了！ 今天的學生早已經不是當年的學生，情與義、法與約只可以解決表面的問題，各自的内在思想問題沒法解決，法律不外乎人情就是這個情況！！

[@kinggodzilla7647]

千錯萬錯就係緣於張婉婷同成蟲一張相，自始張小姐馬上被人染成藍色，反對上映之聲亦絡繹不斷。

[@williamchan8569]

Agreed

[@lorilo5181]

博學多才陳大状 僑居澳洲難忘本 愛港之情溢于言 百忙之中仍念記 分享知識傳文化 妙趣橫生喻案例 中立正義論法律 華人圈中大律師 試問能有幾多人？

[@albertchan8225]

茶煲裏的風波🤣🤣🤣

[@mokmok5832]

明白，小菜一碟，但事實又真係： 邊度有咁多社會大事俾小市民去評論呀！😊

[@Kate-yj5sn]

網友補充嘅資料非常齊全 讚👍

[@mokmok5832]

直頭係綠葉搶晒牡丹嘅鏡啦！😉

[@法律縱橫談]

they have time and inside information i am just talking about contract and use the movie as an example

[@Kate-yj5sn]

@@法律縱橫談 Thank you very much. I like to follow 法律縱橫談 as your information is professional and useful. Besides, those discussions are also helpful. We've learnt a lot.

[@mokmok5832]

@@法律縱橫談 So, I just say you're 抛磚引玉，Do you agree？

[@yamahaamp8892]

陳大狀分析十分合理, 契約法是為了公平保障雙方利益而制定, 合約精神是必須得到尊重, 現在女學生已經達到法定年齡, 有權為自己利益作出決定, 事情發展到這個地步感到非常惋惜!

[@williamchan8569]

👍

[@andrewlo4646]

真係專業分析！好！👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

[@andrewlo4646]

多謝晒你提醒我，我聽陳大狀講嘢，聽到入晒神，忘記咗佢真係專業人士😀

[@tonybox4496]

撇開政治因素, 純法理, 這件事重點是, 當事人18歲後反對合約, 法理原則如何看待處理這情況呢? 沒有討論.

[@rogernout941]

谢谢分享。

[@Tania10ia]

Very informative 👍🏻

[@cheehungho3193]

Support.

[@Chunchun300]

陳狀的鏡頭有奌模糊

[@williamchan8569]

Don't know why

[@mokmok5832]

反映他的言論乎？😅

[@chichoileung9482]

陳大狀，這故事有許多細節，是真是假，局外人 很難判斷！不過有兩點是極其重要的。 第一點就是最初家長同意簽那份合約是注明可以在香港或外地公開播放的。 第二點就是這影片其實已經在海外播映了數月，一直都未有事情發生，而且還獲得了電影獎項！直至導演張婉婷在不久之前接受了特區政府的邀請來「說好香港」才發生的。 假如上述兩點都是真的話，請問陳大狀在法律層面又怎樣去詮釋呢？謝謝！

[@baba_baba]

第二點末段就係主因囉！

[@williamchan8569]

Agreed

[@manlau5628]

英華新校長 從始至終 都 潛水, 不過 唔使 福爾摩斯 ( Sherlock Holmes ) 都 知道 乜事啦

[@Muchi-J]

第三個點讚

[@cheungsabrina470]

純講現在的處理手法；導演暫棄放影，理由是「人」是無價，這說法是合理的。相信被拍攝者是情緒受困擾，才作出此決定。法、理、情都是考慮點；權衡利弊、輕重、初衷⋯，作為「教育」、「籌款」⋯意義的用途，和「商業」的賣錢、賣名氣是有分別（拋頭露面，被人評頭品足⋯⋯和紀錄個人成長作教學參考⋯）。觀衆對象、目標不同，terms & conditions 有異；況且，簽約時的年齡、授權、⋯、說明不足（可能性後果），使 offer & acceptance 有可爭議的地方，今日履行此合約出現問題是不奇怪的。

[@williamchan8569]

Agreed

[@dennyli3908]

💐❤️👍

[@cotychan4510]

👍👍👍💪💪💪🤗🤗🤗

[@tonybox4496]

@1:00 合約四要件中, consideration, "落左力"諸餘此類.... 落左力是promissory estoppel吧?

[@MissKellyWen]

👍🏻👍🏻

[@manlau5628]

So many people talk about this documentary / movie because of the controversy 爭議 that 張婉婷 has put in 10 years' of work, and finally has to have it 下架 Who is to take the blame ?? Is anyone to take the blame ?? Whatever 李慧詩 felt, it would not have caused the documentary / movie to 下架 Then, are the girls breaking the contract or are 張婉婷 / new 英華校長 breaking the contract ?? That's what 陳總 have mentioned in his video clip. It is not exactly "the girls and 李慧詩 felt that they received an unfair treatment as a whole."

[@kenson68678]

我覺得有人想賺錢和利用公眾的輿論公審去推倒以往訂立的條款。 當中的行事模式與偷偷地改變土地用途一樣， 事件被揭發就諸多藉口。

[@tsangcb4766]

張導演,壯士斷臂,一力承擔,贏晒.校長縮沙,衰晒.而一粒老鼠粒,攪臭一煲粥,輸晒,冇了校內設施,臭名留校史,臭晒.

