A Case Study on Tort of Negligence
(完整版)美国侵权法(中英文)
美国侵权法（中英文）Restatement of the Law，Third，Torts by The American Law Institute美国法学会《侵权法第三次重述》Part One: Intoduction of Torts 侵权法概述Part Two： Apportionment of Liability（Rule Sections）第一部分：责任分担Part Three: Products Liability 产品责任Part One: Intoduction of Torts 侵权法概述在美国，侵权法主要属于各州的法律范畴，而且主要由判例法组成。
侵权行为可分为故意侵权行为（intentional tort)、过失侵权行为（negligence or negligent tort)和严格责任侵权行为 (strict liability tort). 对侵权行为的一般救济方法是对侵权行为所造成的损害予以一定的金钱补偿，在涉及交通事故等领域的侵权赔偿已广范采用了保险赔偿的方式。
Part One: Introduction 基本概念1. The law of tort is still the source of most civil suits in the United States, with damage claims for automobile accidents taking first place. Many circumstances contribute to this: (a) the plaintiff in an American civil suit is ordinarily entitled to try his claim before a jury which will often--and understandably--rely more on human than on legal considerations, for instance when a child has been injured in an automobile accident or through a defective product of a large enterprise;(b) Compensation and damages include not only the actual loss but also the intangible damage. A plaintiff can therefore often play on the human reaction of the jury: for instance, what is appropriate compensation for a permanent disability such as the loss of a limb? (c) American law permits the participation of the attorney in the plaintiff’s recovery (contingent fee) which not uncommonly amounts to 25 to 33 percent of the verdict. As a result of all of these factors, a tort action may be a lengthy proceeding, result in large expenses, for instance through honoraria for experts (which may deter the "small "plaintiff from suing at all), and may end in the award of a very large verdict. It is no linger uncommon that a jury will aware a verdict in excess of ＄100,000. These conditions have been the touchstone for several reform endeavors which will be discussed inmore detail below.在美国，侵权行为法产生的诉讼仍是大多民事诉讼案件的主要来源，其中基于交通事故产生的损害赔偿案件居于首位。
Strict Liability
6
• Disclaimers and waivers of liability for products are often invalidated by courts as against public policy (courts should not condone <宽舒，赦免> the manufacture and distribution of defective products) and typically warranties are limited so that manufacturers and retailers are held responsible for personal injuries caused by the use of the product.
须证明过失伤害或故意伤害的）严格法律责任，绝对法律 责任
• Strict liability is a legal doctrine that makes some persons responsible for damages their actions or products cause, regardless of any “fault” on their part.
2
• 严格责任（Strict Liability)又称侵权法上的无过失责 任，是近代发展起来的一种产品责任理论。按照严 格责任的原则，只要产品存在缺陷，对使用者或消 费者具有不合理的危险（Unreasonably Dangerous） ，并因此而使他们的人身或财产遭受损失，该产品 的生产者和销售者都应承担赔偿责任。 • 由于严格责任减轻了原告的举证责任范围，扩大了 对消费者权益的保护，成为产品责任原则的发展趋 势。 • 美国法学会在1965年出版的《侵权行为重述》中确 认了这一原则。我国的《产品质量法》规定了生产 者应承担严格责任，销售者在特殊情况下也承担严 格责任。
法律英语教程课后练习题含答案
法律英语教程课后练习题含答案本文是法律英语教程课后练习题的答案文档，共计包含6道练习题，每个练习题都要求以英语书写，旨在提高法律英语的水平。
练习题1What is the difference between litigation and arbitration?答案Litigation involves a lawsuit in a court of law, where a judge or a jury decides the outcome of the dispute. Arbitration, on the other hand, is a process in which two parties agree to have a neutral third party hear their dispute and render a decision. The decision is binding and may not be appealed.练习题2What is a contract?答案A contract is a legally binding agreement between two or moreparties that creates obligations that are enforceable by law. Each party in a contract agrees to perform certn obligations in exchange for some form of consideration.练习题3What is a tort?A tort is a civil wrong that causes harm or injury to another person or property. Examples of torts include negligence, defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.练习题4What is intellectual property?答案Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind, such as inventions, literary and artistic works, designs, symbols, and names used in commerce. The law protects intellectual property through patents, trademarks, and copyrights.练习题5What is a trademark?答案A trademark is a symbol, word, phrase, or design that identifies and distinguishes the goods or services of one party from those of another. Trademarks are protected by law and can be registered with the government.练习题6What is the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor?A felony is a serious crime that is punishable by imprisonment in a state or federal prison for more than a year. Examples of felonies include murder, robbery, and drug trafficking. A misdemeanor, on the other hand, is a less serious crime that is punishable by a fine or imprisonment in a local jl for up to a year. Examples of misdemeanors include traffic violations, disorderly conduct, and petty theft.以上是本文的6道法律英语练习题及答案，希望对您的法律英语学习有所帮助。
新加坡过失侵权法-英文
Section 1 Introduction
Section 2 Duty of Care: Tests for Establishing Duty
Section 3 Duty of Care: Special Situations
20.2.5 The two-stage test led to expansionary decisions. This was partly because the notion of duty based on foreseeability without overt consideration of precedents at the first stage was inherently suited to developing, rather than restricting, the law. But it was also due to the fact that many judges were uncomfortable with the open articulation of policy, which led to the second stage of the test being under-used.
Hale Waihona Puke 20.2.2 The question of whether or not a duty exists is influenced by a number of factors, such as:
- the type of claimant (eg, socially sympathetic claimants such as rescuers are generally owed a duty of care in a wider range of situations than are less sympathetic ones such as trespassers);
法律英语lesson10tortlaw教材教学课件
The History and Development of Tort Law
• Medieval Roots: Tort law has its roots in medieval common law, where private individuals were allowed to bring actions against wrongdoers in the form of "actions in trespass." These actions were based on the principle of "lex talionis," or the law of retaliation, allowing victims to seek compensation for harm caused through the courts.
Tort law is separate from criminal law, as it deals with private wrongs rather than public wrongs. It allows individuals to seek compensation for harm caused by the actions of others, whether intentional or not.
The Importance of Tort Law
• Protecting Individual Rights: Tort law serves as a crucial safeguard for individual rights, providing victims of wrongdoing with a legal recourse to seek compensation for harm caused. It helps to ensure that individuals are not left vulnerable to the actions of others without any legal recourse.