[@gennyliu5544]

感謝陳大壯分享! 1.在與學校合作的項目合約是與商業用途絕對不同! 2.由張導演要求學生簽新同意書這行為剛剛就是證明了她是清楚知她沒有權去作商業用途!否則不需要簽新合約同意書! 3.學生強烈公開表達了其反對的意願! 4.新舊校長和張導演為個人私欲作出犯法行為! 5.張導演是明知故犯!所謂道歉和下架只是心虛，不要裝模作樣!偽人! 以上是個人觀點!

[@rosannatang5708]

agreed

[@davidwong8790]

想信英華人的智慧 上帝會安排

[@datyeung6821]

she still a student at the existing time

[@hengtaiemb]

问题重点是没有糧支

[@天下為公-國父]

重點是被逼。

[@范堂頻道]

陳大狀👍👍可否講吓最近一單幾吸眼球嘅新聞，醫生高買。

[@mokmok5832]

如果係咁，請順便講埋歌手阿Lam廿幾年前喺加拿大也犯了高買罪（已審決案件並罰款了事），可能仲「吸睛」！🤩

[@范堂頻道]

@@mokmok5832 我唔識太多，只聽朋友話重點是不誠實地，多年前有一單牧師涉嫌偷火鍋食物，證明到並非不誠實，上訴時胡官判冇罪。

[@mokmok5832]

@@范堂頻道 啱！要睇吓陳狀有冇心機，肯唔肯花時間搜集吓呢方面D資料（專業或高階層犯案……）為讀者講解啦，現實D講，如果佢肯咁做我哋就對佢主持嘅頻道更加支持囉！☺

[@yonnieyip3717]

請陳大狀仔細講埋「中英聯合聲明」雙方嘅契約精神及在國際上的法律效用！

[@法律縱橫談]

@@mokmok5832 i thought that was in the USA

[@mokmok5832]

講到尾，係利益同價值觀問題！ D女主角冇片酬、冇分紅，連個名都冇人知，拍緊戲嗰陣，就又要出汗出氣出力，到而家套戲喺戲院上映，光環同實際收益就淨係去晒「將軟停」同英華學校，我自己都覺得班小妹妹係被利用咗囉！😲😒 仲有，「將軟停」同校方肯定有諮詢法律意見，權衡利弊輕重，作出決定後才將套戲急急下架，相信係明白繼續堅持公映會惹起重大官非吧！😰

[@martinleung212]

照我的理解，金舖将一件首飾標價 say 三十萬元，這並非 an offer, 顧客去柜枱俾錢話想買亦非 an acceptance of offer. 那標價只是 an invitation to treat, 顧客去柜枱話想買係 an offer to buy, 舖頭肯賣就是 an acceptance of offer. 舖頭亦有權唔賣，即唔 accept the offer to buy, 合約就唔成立。陳大狀可否評说我之理解係對定错。谢谢

[@mokmok5832]

舖頭唔打算賣的貨品，不是訂名為「非賣品」嗎？

[@劉庭宗]

法律程序管制合約 合約精神管制取捨 平等待遇未必公道 公道自在人人內心

[@mokmok5832]

可唔可以咁呀？！👇 做後期製作，用「馬賽克」方式，遮住晒眾女角的臉孔（「東張西望」都做到熟晒啦！），跟住喺模糊的面孔上標示女生名字，套戲咪一樣可以上映兼影響唔到當事人囉！😅🤣

[@elkinlee]

👍🏼🙇🏻‍♂️

[@eugeneysaye2685]

女仔complain 好多片段都系 「偷拍」。 她这样讲， 令我对她大大 怀疑。 I am sure 导演有向女仔和家长解釋清楚拍攝手法， 而且隨著时间会多次再解釋。 这是部 纪錄片， not drama. 拍攝手法是尽量在 目标人物 (女仔) 最自然，最不经意下拍的。 話虽如此， 女仔还是知道 camera crew 在拍她们的。 怎会不知？ 但现在女仔却話 「偷拍」。

[@chanykc]

可以找調解或仲裁吧！

[@chunchun9381]

支持陳震威大律師【法律縱橫談】👍👍👍💪💪💪！第一個點讚👍👍👍💪💪💪！讚咗再睇！

[@williamchan8569]

😲

[@felixchung2478]

一

[@jasminestanton5089]

認這是 youtubeeeeu.com/watch?v=E5bx4Vmulux 震威大律師【法律縱橫談】👍👍👍💪💪💪！第

[@adamshiu88]

請多做资料搜集再作陳述

[@mokmok5832]

一直以來在評論中見過最有建設性的意見！ 🥰🥰🥰👏👏👏👍👍👍🙏🙏🙏 同埋我真係佩服🤩🤩🤩陳狀，点樣將「抛磚引玉」呢句成語運用得咁出神入化！ （即係話，求其抛個題目出嚟講幾句，等你哋呢班民間高手比意見囉！😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣）

[@superiors3359]

🎉🎉🎉

[@HKRCEnthusiast]

一般商業合同雙方都會花好多人力物力去睇睇合同是否符合雙方利益，特別係睇吓合同有冇不利自己嘅條文。相信這個個案下，家長並沒有去詳細考慮合同內容，更加沒有預計會被學校公開播放，如果我是這個家長，必定自責為何當初簽了這個合同，更加會認為被學校出賣，因為已經偏離了原本簽合同嘅原意。講到紀錄片，以前睇開都係睇個人事蹟，通過偷拍個人私生活嘅題材，覺得不可以與一般紀錄片相提並論。

[@kkwan7579]

現實中誰敢拒絕校長提議？

[@tonybox4496]

說法與已報導不同, 是平行時空嗎?

[@kitty5231]

如果我是家長庆幸我的女沒被選中

[@法律縱橫談]

@@kitty5231 why?

[@tonybox4496]

陳狀是有很多"角度"提出, 循例非常點到即止. 但我認為這事的重點是, 當事人18歲後反對合約, 法理原則如何看待處理這情況呢?

[@chiuwaiming]

支持陳👍👍💪💪👋👋🙏🙏大狀

[@Sally_Mu]

陳大狀，如果你係睇網上資訊作為依據，我建議你收返今集內容，因為你講嘅基礎資料有八成是錯的，最初簽嘅文件其實係寫到明「學校可以按需要以任何現有或將來發明的方式，在本港或香港以外的地方使用在此同意書下製作的紀錄片」，所以反口嘅唔係製作方。

[@excelsiorlawyers7967]

Then why called off the screening?

[@Sally_Mu]

@@excelsiorlawyers7967 我無權代當事人回答。但你不能脫離基本事實去講你自己想講的。

[@weihawang4246]

我觉得你骂错陣， 似乎因你听错

[@Sally_Mu]

@@weihawang4246 請指出我的錯誤。

[@weihawang4246]

@@Sally_Mu 我所指的並非閣下的原文，关于文件上怎写明和制作方不是反口那么。 我指的是你或许些少誤听陣 。陣只是利用这 case 来 引导我们 思考一些 法律上遇到的 矛盾事例。 他並不是在審案。 另一方面， 我也 觉这 topic 暫时太 controversial ， 陣拿出來讲是企定被骂 。 哈哈哈！

[@6772alan]

陳大律師,您好!🙏近日香港有"跨性別人求改身份證性別″案件,本人想聴聴法律上的觀点。(如果由医生判別理所当然,但由法官决定……。又身份證上性別畄空.又如何?)

[@6772alan]

@Mgao Ko Thx!

[@chrissum1816]

終審法院判詞理據和邏輯都令人難以理解。判詞指身份證上的性別標示並非用作確立或認定持有人在法律上的性別，這明顯與公眾常識與理解相反。如果這種理解成立，則邏輯上申請人並無必要變更身份證上的性別標示，因為這個標示沒有法律上的意義。另外判詞又指未完成整套變性手術的人士停用荷爾蒙而逆轉的風險是微乎其微，法庭明顯沒有充分考慮任何未完成整套變性手術人士有可能因為經濟或其他理由而被迫停止使用男性荷爾蒙而出現逆轉恢復女性生殖能力甚至懷孕產子等引發的法律及倫理問題。政府對申請要求變更性別人士的標準就是要完成整套變性手術，清晰、統一而且合理。終審庭的判決令到這個標準變得模糊不清，醫學上除完成整套變性手術外，是否有廣泛接受的準則何謂已經可以接受為性別已經改變？還是法庭希望入境處要每一次接到申請都要花大量人力物力去檢視個案是否達到性別變更的標準，甚至要設上訴機制和準備另一次法律程序？

[@6772alan]

@@chrissum1816Thx!

[@patrickwo725]

未看過合約条文如何寫法。 普通邏輯，一個歷時十年，又飛去多處異地拍攝，用了30多萬呎菲林，唔通真係只為供內容欣賞😱🤔 真係要摷返張契約出來斟酌吓。 如果前校長經手的家長同意書唔係用一般大路用語如‘校方有權用任何展示形式，場所或將來新創的播放媒體’公演...嘅咩？

[@williamchan8569]

Hard to imagine a school will run a commercial film

[@mokmok5832]

@@williamchan8569 好奇咩？除咗律師，而家醫生都喺電視賣廣告揾生意啦😂🤣

[@刘细华-m7c]

💪

[@manlau5628]

Please calm down everyone. Especially when you know so little about actual details. SIGH. I just noticed a video about this movie, given by 4 people, two of them are once 校董, and one of them had actual experience in fund raising, in another 百年女名校 ( she did not say which one, but I know ). The video is very long, almost 2 hours, I have not finished watching it yet ( I may not want to finish, quite stressful ). And I do NOT agree with some of the viewpoints. But they have much much more details than what you guys know, and they have actually seen the 2012 "Notice-consent-2-in-1", and know pretty well how to look at various things from different angles. If you want to watch 法律縱橫談, please concentrate on 契約法, Not those mud-slinging on 張婉婷, or whoever involved in the movie, or AMONG YOURSELVES.

[@mokmok5832]

I agree 👍 with you！ BTW I also want to point out that it's the topic raised by Mr. Chan. He only talked and mentioned something very unclear and even incorrect in some aspects. Since he didn't make the whole picture thoroughly and properly to all readers, they make quarrel and conflicts naturally and unnecessary. But Mr. Chan didn't come out to quell disputes. He seemed to be more likely 食花生/睇戲！😶😑

[@manlau5628]

@@mokmok5832 Thanks Mok Mok. I think you need to understand that Mr Chan is very busy with his bread-and-butter job as 大律師, giving this 法律縱橫談 talk is only his 副業 Also, I doubt if he has a large research team in support ( like some other KOLs, from what I collected through hearsay ). From what I know, he cannot afford the time to read the numerous postings on his video clips. Your saying that Mr Chan 'cause' other Netizens to quarrel, and that Mr Chan 'didn't come out to quell disputes' is I think TOTALLY off the bull-eye 射晒出界 Just my personal opinion.