法律案例用英文(3篇)
第1篇Introduction:In the case of Johnson v. Smith, the Supreme Court of the United States had to address a crucial issue of property rights. The case revolves around the ownership of a piece of land that has been in dispute for several years. This legal battle highlights the complexities of property law and the importance of upholding the rights of individuals.Background:The case of Johnson v. Smith originated in the state of Michigan. The parties involved were Mr. and Mrs. Johnson, who owned a piece of land, and Mr. Smith, who claimed ownership over the same property. The dispute arose when Mr. Smith, without the consent of the Johnsons, began constructing a building on the disputed land. This led to a legal battle that eventually reached the Supreme Court.Facts of the Case:In 2000, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson purchased a piece of land in Michigan. They intended to build a house on the property. However, before they could begin construction, Mr. Smith claimed ownership over the land, stating that he had purchased it from an unknown third party years earlier. Mr. Smith had already started constructing a building on the property without the Johnsons' consent.The Johnsons, feeling that their property rights were being violated, filed a lawsuit against Mr. Smith. They argued that they had purchased the land legally and had the right to develop it as they pleased. Mr. Smith, on the other hand, claimed that he had a valid claim to the property and that the Johnsons were trespassing.Legal Issues:The case raised several legal issues, primarily concerning property rights and the interpretation of property laws. The main issues were as follows:1. Ownership of the Land: The court had to determine who had therightful ownership of the land. This involved examining the purchase agreements and any other relevant documentation to establish the chain of title.2. Possession and Use: The court had to consider whether Mr. Smith's unauthorized construction on the land gave him any rights to possess or use the property.3. Trespass: The Johnsons claimed that Mr. Smith's actions constituted trespass, and they sought an injunction to prevent him from further interfering with their property rights.Arguments of the Parties:The Johnsons argued that they had purchased the land legally and had the right to develop it as they saw fit. They presented evidence of their purchase agreement and any other relevant documents to support their claim.Mr. Smith, on the other hand, claimed that he had a valid claim to the property based on an earlier purchase agreement. He argued that the Johnsons' claim was invalid and that he had the right to possess and use the land.Decision of the Supreme Court:The Supreme Court, after carefully considering the arguments and evidence presented by both parties, ruled in favor of the Johnsons. The court held that the Johnsons had purchased the land legally and had the right to ownership. The court further stated that Mr. Smith's unauthorized construction did not give him any rights to possess or use the property.The court emphasized the importance of upholding property rights and the rule of law. It highlighted the need for individuals to follow proper legal procedures when acquiring property and making claims to ownership.Conclusion:The case of Johnson v. Smith serves as a significant legal precedentthat underscores the importance of property rights and the rule of law. The Supreme Court's decision in this case emphasizes the need for individuals to adhere to legal procedures when acquiring and claiming ownership of property. It also serves as a reminder of the complexities that can arise in property law disputes and the crucial role that the courts play in resolving such conflicts.第2篇I. IntroductionDefamation is a common legal issue that arises when someone publishes false and harmful statements about another person. This case study examines a defamation lawsuit filed against a local newspaper by a local business owner. The case highlights the complexities involved in proving defamation and the importance of evidence in such cases.II. Facts of the CaseThe plaintiff, John Smith, owns a local hardware store in a small town. The defendant, The Town Crier, is a weekly newspaper published in the same town. On March 1, 2021, The Town Crier published an article titled "Shady Business Practices at Smith's Hardware." The article accused John Smith of selling counterfeit products and engaging in fraudulent business practices.The article cited anonymous sources and provided no evidence to support its claims. The article was widely circulated in the community, causing John Smith's business to suffer significant financial losses. John Smith filed a defamation lawsuit against The Town Crier, seeking damages for the harm caused to his reputation and business.III. Legal IssuesThe case revolves around the following legal issues:A. DefamationDefamation is a civil wrong that occurs when someone publishes a false statement about another person that harms their reputation. To prove defamation, the plaintiff must prove the following elements:1. Publication of a false statement: The defendant must have published a false statement about the plaintiff.2. Identification of the plaintiff: The false statement must identifythe plaintiff or be reasonably understood to refer to the plaintiff.3. Publication to a third party: The false statement must be communicated to a third party.4. Damage to reputation: The false statement must cause damage to the plaintiff's reputation.5. Fault on the part of the defendant: The defendant must have actedwith either negligence, actual malice, or actual knowledge of thefalsity of the statement.B. Actual MaliceIn cases involving public figures, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with actual malice, which is defined as reckless disregard for the truth. However, in cases involving private individuals, such as John Smith, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with actual knowledge of the falsity of the statement or with reckless disregard for the truth.C. PrivilegeThe defendant may claim privilege, which is a legal defense thatprevents a plaintiff from recovering damages for defamation. There are several types of privilege, including:1. Absolute privilege: This type of privilege applies to certain communications, such as those made in legislative, judicial, orexecutive proceedings.2. Qualified privilege: This type of privilege applies to communications made in certain contexts, such as those made in a fair and reasonable manner in the public interest.IV. Procedural HistoryThe case was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California. The court granted John Smith's motion for summary judgment, holding that The Town Crier had failed to meet its burden of proving that it had a valid privilege or that it acted with actual malice.The court further held that the article was defamatory because it contained false statements about John Smith's business practices. The court found that the defendant had acted with actual knowledge of the falsity of the statements, as it had received multiple complaints about the article from the community but failed to investigate the claims.V. Ruling and VerdictThe court awarded John Smith $500,000 in damages for the harm caused to his reputation and business. The court also ordered The Town Crier to publish a retraction and a correction of the false statements made in the article.VI. ConclusionThis case study illustrates the complexities involved in proving defamation and the importance of evidence in such cases. It also highlights the importance of responsible journalism and the need for newspapers to verify the accuracy of their articles before publication. By holding The Town Crier liable for defamation, the court sent a strong message about the importance of truth in the media.第3篇I. IntroductionUnjust enrichment, as a legal principle, refers to the acquisition of property or benefit by one party without providing any corresponding consideration to the other party. It is a common legal issue in contractand tort law. This article presents a case of unjust enrichment,involving the dispute between Smith and Johnson.II. BackgroundSmith and Johnson were neighbors living in the same apartment complex.In 2018, Smith, who was a skilled electrician, offered to repairJohnson's malfunctioning washing machine at a reasonable price. Johnson agreed and entrusted Smith with the task. After completing the repair, Smith charged Johnson $500 for the labor and parts. Johnson paid thebill without any disputes.However, several months later, Johnson discovered that the washing machine was still not functioning properly. Upon further investigation, Johnson found out that Smith had replaced the original parts with substandard ones. Feeling deceived and dissatisfied with the repair work, Johnson demanded a refund from Smith. Smith refused, claiming that the work had been completed and the payment had been made. The dispute escalated, and Johnson decided to seek legal assistance.III. The DisputeThe main issue in this case is whether Smith's act of replacing the original parts with substandard ones and charging Johnson for the repair constitutes unjust enrichment.A. Unjust EnrichmentUnjust enrichment occurs when one party benefits from the property or services of another party without providing any consideration. To establish unjust enrichment, the following elements must be proved:1. A benefit has been conferred on the claimant.2. The benefit has been retained by the defendant.3. The retention of the benefit is unfair to the claimant.In this case, Smith replaced the original parts with substandard ones, which resulted in Johnson suffering a loss. Therefore, the first element of unjust enrichment is satisfied.B. Retention of the BenefitSmith retained the $500 payment from Johnson for the repair work. This satisfies the second element of unjust enrichment.C. UnfairnessThe third element of unjust enrichment requires proving that the retention of the benefit is unfair to the claimant. In this case,Smith's act of replacing the original parts with substandard ones and charging Johnson for the repair can be considered unfair. Johnsontrusted Smith to perform the repair work and paid him for the service. However, Smith failed to fulfill his obligation and caused Johnson to suffer a loss. Therefore, the retention of the $500 payment is unfair to Johnson.IV. ConclusionBased on the analysis of the elements of unjust enrichment, it can be concluded that Smith's act of replacing the original parts with substandard ones and charging Johnson for the repair constitutes unjust enrichment. As a result, Johnson is entitled to a refund of the $500 payment. This case highlights the importance of fulfilling contractual obligations and the legal consequences of failing to do so.V. RecommendationsTo prevent similar disputes from occurring in the future, the following recommendations can be made:1. Both parties should clearly define the terms and conditions of the contract before entering into the agreement.2. Parties should maintain open communication and promptly address any issues or concerns during the performance of the contract.3. Both parties should seek legal advice when necessary to ensure their rights and obligations are protected.By following these recommendations, parties can minimize the risk of unjust enrichment and maintain a harmonious relationship in their business or personal interactions.。
Case study 及参考答案
Case 1Xie Li and Tom have been working on a scientific experiment at a British university for some months. It has not been totally successful. They are discussing the situation in the laboratory.Xie Li: I don‟t know where it went wrong!Tom: Don‟t feel so bad. Cheer up; you‟ve done your job.Xie Li: But our experiment has turned out to be a failure.Tom: Relax for a couple of days. I‟ll face the music.Xie Li: Tom, we are not playing children‟s games here. This is a scientific experiment. Tom: I‟ve never taken the experiment as child‟s play, and I‟m playing the game.Xie Li: You say you‟re playing the game! It‟s a rather important experiment!Xie Li walks out of the laboratory angrily. Tom is puzzled.Key:Idiomatic phrases are often misunderstood. In E nglish …face the music‟ means: to face the reality and take the consequence; while …play the game‟ means: abide completion rules. Here Xie Li misinterpreted the idiomatic phrases Tom used. First he thought that Tom didn‟t take the failure of the experiment seriously and wanted to escape from it, because he said he would “face the music”Secondly, he misinterpreted Tom‟s …playing the game‟ as that he hadn‟t done the experiment seriously, which might have led to the failure.Case 2In 1997, a Danish woman left her 14-month-old baby girl in a stroller outside a Manhattan restaurant while she was inside. Other diners at the restaurant became concerned and called New York City Police. The woman was charged with endangering a child and was jailed for two nights. Her child was placed in foster care. The woman and the Danish consulate explained that leaving children unattended outside cafes is common in Denmark. Pictures were wired to the police showing numerous strollers parked outside cafes while parents were eating inside.Key:This case reflects preconceived notion, one of the barriers to the effective intercultural communication----assuming similarity instead of difference. In American culture, it is illegal for parents to leave their baby alone while it is commonplace for parents to do so in Danish culture. The Danish woman had assumed that Copenhagen is similar to New York, that what is commonly done in Copenhagen is also commonly done in New York.Case 3Mr. Wang, the Chairman of Board of Directors of a Chinese firm, told a story on CCTV program "Dialogue" of how he once almost lost a valuable Canadian employee working for him in Vancouver. He emailed every day to the Canadian, inquiring for the index number he was most concerned about. To his great astonishment, his Canadian employee turned in his resignation after a week. Mr. Wang was puzzled how he could do that to him as he gave such great attention to his job.Key:The resignation of Canadian employee resulted from the communication barrier due to the preconception of Mr. Wang, the Chairman of Board of Directors. Mr. Wang assumed unconsciously that the Canadian was more similar to his Chinese employees than he actually was and treated him just as he treated any Chinese employee. A Chinese employee would have been more than happy if his or her boss had showed such great concern for him or her. But Mr. Wang found out that, unlike Chinese employees, the Canadian took what meant great concern to Chinese as distrust.。