[@manlau5628]

@@mokmok5832 I hope you don't get angry with what I said.

[@mokmok5832]

@@manlau5628 However, is it the reason that Mr Chan didn't need to improve his program level just because he's a barrister, he's always busy and no one help him……（he said he has sons being lawyers too） All readers would eager to get a quality and informative content from his channel, no one will oppose？ Anyway, as I already said before, you're the kindest and a reasonable netizen I've ever seen.🥰

[@manlau5628]

@@mokmok5832 Ha Ha, Mok Mok, many thanks for your compliments, I am not "the kindest ..." as you said 喇, make me feel 汗顏 At least you do not think that I am a 受僱打手 我驚陳大狀請我唔起咋 Back to our discussions, I think it is NOT a reasonable expectation for Mr Chan to "make the whole picture thoroughly ...", etc. Because my guess is that it is NOT his job, it is probably the job of the Court, through an investigation that spans a couple of years perhaps. And to a certain extent, NOT a very reasonable expectation : "All readers would eager to get a quality and informative content ..." Because if 陳大狀 diverts say 3 hours of his resources on doing this, do you know how much revenue will he lose ?? I certainly know ( roughly ) because I have retained the services of lawyers ( more than once ) before. 天文數字, trust me.

[@eugeneysaye2685]

陣总不怕 topic 太 热？ 😜😂

[@mokmok5832]

唔怕！陳总的篩選及抗壓能力超强😎😠

[@eugeneysaye2685]

与 陶傑的理论相反角度。 我不喜欢陶， 但今次陶有陶理。 而陣总现在又另一角度， 陣有陣理。 我認为已经不是道德上谁对谁错，各人也有其对错之份。 什至不是法律上谁对谁錯 ， (或只有官司上輸贏)。 我認为是 down to 誰肯让步。 Anyways, 无论你企那边， 希望你从中得著吧。 Edit: 「道德上的对与错」改为「道德及人情上的对与错」

[@williamchan8569]

One thing has several aspects

[@elmorgan4781]

同19歲嗰個問題完全無關， 19歲的我並非一個交易，而係一個慈善活動，是為免費籌款，所簽訂嘅合約，私隱專員公署亦已經表明，由於並非一個雙方均可換取利益之關係，由於用途已被改變，此合約是可以隨時取消的，此情況不合乎契約法所適用。

[@法律縱橫談]

should there be no contract, then the next issue is copyright who ownes it director students school

[@datyeung6821]

no. include public show

[@martinleung212]

就維持原意，為筹款作限量發影，依照當年父母代簽的合約行事。

[@mokmok5832]

人心難測，「錢」途無量，如果每個人都根據初心行事，不輕易起歪念，就真係可以天下太平了！🙂

[@pokawong8824]

很多人, 赞成可公映的人, 有冇睇新闻??? 答案已出!😂😂😂😂😂😂 所以拗乜都冇用, 我早已预言!! 講乜嘢合約合同約制權的, 都係多餘。

[@resort2cheung970]

原初簽合約只在校內播放絕無問題但有人更改合約條文一定是違反合約條文,我覺得有人見此套紀錄片有利可圖而改變初衷或片內有政治敏感話題而有改變

[@williamchan8569]

Agreed

[@tonybox4496]

說法上升了層次, 是有可能, 但我仍然不知道是那一方或雙方的(政治或金錢)問題. 如果不提出支撐, 便是偏激. 一般而言, 合約寫「只」校內播, 事後當然違約, 但如果以當時intention而言, 很可能大家沒有考慮過「將來公映」. 那麼是分前後兩個時期, 前期已完沒有爭議. 後期沒有考慮的卻旦生了, 的確是會有爭議, 應該從版權, 及反對權利出發. 反對權利, 我認為先解決「非簽約人的當事人, 18歲後」對此事有何權利. 再談家長/學校/片方的權利.

[@zoeyoung4012]

茅頭直指導演 導演只是拍攝 指揮如何美化電影 關佢乜事 27/1 政府宣佈 唱好香港 邀請她加入 所以黑甲由又有機會找噱頭 出動戲子唱衰香港 以後這類案例 陸續會發生

[@lamkm8584]

多謝說出重點！👍

[@勿錯過勿忘我]

有心者插無心人管他有冇合同總之任何藉口可以攪事的時候搅事者便會出現.攪事者們跟某個國家花幾十萬打爛幾百元汽球的精神同出一撤咁好笑。

[@天下為公-國父]

結果指揮羞化英華，變成英華的陰影。

[@天下為公-國父]

@Kwai cheung lee 有樣嘢叫豬隊友

[@dohkowong]

據說拍攝初期有簽左張校內通告，話會以任何形式發佈嘅，咁又可否用來做法律依據呢？

[@rosannatang5708]

we talk about the contract and the new contract not the notice

[@alexlee1905]

你貼張通告話你係特首, 你就係特首?

[@tonybox4496]

兩位如何理解"簽左"兩字? 應該是家長簽吧. 要反駁, 不如索性否定這「據說」, 要求來源.

[@manlau5628]

It seems there is a new round of comments ( after about 9 days ). From what I understand, the "Notice-consent-2-in-1" signed by the girls’ parents in 2012 was with 英華 ( the 校長 presumably ). At that time there was no details about what the movie will be like, because 張婉婷 has not made her plans about the movie yet. And it was specified to be private-screening only. I think the bottom-line is that the 6 girls now have the rights NOT to give consent to having the movie screened in cinemas. Also, I understand that 李慧詩 said she did not know that her interview will be used in a documentary or movie, and she is probably not happy 張婉婷 only showed her for just 10 seconds.