法律的案例分析英语(3篇)
第1篇Introduction:The case of Johnson v. Smith is a landmark legal case that deals withthe issue of tort law and the duty of care owed by individuals to others. The case revolves around the concept of negligence and its applicationin a real-life scenario. In this analysis, we will examine the facts of the case, the legal principles involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the final judgment rendered by the court.Facts of the Case:The plaintiff, Johnson, was walking on a public sidewalk when he tripped over a broken brick and sustained severe injuries. The defendant, Smith, owned the property on which the sidewalk was located. Johnson filed a lawsuit against Smith, claiming that Smith was negligent in maintaining the sidewalk and that his negligence caused Johnson's injuries.Arguments by the Plaintiff:The plaintiff argued that Smith had a duty to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition and that he breached this duty by failing to repair the broken brick. The plaintiff further claimed that this breach of duty directly caused his injuries, and therefore, Smith should beheld liable for the damages he suffered.Arguments by the Defendant:The defendant argued that he did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff as the plaintiff was a trespasser on the property. The defendant also claimed that the broken brick was an open and obvious danger, and that the plaintiff should have been aware of the risk and avoided it.Legal Principles Involved:1. Duty of Care: The first legal principle involved in this case is the duty of care. In tort law, individuals owe a duty of care to others to act in a manner that does not cause harm. This duty is generally owed toindividuals who are within the scope of the relationship between the parties.2. Negligence: Negligence is the failure to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm to another person. To establish negligence, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and caused harm as a result.3. Causation: Causation is the link between the defendant's breach of duty and the plaintiff's injuries. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant's actions directly caused the harm suffered.4. Open and Obvious Dangers: In certain situations, individuals may be deemed to have assumed the risk of harm if the danger is open and obvious. This defense can be used to argue that the plaintiff's injuries were the result of his own negligence rather than the defendant's.Analysis:The court found that Smith owed a duty of care to the plaintiff as the plaintiff was a lawful visitor on the property. The court further found that Smith breached this duty by failing to repair the broken brick, which posed a significant risk of harm to pedestrians.Regarding the argument that the broken brick was an open and obvious danger, the court held that the danger was not so obvious that a reasonable person would have been expected to notice and avoid it. The court noted that the broken brick was hidden beneath debris and that it was not readily apparent to a pedestrian.The court also found that there was a direct causal link between Smith's breach of duty and Johnson's injuries. Johnson would not have tripped over the broken brick if it had been repaired, and therefore, Smith's negligence directly caused Johnson's injuries.Judgment:Based on the above findings, the court held Smith liable for Johnson's injuries. The court awarded Johnson damages for his medical expenses,pain and suffering, and other losses incurred as a result of the accident.Conclusion:The case of Johnson v. Smith highlights the importance of the duty of care and the principle of negligence in tort law. It demonstrates how the court evaluates the facts of a case, applies legal principles, and renders a judgment that is fair and just. This case serves as a valuable precedent for future cases involving similar issues of duty of care and negligence.第2篇I. IntroductionThe case of J.K. Rowling v. RDR Books, Inc. is a landmark copyright infringement case that was decided by the United States Supreme Court in 2003. The case revolves around the unauthorized publication of a book titled "The Harry Potter Lexicon" by RDR Books, Inc., which was based on the Harry Potter series written by J.K. Rowling. This case issignificant because it clarifies the scope of copyright protection for works of fiction and the limitations of the fair use doctrine.II. BackgroundJ.K. Rowling is the author of the popular Harry Potter series, which has sold millions of copies worldwide and has been translated into numerous languages. The Harry Potter series is a work of fiction that follows the adventures of a young wizard named Harry Potter and his friends at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.In 2000, RDR Books, Inc. published a book titled "The Harry Potter Lexicon," which is a reference guide to the Harry Potter universe. The Lexicon contains detailed information about the characters, spells, magical creatures, and other aspects of the Harry Potter series. The Lexicon was compiled by a fan named Steve Vander Ark, who obtained much of the information from the Harry Potter series and other fan-generated materials.J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter series, filed a lawsuit against RDR Books, Inc. for copyright infringement, claiming that the Lexicon infringes on her copyright in the Harry Potter series. RDR Books, Inc. argued that the Lexicon qualifies as a fair use under the Copyright Act of 1976.III. IssuesThe primary issue in this case is whether the Lexicon qualifies as afair use under the Copyright Act of 1976. The fair use doctrine is a limitation on the exclusive rights granted to copyright owners under the Copyright Act. It allows for the use of copyrighted material without permission from the copyright owner under certain circumstances.IV. AnalysisA. Fair Use DoctrineThe fair use doctrine is codified in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, which provides that certain uses of copyrighted material may be considered fair use. The factors that a court must consider when determining whether a use is fair include:1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether the use isfor commercial or nonprofit educational purposes.2. The nature of the copyrighted work.3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.4. The effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.B. Application of the Fair Use Factors1. Purpose and Character of the UseThe Lexicon is a reference guide that provides information about the Harry Potter series. The primary purpose of the Lexicon is to help readers understand the intricate details of the Harry Potter universe.The use of the Lexicon is for a nonprofit educational purpose, as it is intended to enhance the reader's understanding of the Harry Potter series.2. Nature of the Copyrighted WorkThe Harry Potter series is a work of fiction, which falls under the category of creative works. While creative works are generally protected by copyright, the fair use doctrine allows for the use of copyrighted material for certain purposes, such as educational or transformative uses.3. Amount and Substantiality of the Portion UsedThe Lexicon contains extensive excerpts from the Harry Potter series, including quotes, character descriptions, and summaries of events. However, the court found that the Lexicon does not contain a substantial amount of the copyrighted work, as it does not reproduce the entire series or provide a comprehensive summary of the plot.4. Effect of the Use on the Potential Market for or Value of the Copyrighted WorkThe court found that the Lexicon does not harm the potential market for the Harry Potter series. While the Lexicon provides information that is already available in the series, it does not replace the original work or diminish its value. In fact, the Lexicon may even enhance thereader's enjoyment of the series by providing additional context and information.V. ConclusionIn the case of J.K. Rowling v. RDR Books, Inc., the United States Supreme Court held that the Lexicon does not qualify as a fair use under the Copyright Act of 1976. The court found that the Lexicon's use of copyrighted material from the Harry Potter series is not transformative and does not serve an educational purpose. This decision clarifies the scope of copyright protection for works of fiction and reinforces theimportance of the fair use doctrine in balancing the rights of copyright owners with the interests of the public.VI. Impact of the CaseThe decision in the case of J.K. Rowling v. RDR Books, Inc. has had a significant impact on the interpretation of the fair use doctrine in the context of copyright infringement cases involving works of fiction. The case emphasizes the importance of the transformative nature of a work and the educational purposes behind a use in determining whether it qualifies as a fair use.Furthermore, the case serves as a reminder to authors and publishersthat copyright protection extends to the creative elements of a work and that unauthorized use of copyrighted material, even for educational purposes, may infringe on the rights of the copyright owner.In conclusion, the case of J.K. Rowling v. RDR Books, Inc. is a significant legal precedent that provides guidance on the scope of copyright protection for works of fiction and the application of thefair use doctrine. The decision underscores the importance of balancing the rights of copyright owners with the interests of the public and the transformative nature of creative works.第3篇IntroductionThe case of Johnson v. Smith is a notable legal dispute that highlights the intersection of contract law and tort law. This analysis aims to delve into the facts of the case, the legal principles involved, the court's decision, and the implications of the ruling. The case involves two parties, Johnson and Smith, who entered into a contract for the sale of a piece of land. However, disputes arose, leading to litigation. This analysis will examine the key issues, arguments, and the court's reasoning in reaching its decision.Facts of the CaseIn 2010, Johnson, a real estate developer, entered into a contract with Smith, a landowner, to purchase a 10-acre plot of land for the purpose of constructing a residential complex. The contract, which was written and signed by both parties, specified the purchase price, the terms of payment, and the closing date. Johnson paid a deposit of $50,000 upon signing the contract.However, as the closing date approached, Johnson became concerned about the land's suitability for development. He hired a geotechnical engineer to conduct a soil test on the property. The engineer's report indicated that the land contained a high level of radon gas, which could pose significant health risks to future residents.Johnson, upon learning this information, attempted to renegotiate the contract with Smith, requesting a reduction in the purchase price or the cancellation of the deal. Smith refused, claiming that the contract was enforceable and that Johnson was obligated to proceed with the purchase as agreed.Johnson, unable to reach a compromise with Smith, filed a lawsuit against Smith, seeking to void the contract on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. Johnson argued that Smith had failed to disclose the presence of radon gas in the land, which he claimed was a material fact that would have influenced his decision to enter into the contract.Legal Principles InvolvedThe case of Johnson v. Smith involves several key legal principles, including:1. Contract Law: The contract between Johnson and Smith is the central issue in this case. The court must determine whether the contract is enforceable and whether Johnson has a right to void it based on the alleged misrepresentations made by Smith.2. Tort Law: Johnson's claim of fraud and misrepresentation falls under tort law. The court must decide whether Smith's actions constitute fraud and whether Johnson suffered damages as a result.3. Material Fact: The court must determine whether the presence of radon gas is a material fact that would have influenced Johnson's decision to enter into the contract.4. Good Faith: The court must assess whether Johnson acted in good faith when he attempted to renegotiate the contract.Court's DecisionThe court, after hearing both parties' arguments and reviewing the evidence, ruled in favor of Johnson. The court held that Smith had breached the contract by failing to disclose the presence of radon gas, which was a material fact that would have influenced Johnson's decision to purchase the land.The court further found that Smith's failure to disclose this information was fraudulent, as he knew about the radon gas but deliberately concealed it from Johnson. The court held that Johnson had a right to void the contract based on fraud and misrepresentation.Implications of the RulingThe ruling in Johnson v. Smith has several important implications:1. Enforcement of Contracts: The case underscores the importance of full disclosure in contract negotiations. Parties to a contract are expected to act in good faith and disclose all material facts that could influence the other party's decision.2. Fraud and Misrepresentation: The case serves as a reminder that fraud and misrepresentation can void contracts. Parties who engage in such conduct may be held liable for damages.3. Material Fact: The case clarifies the standard for determining what constitutes a material fact. If a fact is likely to influence a reasonable person's decision, it is considered material.4. Good Faith: The court's decision emphasizes the importance of good faith in business transactions. Parties are expected to act honestly and fairly, even in the context of negotiations.ConclusionThe case of Johnson v. Smith is a compelling example of how legal principles can intersect in complex disputes. The court's ruling provides valuable guidance on the enforceability of contracts, the consequences of fraud and misrepresentation, and the importance of full disclosure and good faith in business transactions. The case serves as a cautionary tale for parties entering into contracts and emphasizes the need for transparency and honesty in all business dealings.。
法律英语-教学大纲
《法律英语》教学大纲课程编号：100152B课程类型：□通识教育必修课□通识教育选修课□专业必修课□专业选修课√□学科基础课总学时：32讲课学时：30实验（上机）学时：0学分：2适用对象：法学本科生先修课程：宪法、民法、合同法、刑法一、教学目标本课程是针对法学院本科生的专业选修课，为已经具有一定法学基础和英语基础的学生开设。
在法律职业、法律实务以及法学研究日益国际化的背景下，本课程对完善本科生的知识结构，培养专业英语语言能力具有重要作用，其在法学院本科人才培养方案中处于基础性地位。
本课程的学习将为学生进一步学习法学院的其他课程，扩展视野，为学生参加英文的各类比赛活动有较大的帮助。
目标1：本课程主要讲授英文课文、讨论美国司法判例、引导学生课堂陈述，在修完本课程后，学生应掌握主要法律部门中基本和常用的法律英语术语，能运用，具备初级水准的法律英语阅读、写作及口头表达能力。