[@mokmok5832]

I admire your viewpoint, especially the last one. Besides the short appearance in the movie, do you think/know that 李慧詩 receive any remuneration？If not, it's crystal clear why she should feel 😡 upset lor！😝

[@manlau5628]

@@mokmok5832 Human being is a very very complex being. I am sure 李慧詩 is interviewed all the time, without being paid. Also, when 張婉婷 and the old 英華校長 envisioned the documentary as 籌款活動 Why would the Form 1 girls dare to expect to be paid ?? But if the movie is now screened in cinemas, and presumably will generate handsome profits, everything will be different. Shouldn't 張婉婷 and the new 英華校長 ( as owner of the movie ) share profits with the girls ?? If they do not mention sharing of profits to the girls, is it 欺詐 which can carry prison terms ?? I don't see why 李慧詩 is upset because she does not get paid. That is only 想當然 Because how much can she expect to be paid with her only-10 seconds appearance ?? A few dollars ?? Are you serious ??

[@mokmok5832]

@@manlau5628 Wow, so many questions！ In conclusion, it can be quite sure that source of the problem came from the 👧 girls and 李慧詩 felt that they received an unfair treatment as a whole.

[@manlau5628]

@@mokmok5832 So many people talk about this documentary / movie because of the controversy 爭議 that 張婉婷 has put in 10 years' of work, and finally has to have it 下架 Who is to take the blame ?? Is anyone to take the blame ?? Whatever 李慧詩 felt, it would not have caused the documentary / movie to 下架 Then, are the girls breaking the contract or are 張婉婷 / new 英華校長 breaking the contract ?? That's what 陳總 have mentioned in his video clip. It is not exactly "the girls and 李慧詩 felt that they received an unfair treatment as a whole."

[@mokmok5832]

@@manlau5628 I 👌 see 🆗️ . Thanks 😊

[@khestheryu1079]

支持陳震威大律師💪💪💪💪💪💪💪💪💪💪

[@hkleehk1]

Sober minded professional analysis.

[@winnielee3205]

陳震威大律師，講得非常好，令普通市民都清晰易明，我本來都想睇這齣戲，希望她們能夠傾得掂條數，契約精神，和氣收場，不要浪費張導演的努力，和這班女同學這10年青春💪💪💪㊗️㊗️㊗️🧧🧧🧧❤️❤️❤️👍👍👍

[@williamchan8569]

❤

[@winniewong1442]

希望人是最重緊要，但經歷原來也不簡單，價值就是如此展示了。多謝歷史洗禮經驗，教導人明白，作長遠打算，是好，但始終結局都是難遇計，這是歷史記錄，不能預設的。

[@scsc9092]

工商業契约contracting among parties是应有時空人和物種variables 及conditions 制约和考虑的。相信制片者(监制導演演員(英華女校女生及学校当局和学生家長)当日在創作这纪錄片是有共識的。但由於創作这纪錄片時間(差不多十年時間)太長了，天地人(內心思想行为)都变了，以前是簡简单单的Yes，现在可能是較複雜的No or 有更多考慮和考量了。听說在纪錄片完工之後(去年八月)，有关方面曾播放过而当時并无出現现時尴尬场面(有当事/当时的主角学生反对场面)。其实现時纪錄片全部下架是明智决定的，是保障了多方面的私隐。 在欧美工商業合约議定和協議period 是有時限(usually it is valid for 3 months to 1 year)的。時限过了大家再应重新review那先前的contract 和agreement的。今時同意合作条件并非代表以後(迟一点)同意的。所以缔约各家亦应註明時限(valid time period)的。不过这紀錄片缉制時間(>10年)实在太長了，制片創作人亦应有多方面考量。

[@pokawong8824]

@@scsc9092 同意你的見解。👍 另很多人也忽略了口頭契约, 也是有效的,十多年前制片者对学生,学生家长,及至校方与学生所承诺及保证的一切, 也是有制约的法律效力。 但有一點, 我基本可以肯定,十多年前任何人, 不會预料今天2023年, 這套影片竟會【公映】並出现【售票】這種情况。 故此, 刹停公映是绝对恰當。

[@rosannatang5708]

😃😃😃

[@sandylewis777]

It seems everyone has their own measurement, who knows who is telling the truth? So, the consent form is the most powerful evidence to prove it. If the truth lies in the victim parties , why don't they take legal action instead of making an accuse in thousands words? it's really illogical and unbelievable😏. Most of the self righteous with mind blindness stand by their side revealed how this world is really up side down 👎👎👎

[@manlau5628]

I think there was a new round of consent letters ( last year ?? ), and not every one of the 6 girls has signed. Maybe someone told 張婉婷 that all the girls did not object ( even though they may not have signed ). Don't know. I guess 張婉婷 would not dare to screen the movie in cinemas if she knows that a few girls were very vocal about objecting. We should note that the 英華校長 did not actually object to the screening of the movie in cinemas, maybe because of the potential income ( the school is the owner of the movie ), while she should have the knowledge that some of the girls object. Could be it is again a case of 你識反抗咩 ??

[@manlau5628]

My guess is that the contract was between the school and the girls, but 張婉婷 was the one who arranged screening of the movie in the cinemas ( through her connections ).