目标2：本课程的主题将涉及法律体系、司法系统，及宪法、行政法、合同法、侵权法、刑法、诉讼法等，通过课程学习，学生应大体了解英美法系国家的法律制度及法律文化，拥有国际视野。
目标3：本课程将引导学生检索法规、判例等英文原始资料，课程结束后，学生应了解主要的外文数据库和资料库，具备收集和整理法律英语文献和资料的能力。
二、教学内容及其与毕业要求的对应关系（一）教学内容讲授上的要求在课程内容分布上，重点讲授宪法、民法、合同法和刑法等基础法律部门中的重要法律英语术语。
其中，对于与普通英语在用法和意义上存在较大差别的专业术语，行业俚语等，细讲、精讲。
有关英美法律制度本身，粗讲或者选讲，以帮助学生获得专业英语运用能力为中心。
对于重点内容，通过借助视频资料、案例分析等方式进行讲授。
（二）拟采取的教学方法、教学手段本课程建议大量采用案例教学的方法，通过课前布置主题阅读任务、课堂分组讨论、学生陈述、模拟练习等方法提高学生的法律英语运用能力。
（三）对实践教学环节的要求无。
起诉书和起诉状的翻译
起诉书和起诉状的翻译很多法律翻译者把起诉书和起诉状当成一回事。
实际上，它们之间是有区别的。
在司法实践中，起诉书（bill of indictment），是指人民检察院对侦察终结的的案件进行审查，认为被告人的犯罪事实清楚，证据确实充分，依法应当追究刑事责任，做出起诉决定后，代表国家将被告人交付人民法院审判时制作的法律文书。
起诉状则包括民事起诉状、行政起诉状、刑事自诉状、刑事附带民事起诉状。
尽管这些诉讼用的司法文书的作用、性质不同、但其主要内容及格式却差别不大。
在此，我们仅以最具代表性的民事诉讼状的翻译为例进行探讨。
民事起诉状（civil complaint），是指与民事案件有直接利害关系的公民、法人或非法人团体、为维护其民事权益，就有关民事权利义务的争议，向有管辖权的人民法院提起诉讼，请求追究被告民事责任时所制作的诉状。
民事起诉状作为使用频率颇高的一种司法文书，在翻译时除了要注意一般司法文书的的特点及翻译要点外，还应注意以下两个要点：一、我国与英美国家的民事诉讼状在格式上有所不同，翻译时应遵循“客随主便”的原则。
在将民事起诉状译为汉语时应该保留原文的格式，同样在我国的民事起诉状译为英语时也没有必要改头换面，完全可以保留原文的格式特色。
而在语言方面，在忠实于原文的基础上，可以尽量照顾到译入语的表达特点。
如将costs of suit译为“诉讼费用”，将RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED译为“此致”等。
英美的民事起诉状在行文时各个部分之间往往用一些惯用语来予以过度，了解这些惯用语对更好地翻译民事起诉状大有益处。
比如：在“ALLEGATION”部分，往往以诸如此类的句子开始：“PLAINTIFF ALLEDGES AS FOLLOWS：”；“原告诉称如下：”“PLAINTIFF, BY HIS ATTORNEY, ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:”；“原告通过其律师诉称如下：”“PLAINTIFF, BY HIS ATTORNEY, AS AND FOR HIS COMPLAINT HEREBY ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS：”。
土木工程英文文献及翻译
Civil engineeringCivil engineering is a professional engineering discipline that deals with the design, construction, and maintenance of the physical and naturally built environment, including works like bridges, roads, canals, dams, and buildings.[1][2][3] Civil engineering is the oldest engineering discipline after military engineering,[4] and it was defined to distinguish non-military engineering from military engineering.[5] It is traditionally broken into several sub-disciplines including environmental engineering, geotechnical engineering, structural engineering, transportation engineering, municipal or urban engineering, water resources engineering, materials engineering, coastal engineering,[4] surveying, and construction engineering.[6] Civil engineering takes place on all levels: in the public sector from municipal through to national governments, and in the private sector from individual homeowners through to international companies.History of the civil engineering professionSee also: History of structural engineeringEngineering has been an aspect of life since the beginnings of human existence. The earliest practices of Civil engineering may have commenced between 4000 and 2000 BC in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia (Ancient Iraq) when humans started to abandon a nomadic existence, thus causing a need for the construction of shelter. During this time, transportation became increasingly important leading to the development of the wheel and sailing.Until modern times there was no clear distinction between civil engineering and architecture, and the term engineer and architect were mainly geographical variations referring to the same person, often used interchangeably.[7]The construction of Pyramids in Egypt (circa 2700-2500 BC) might be considered the first instances of large structure constructions. Other ancient historic civil engineering constructions include the Parthenon by Iktinos in Ancient Greece (447-438 BC), theAppian Way by Roman engineers (c. 312 BC), the Great Wall of China by General Meng T'ien under orders from Ch'in Emperor Shih Huang Ti (c. 220 BC)[6] and the stupas constructed in ancient Sri Lanka like the Jetavanaramaya and the extensive irrigation works in Anuradhapura. The Romans developed civil structures throughout their empire, including especially aqueducts, insulae, harbours, bridges, dams and roads.In the 18th century, the term civil engineering was coined to incorporate all things civilian as opposed to military engineering.[5]The first self-proclaimed civil engineer was John Smeaton who constructed the Eddystone Lighthouse.[4][6]In 1771 Smeaton and some of his colleagues formed the Smeatonian Society of Civil Engineers, a group of leaders of the profession who met informally over dinner. Though there was evidence of some technical meetings, it was little more than a social society.In 1818 the Institution of Civil Engineers was founded in London, and in 1820 the eminent engineer Thomas Telford became its first president. The institution received a Royal Charter in 1828, formally recognising civil engineering as a profession. Its charter defined civil engineering as:the art of directing the great sources of power in nature for the use and convenience of man, as the means of production and of traffic in states, both for external and internal trade, as applied in the construction of roads, bridges, aqueducts, canals, river navigation and docks for internal intercourse and exchange, and in the construction of ports, harbours, moles, breakwaters and lighthouses, and in the art of navigation by artificial power for the purposes of commerce, and in the construction and application of machinery, and in the drainage of cities and towns.[8] The first private college to teach Civil Engineering in the United States was Norwich University founded in 1819 by Captain Alden Partridge.[9] The first degree in Civil Engineering in the United States was awarded by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1835.[10] The first such degree to be awarded to a woman was granted by Cornell University to Nora Stanton Blatchin 1905.History of civil engineeringCivil engineering is the application of physical and scientific principles, and its history is intricately linked to advances in understanding of physics and mathematics throughout history. Because civil engineering is a wide ranging profession, including several separate specialized sub-disciplines, its history is linked to knowledge of structures, materials science, geography, geology, soils, hydrology, environment, mechanics and other fields.Throughout ancient and medieval history most architectural design and construction was carried out by artisans, such as stone masons and carpenters, rising to the role of master builder. Knowledge was retained in guilds and seldom supplanted by advances. Structures, roads and infrastructure that existed were repetitive, and increases in scale were incremental.[12]One of the earliest examples of a scientific approach to physical and mathematical problems applicable to civil engineering is the work of Archimedes in the 3rd century BC, including Archimedes Principle, which underpins our understanding of buoyancy, and practical solutions such as Archimedes' screw. Brahmagupta, an Indian mathematician, used arithmetic in the 7th century AD, based on Hindu-Arabic numerals, for excavation (volume) computations.[13]Civil engineers typically possess an academic degree with a major in civil engineering. The length of study for such a degree is usually three to five years and the completed degree is usually designated as a Bachelor of Engineering, though some universities designate the degree as a Bachelor of Science. The degree generally includes units covering physics, mathematics, project management, design and specific topics in civil engineering. Initially such topics cover most, if not all, of thesub-disciplines of civil engineering. Students then choose to specialize in one or more sub-disciplines towards the end of the degree.[14]While anUndergraduate (BEng/BSc) Degree will normally provide successful students with industry accredited qualification, some universities offer postgraduate engineering awards (MEng/MSc) which allow students to further specialize in their particular area of interest within engineering.[15]In most countries, a Bachelor's degree in engineering represents the first step towards professional certification and the degree program itself is certified by a professional body. After completing a certified degree program the engineer must satisfy a range of requirements (including work experience and exam requirements) before being certified. Once certified, the engineer is designated the title of Professional Engineer (in the United States, Canada and South Africa), Chartered Engineer (in most Commonwealth countries), Chartered Professional Engineer (in Australia and New Zealand), or European Engineer (in much of the European Union). There are international engineering agreements between relevant professional bodies which are designed to allow engineers to practice across international borders.The advantages of certification vary depending upon location. For example, in the United States and Canada "only a licensed engineer may prepare, sign and seal, and submit engineering plans and drawings to a public authority for approval, or seal engineering work for public and private clients.".[16]This requirement is enforced by state and provincial legislation such as Quebec's Engineers Act.[17]In other countries, no such legislation exists. In Australia, state licensing of engineers is limited to the state of Queensland. Practically all certifying bodies maintain a code of ethics that they expect all members to abide by or risk expulsion.[18] In this way, these organizations play an important role in maintaining ethical standards for the profession. Even in jurisdictions where certification has little or no legal bearing on work, engineers are subject to contract law. In cases where an engineer's work fails he or she may be subject to the tort of negligence and, in extreme cases, thecharge of criminal negligence.[citation needed] An engineer's work must also comply with numerous other rules and regulations such as building codes and legislation pertaining to environmental law.CareersThere is no one typical career path for civil engineers. Most people who graduate with civil engineering degrees start with jobs that require a low level of responsibility, and as the new engineers prove their competence, they are trusted with tasks that have larger consequences and require a higher level of responsibility. However, within each branch of civil engineering career path options vary. In some fields and firms, entry-level engineers are put to work primarily monitoring construction in the field, serving as the "eyes and ears" of senior design engineers; while in other areas, entry-level engineers perform the more routine tasks of analysis or design and interpretation. Experienced engineers generally do more complex analysis or design work, or management of more complex design projects, or management of other engineers, or into specialized consulting, including forensic engineering.In general, civil engineering is concerned with the overall interface of human created fixed projects with the greater world. General civil engineers work closely with surveyors and specialized civil engineers to fit and serve fixed projects within their given site, community and terrain by designing grading, drainage, pavement, water supply, sewer service, electric and communications supply, and land divisions. General engineers spend much of their time visiting project sites, developing community consensus, and preparing construction plans. General civil engineering is also referred to as site engineering, a branch of civil engineering that primarily focuses on converting a tract of land from one usage to another. Civil engineers typically apply the principles of geotechnical engineering, structural engineering, environmental engineering, transportation engineering and construction engineering toresidential, commercial, industrial and public works projects of all sizes and levels of construction翻译：土木工程土木工程是一个专业的工程学科，包括设计，施工和维护与环境的改造，涉及了像桥梁，道路，河渠，堤坝和建筑物工程交易土木工程是最古老的军事工程后，工程学科，它被定义为区分军事工程非军事工程的学科它传统分解成若干子学科包括环境工程，岩土工程，结构工程，交通工程，市或城市工程，水资源工程，材料工程，海岸工程，勘测和施工工程等土木工程的范围涉及所有层次：从市政府到国家，从私人部门到国际公司。
法律英语之侵权的相关内容
Definition of tort侵权的定义Categories of tort侵权行为的分类Intentional torts故意侵权Meaning of intent意向书的含义The main intentional torts主要的故意侵权Defenses to intentional torts故意侵权的抗辩Cases for in-class discussionNegligent tort *过失侵权*Meaning of negligence疏忽的含义Components of a negligent tort: Duty of care 疏忽侵权的组件：注意义务Defenses to negligent torts过失侵权行为的抗辩Cases for in-class discussionStrict liability *严格责任*Meaning of strict liability严格责任的含义The main torts where strict liability applies 主要侵权，严格责任的适用范围Limitations on strict liability 严格法律责任的限制Cases for in-class discussionGeneral IntroductionThe definition of tort侵权的定义A civil wrong wherein one person's conduct causes a compensable injury to the person, property, or a recognized interest of another, in violation of a duty imposed by law.一个人的行为引起了一种损害他人的人身，财产，公共利益，或违反法律所规定的义务的可赔偿的民事错误。
美国侵权法相关演示
2.1. 4 Causation
This element refers to actual cause and proximate cause. It will be treated in its own section.
3 Negligence
Amongst unintentional torts one finds negligence as being the most common source of common law. Most Americans are under the impression that most people can sue for any type of negligence, but it is untrue in most US jurisdictions (partly because negligence is one of the few torts for which ordinary people can and do obtain liability insurance.)
例如：某被告驾车高速行驶撞伤了街角的路人甲，站 在两个街区以外的一栋高楼上的路人乙看到了撞伤人 的这一场景，受到严重的惊吓，从楼上掉下摔成重伤。 毫无疑问，被告对甲某负有谨慎驾驶的义务，应对甲 某承担责任。但是，要求被告对两个街区以外的高楼 上的乙某也负有谨慎驾驶的义务，对其所受的伤害承 担责任是不合理的，因为一个正常人，无论是如何小 心，处在被告的位置，也绝不可能预见到自己的行为 会对乙某造成伤害。
It is a form of extra contractual liability that is based upon a failure to comply with the duty of care of a reasonable person, which failure is the actual cause and proximate cause of damages. That is, but for the tortfeasor’s act or omission, the damages to the plaintiff would not have been incurred, and the damages were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the tortious conduct.
英美法律制度 Negligence
I. ELEMENTS OF NEGLIGENCE
1. The Duty of Care and its Breach Central to the tort of negligence is the concept of a duty of care. This concept arises from the notion that if we are to live in society with other people, some actions can be tolerated and some can not; some actions are right and some are wrong; and some actions are reasonable and some are not. The basic principle underlying the duty of care is that people are free to act as they please so long as their actions do not infringe on the interests of others.
– from the judgment (at 580)
reasonable person standard
Tort law defines and measures the duty of care by the reasonable person standard. Would a "reasonable person of ordinary prudence," in Defendant’s position, do as Defendant did? Defendant does not escape liability merely because she intended to behave carefully or thought she was behaving carefully. He is judged by the hypothetical reasonable person.