[@pppan9901]

法例条文讲得清清楚楚嘅话。又唔可以话我用咗十年时间就算100年时间去夹硬夹人law. 要遵守事先讲明你情我愿。当然最好大家倾掂.和气收场唔得都冇办法。

[@zoeyoung4012]

事情已經接近尾聲 : 1. 學校放棄 2. 放棄提名 金馬獎 3. 電影院 放棄上演 4. 張婉婷 放棄紀錄片 5. 社會放棄 攪事份子

[@rosannatang5708]

that is the result lawyer chan is talking about the contract

[@marcolee1833]

張導演，和學生會主席王卓聆相處13年，導演亦有各方面協助她。要用一萬字（一本小說的字數）來唱導演和校長，我覺得王卓聆非常唔感恩。

[@mokmok5832]

你而家至知人性難測咩？！😅 如果您收養一条快要餓死的狗，把它餵得肥肥的，那它決不會咬您。這就是人與狗的主要分別。 ……馬克.吐温

[@pokawong8824]

依我個人意見,最重要觀点只有三個： 1-由開拍草擬最原始焦点是文教式教育記錄片,变成可以公眾在戲院公映,明顯已变成了商業性質,沾上了利益。 2-在個人私隐及意願上,學生及家長, 應有極大决定權, 因契约中從没指出若干年後的可能性。 3-英華書院是香港十大名校之列,過往出過不少傑出學生现已成社會棟樑,由若干個学生背负着學校之名,而公開给全世界去評論, 牵涉的問题會非常複雜。 故此, 申请禁止【公映】, 是恰當的。

[@tonybox4496]

1. 如果"利益"方面協商調節一下, 承諾歸"建校", 你接受不接受? 2. 似乎是指向版權及使用問題, 這問題可以深入探討一下, 不過版權是一獨立問題, 不一定「學生及家長應有極大决定權」, 你需要另找支撐. 3. 所謂涉及複雜我同意, 是比例大, 那麼解決細節較詳細便符合比例. 何以跳去「禁止是恰當」? E.g. 某大型比賽歷年在A國舉行, 今年想改去B國舉行, 也涉及複雜的安排/贊助/轉播.... 而張大力是天才運動員國際成績突出, 那麼今年「不參加比賽是恰當的」...... 是否這邏輯?

[@pokawong8824]

@@tonybox4496 歸建校??你不是開玩笑吧??!! 用学校名義所做一切, 涉商業利益及不同各方道德批判,這區區幾個女学生有资格代表嗎??有资格同意嗎?? 英華女校校方承受了多少法律後果? 越半世纪的校譽,稀罕你這些钱建校?? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@pokawong8824]

@@tonybox4496 第二, 那张所謂合同, 可以公開??是徵求学生及家長同意簽署?? 是合约?? 合作聲明??? 是商業性質合同?? 是賣身合同?? 連上述各種疑問也未知, 有什麽版權可談?? 英華女校是否最大版權持有人呢?? 🤣🤣😂😂 讀多十年八年書再来说笑話!

[@tonybox4496]

@@pokawong8824 歸建校這「玩笑」不是我開的, 你留意一下時事吧, 看多幾個報導.

[@tonybox4496]

@@pokawong8824 你問陳狀, 他比較有耐心. 你的系列問題像不好笑的系列笑話, 沒有條理.

[@manlau5628]

Good discussions. From what I read, 英華女學 is 張婉婷’s 母校 They were going to tear down the old building, and move to some other temporary place. And need the movie to help raise some money. 張堅庭 said that 張婉婷 “為人天真” and her husband used to take care of everything for her ( but he passed away a few months ago ). I think 張婉婷 said she thought every girl agreed to the screening of the movies in cinemas, but which is obviously not the case. Probably NOT a case of 霸王硬上弓

[@williamchan8569]

The girls did indicate their objections. The movie has been re edited. The girl in concern has not been taken out.

[@manlau5628]

@@williamchan8569 Thanks, I think there was a new round of consent letters, and not every girl has signed. Maybe someone told 張婉婷 that all the girls did not object ( even though they may not have signed ). Don't know. I guess 張婉婷 would not dare to screen the movie in cinemas if she knows that a few girls were very vocal about objecting.

[@manlau5628]

@@williamchan8569 We should note that the 英華校長 did not actually object to the screening of the movie in cinemas, maybe because of the potential income. While she should have the knowledge that some of the girls object. Could be it is again a case of 你識反抗咩 ??

[@manlau5628]

@@williamchan8569 My guess is that the contract was between the school and the girls, but 張婉婷 was the one who arranged screening of the movie in the cinemas ( through her connections ).

[@yau7639]

點解播出多日之後，才反口？在校內播放，派DVD，就唔算公開？以今時今日，只要派DVD，有人就會放上網，同在電影院播放，有何分別？

[@LetsBanJapanRadioactiveSeafood]

個女仔好靚噶嘛，然後成為了男女朋友😊

[@manlau5628]

As I said before, I give the benefit of the doubt to 張婉婷, that she could have been misled by the 英華校長 and misled by her own production crew. On the other hand, I don't see how the 英華校長 could have been misled by 張婉婷

[@wwbwwbb]

一場閙劇！白紙黑字各執一詞 權益沖突 人心善變 個個失憶 外國有一個用50年追縱幾十個兒童 成長到半百的記錄片 只在電視台及 KZbin 播放 任👁️👁️ 悔改皈依的時日無多 不要失智 趕快跟隨主耶穌 得到救恩🙏💖

[@lorilo5181]

當日拍攝時,同學未成年,是由家長签同意書的,那時同學應該是十一/二歲的初中學生了,我想知道當日家長簽同意書前,學校和家長有否向將被拍攝的同學詳細解釋？我的孫兒雖然祇有三/五歲,放假出街會要求他們想着甚麼颜色的衫褲😅预備lunch box 時也會要求媽咪预備甚麼食物😊千禧年代出生的一代,已不是我們六十後,七十後一般的容易逆來順受了😐😐

[@法律縱橫談]

dont need to explain to kids they have no capacity to understand in law

[@lorilo5181]

@@法律縱橫談 不同意喎！就算法律程序上不需要.但道理上仍然要解釋,例如父母為未成年子女簽紙做手術,被人劏前都要向個似懂非懂的小朋友解釋啦！何況被人拍攝十年間的行為舉止,甚麼醜事/好事也公諸衆人面前！

[@sundaychan2157]

黃人對 contract 冇到

[@rosannatang5708]

there are two contracts first one for internal second one is for public

[@manlau5628]

Mok Mok, do you mean : so long as a person thinks that he himself / she herself is right, then that's enough ?? But obviously that can't be right, because thieves and murderers think they themselves are right as well.

[@manlau5628]

世事無絕對 有 reasonable, 必有 unreasonable 何謂 "right" ?? 何謂 "good" ?? I am now reading the many 學說 proposed by Philosophers throughout the ages. The discussions are based on terms like : Ethical Subjectivism, Moral Objectivism, Divine Command Theory, Social Contract Theory, Utilitarianism, Deontological Theory, Sociobiological Theory, Virtue Theory, etc. etc. 實非 我 淺陋之輩 能夠 清楚解釋

[@liabba]

已經不是契約法的問題，當事人以受害弱者姿態抗爭，導演及校方在法律層面贏哂都冇用，社會大眾必然同情這位同學。當機立斷停止上畫算是好的選擇。

[@BabyBaby-vq5he]

上影這部电影學校尚沒有担心這些學生們從前或現在的形象、行為 會破壞學校聲譽哩! 如果反對女生有自信心， 更沒有秘密整容或已經成為有婦之夫小三或醜事應該可以豁達接受這部揭開過去的我上影讓人觀看而不該鷄蛋裏挑骨頭制做所謂合約精神風波了。

[@williamleung8366]

我比較傾向影片下架是最理想的做法，令事情告一段落，亦平息各方面的爭議！ 令影片中覺得不安的女孩寬懷。 錯過欣賞此影片亦沒有甚麽損失呢！

[@kkwan7579]

應該立即銷毀。

[@excelsiorlawyers7967]

Still good for internal Or called closed screening

[@mokmok5832]

將影片下架肯定是院/校方諮詢法律專業意見後的最終安排，避免惹起官非纒身！

[@peaceplease2687]

由day 1爆出主角萬字文（經明報）哭訴始，網絡一面倒，單純指控張導。 主角家長10年來都唔知自己女情緒、心態、意願? 上年8月已開始參加不同影展，也在香港有優先場，已經好多人睇過。女學生都有參加過電影宣傳、慶功宴。 但我見到另一個新聞，係一月27日，政府宣布有某些人協助政府做宣傳，目的，說好香港故事，其中一個係張導。 之後在面書，已有媒體出帖文，有人留言，罷睇19歲，幾日後，就出了女學生事件

[@williamchan8569]

Lot of people with lot of reasons

[@peaceplease2687]

@chan daisy 冇人可以肯定，是否100 percent related to 立場，但睇左咁多日網民留言，有些真係好坦白說，原來係欺騙細路女，但幫得政府拍野宣傳香港，都唔㤺好人。 Then 傳媒用負面、引導式的字眼出標題，絕對可以置人死地，難怪皇帝最忌文人的筆。 另一方面從網民留言，真係feel到文革味道

[@alexlee1905]

你講呢堆野關拍攝合約咩事?

[@天下為公-國父]

學生一直沒有同意公映，抹黑走遠點。

[@天下為公-國父]

@chan daisy 內部播映不能慶功？腦袋分裂？

[@dak4553]

對曱甴仁慈，對社會没好處

[@andrewtam1821]

嗰啲女仔都畢晒業，點會驚你間學校，你個校長，而且拍咗十年，片酬都冇收過，你宜家又攞獎，又上戲院，票房可以係幾千萬唔定，梗係唔順，至於乜嘢私隱，偎，由你第一日被攝入鏡頭，就注定冇乜私隱可言，相信當年被選中的學生及家長，其實都有小小虛榮心，全校幾百人喎，代表學校喎，大過咗諗法唔同咗，梗係唔想啲黑歷史曝光，其實件事唔係搞到咁大，幾個女仔都冇人知你係乜人，叫乜名，出街都唔會有人認得，上影完，冇乜人會再提起佢哋，但宜家啲料越爆越多，佢哋唔會再過到普通人生活。

[@homingaileencheung5633]

陳狀，你好： 1. 我在香港聽嘅資料可能比你多D，呢個導演思想行为都政治色彩比較重，當初呢個戲嘅鋪排似係有政治背景操作的，因我聽講西方插针的手法是很有耐心的。 2. 第二，既然係內部觀賞，就唔應該拎去參展， 因參展就係公開㗎啦；或者是否參展之前应该徵求过大家嘅同意，係咪呀？ 3. 第三，拎出去公開放影，就係商業活動，係有金錢利益嘅衝突，係咪呀？ 4. 第四，供影之後很多人都知道佢哋曾經參加過政治活動，成長後嘅小朋友可能已經改变了政治取態，但E十俾人咁傳揚開去，想參加政府工作的机會都可能減低咗喇！ 照我睇，此事政治色彩濃厚，不宜以常理喻之。

[@weiho5960]

用法律可以搞定的事情，请不要上升至政治。

[@tonybox4496]

@@weiho5960 半同意, 因此如果確是政治濃郁, 其實法律搞不定. 我不知道確實政治比例. 不過樓主的確抬得很高,

[@tonybox4496]

不如你開個故: 導演是黃是藍? 因為學生與導演是敵對, 導演黃學生便藍、導演藍學生便黃. 學生藍似乎不普遍不符常理, 這方向的話, 需要慢慢討論. 學生黃被帶動的說法比較可能, 那麼導演是藍了, 是插針嗎? 何以「西方插藍针」? 學生黃是「西方插针」的話..... 吓? 18歲後爆發、知道會公映爆發, 故事太神奇了吧? 第二，參展是有同意的, 你不知道? (" 我在香港聽嘅資料可能比你多D")

[@yau7639]

點解播出多日之後，才反口？在校內播放，派DVD，就唔算公開？以今時今日，只要派DVD，有人就會放上網，同在電影院播放，有何分別？

[@tonybox4496]

@@yau7639 在院線公映, 的確完全不同層次. 「在校內播放 ..... 就唔算公開？」你認為你道理、邏輯係邊?

[@alvinchan5730]

陳震威你究竟有無睇過張合約內容，如無，咁是否純粹齋噏。

[@mokmok5832]

基本上而家明眼人都知，睇讀者評論留言多過睇佢齋噏㗎啦！🤣😂

[@manlau5628]

Human being is a very very complex being. I am sure 李慧詩 is interviewed all the time, without being paid. Also, when 張婉婷 and the old 英華校長 envisioned the documentary as 籌款活動 Why would the Form 1 girls dare to expect to be paid ?? But if the movie is now screened in cinemas, and presumably will generate handsome profits, everything will be different. Shouldn't 張婉婷 and the new 英華校長 ( as owner of the movie ) share profits with the girls ?? If they do not mention sharing of profits to the girls, is it 欺詐 which can carry prison terms ?? I don't see why 李慧詩 is upset because she does not get paid. That is only 想當然 Because how much can she expect to be paid with her only-10 seconds appearance ?? A few dollars ?? Are you serious ??

[@jazz249]

給十九歲的我 is nothing new. in the 60s, English filmmaker Michael Apted picked 14 boys and girls, all about 7 yrs old and documented their lives, then returned every decade later to document the changes in their life stories, 7 to teens to 20s, to 30s, 40s, 50s. his film was called Seven Up! then 14 Up, 25 Up... the latest episode is now 56 Up! i just think the Anglos are more "open" about their lives, not nervous to talk about their demons, transgressions and revealed themselves to the world...

[@williamchan8569]

It's not uncommon in overseas.but not in hk

[@aiofilms]

@@williamchan8569 Well said.

[@eugeneysaye2685]

Yes, it's very candid

[@rosannatang5708]

i have seen of this topic in canada maybe something new in hk

[@yulipan5874]

以前參加影展就已經有公眾睇過，影展現場就已經有買辦，隨時有人會買版權去其他地方播映，當時唔出嚟反對？就算合同係有瑕疵或條件變更等等都唔緊要，根據法律做咪OK，不過當事人自己行為前後唔一致就唔好扮弱者或受害者去公審其他人。有本事自己同校方、自己父母、甚至導演拆掂佢，再唔得咪法律行動囉。你嘅19歲或幾多歲關人咩事，都唔識你😂。

[@siuloili6672]

再過幾年，都唔記得妳係乜水!

[@kkwan7579]

想趕絕班剛出社會的靚妹？

[@mokmok5832]

@@siuloili6672 使乜幾年？ 明年今日， 無人再提……

[@fannylam5479]

“合約” 不是幼兒食奶，愛吃不吃。 法律不只是條文，更是國體。 “““合約是有法律責任的””” 所有問題必須在合約裡面找尋答案。 口口聲聲😒👉說“當年” 當年也好，今天也霸。必須抓捕出賣孩童的罪人去坐監。💪💪💪💪💪💪💪💪張顯法律合約精神。

[@lolonchan]

今集对陳大狀有D失望，是否最近太忙冇時間做資料搜集? 事情背景及過程你講啱少於20%，於是你一切所言只流於抽水，仲係Hea住抽，可一不可再，拜托!

[@weihawang4246]

我不觉得他 hea, 只是閣下误解他的intention， 误听他在导向 。 我朋友在英华做教師十几年了， 她清楚事情，但她沒捲入立场

[@mokmok5832]

L Chan 而家至失望咩！我已經冇期望好耐啦😂🤣 同埋我真係佩服🤩陳狀，点樣將「抛磚引玉」呢句成語運用得咁出神入化！ （即係話，求其抛個題目出嚟講幾句，等你哋呢班民間高手比意見囉！😛😜🤪😝）

[@reasonablelee6613]

將碗停其心可誅，根本係玩嘢，未得有關學生完全同意，竟然夾硬嚟搏出位！碗停真係碗停？有料大把提材可拍吧！