贸易合同中的9个重要条款
贸易合同中的9个重要条款1、管辖权条款（Jurisdiction Clause）：在合同里出现的管辖条款便于出现纠纷时卖方提出诉请并进行协商。
参考条款：All disputes arising from the execution of, or In connection with this contract，shall be settled amicably through friendly negotiation。
In case no settlement can be reached through negotiation，the case shall then be submitted to the Foreign Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission of the Promotion of international Trade，Beijing，for arbitration in accordance with its rules of procedure。
The arbitration award is final and blinding upon both parties。
2、物权保留条款（Retention of Title ）：这一条款的目的在于卖方在获得货款之前保有对货物的所有权.参考条款:The ownership of the goods shall not pass to customer and full legal and beneficial ownership of the goods shall remain with the seller unless and until seller has received the payment in full for the goods。
3、异议期（Complaint period）：参考条款：The buyer must examine the goods，or cause them to beexamined, within as short a period as is practicable in the circumstances. The buyer loses the right to rely on a lack of conformity within a reasonable time after he has discovered it or ought to have discovered it.4、约定第三方质检机构(Inspection report by whom?）：第三方机构出具的检验报告是出现质量纠纷时的重要证据。
美国侵权法(中英文)
美国侵权法（中英文）Restatement of the Law，Third，Torts by The American Law Institute美国法学会《侵权法第三次重述》Part One: Intoduction of Torts 侵权法概述Part Two：Apportionment of Liability（Rule Sections）第一部分：责任分担Part Three: Products Liability 产品责任Part One: Intoduction of Torts 侵权法概述在美国，侵权法主要属于各州的法律范畴，而且主要由判例法组成。
侵权行为可分为故意侵权行为（intentional tort)、过失侵权行为（negligence or negligent tort)和严格责任侵权行为(strict liability tort). 对侵权行为的一般救济方法是对侵权行为所造成的损害予以一定的金钱补偿，在涉及交通事故等领域的侵权赔偿已广范采用了保险赔偿的方式。
Part One: Introduction 基本概念1. The law of tort is still the source of most civil suits in the United States,with damage claims for automobile accidents taking first place. Many circumstances contribute to this: (a) the plaintiff in an American civil suit is ordinarily entitled to try his claim before a jury which will often--and understandably--rely more on human than on legal considerations, for instance when a child has been injured in an automobile accident or through a defective product of a large enterprise; (b) Compensation and damages include not only the actual loss but also the intangible damage.A plaintiff can therefore often play on the human reaction of the jury: for instance, what is appropriate compensation for a permanent disability such as the loss of a limb? (c) American law permits the participation of the attorney in the plaintiff’s recovery (contingent fee) which not uncommonly amounts to 25 to 33 percent of the verdict. As a result of all of these factors, a tort action may be a lengthy proceeding, result in large expenses, for instance through honoraria for experts (which may deter the "small "plaintiff from suing at all), and may end in the award of a very large verdict. It is no linger uncommon that a jury will aware a verdict in excess of ＄100,000. These conditions have been the touchstone for several reform endeavors which will be discussed in more detail below. 在美国，侵权行为法产生的诉讼仍是大多民事诉讼案件的主要来源，其中基于交通事故产生的损害赔偿案件居于首位。
Negligence
TortTort law is concerned with wrongful conduct by one person that causes harm to another.A tort is a civil wrong. It provides a mechanism whereby an individual can protect their personal and property rights. If these rights are infringed侵犯, the victim may seek compensation from the wrongdoer.There is some overlap between tort law and criminal law: a person’s act may involve both a crime and a tort, eg assault袭击, battery, theft/ conversion.However, criminal proceedings are taken in the name of the state, while proceeding in tort are taken by the injured person as private citizen.The standards of proof differ:-In criminal action, it is “beyond reasonable doubt”-In civil action, it is “on the balance of probabilities”NegligenceThe tort of Negligence means a failure to take reasonable care to prevent loss or damage to others that was foreseeable, and should have been prevented. Categories of conduct include:- A positive act- A failure to act( omission):Hawkins v Clayton B在C立遗嘱把房给H，C 6年后才找H，房贬值-Making a statement or giving advice, or failing to do so:Rogers v Whitaker R帮W做眼手术，前没说风险，后整盲另一只眼Categories of harm include:-Physical injury to the person:Hole v Hocking 做的士受伤-Physical damage to property-Purely economic loss:Perre v Apand Pty Ltd A在P旁种野，传染病毒，令P赔钱To establish liability for Negligence it must be established on the facts of the particular case that-The defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care-The defendant breached the duty of care-Damage must have been suffered as a result of the breach of dutyDuty of CareThere are three factors;①Firstly, it must have been reasonably foreseeable to a person in the position of the defendant that injury or harm of some kind would happen to someone as a result of the kind of conduct engaged in by the defendant.②Secondly, the plaintiff must be a person or a member of a class of persons who it was foreseeable might suffer harm as a result of the defendant’s conduct.–Waverly Council v Fereirra③Thirdly, a recognised 'duty situation or relationship' must have existed in which the defendant was required to prevent the foreseeable harm to the plaintiff.Example of duty situationsFor example, a duty to prevent foreseeable harm has been recognized by the courts as arising between:–Occupiers of property and persons entering the propertyAustralian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna Z在S门口滑倒，受伤–Statutory authorities and the public:Waverly Council v Fereirra 12岁F在公园玩时死了，F父告W–Road users and other persons on the road–Persons in a fiduciary relationship, e.g. principals and agents–Persons in a contractual relationship–Manufacturers and consumers:Donoghue v Stevenson D去餐厅，见啤酒里有蛇，告S和生产商In more unusual types of case, the courts weigh up various factors which may point to the existence of a duty of care, for example, considerations of policy and fairness; the extent to which the harm was foreseeable; the potential number of similar cases that might arise; and the likelihood of creating an unreasonable commercial burden by recognising a duty of care.In cases causing purely economic loss, a situation must be shown to exist in which the plaintiff was vulnerable, dependent or powerless, and the defendant in a position of control or power.– Perre v Apand Pty Ltd– Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty LtdWhen conduct that causes purely economic loss consists of giving wrong information or advice, a duty of care only exists if:– the speaker ought to have realised in the circumstances that they were being relied on to give accurate information or advice on the basis of which the other party might decide to act; and– it was reasonable for the other party to act on that information or advice given.–Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City CouncilS买地前问P路会不会变宽，P说不会，S买后发现会Breach of Duty of CareA person who owes a duty of care must take appropriate steps to avoid the harm from occurring. The standard is: what steps would an ordinary prudent 谨慎的person take in the circumstances to avoid the harm?Use the reasonable person test: how would he/she act in the shoes of the defendant? If the defendant’s conduct falls below the standard of the reasonable person they have breached their duty of careBreach of Duty of Care: Factors to consider1.The probability that the harm would occur if care was not takenRomeo v Conservation Commission of Northern TerritoryR饮了酒从悬崖跌下，受伤Bolton v Stone B在家门口俾旁棒球场的棒球打伤2.The likely seriousness of the harmParis v Stepney Borough Council P在S打工，整盲另一只眼3.The burden责任of taking precautions采取预防措施to avoid the risk of harmCaledonian Collieries v Speirs S开车被火车撞死，老婆告C没任何提醒4.The social utility of the activity that creates the risk of harmMercer v Tramways Com’er5.The social utility of the activity that creates the risk of harmDamage caused by Breach of Duty of CareThe damage suffered by plaintiff must be caused by the defendantMarch v StramareThe harm must not be too remote- a person in the defendant’s position must have recognized the harm as a r eal possibilit y, not very remote or beyong what would have been reasonably contemplated.Wagon MoundHarm that cannot be quantified in monetary terms is not recognized;Ordinary grief or sorrow is not recognized as harm.Q3 B没有买票，有意外，K照顾B辞职，抵押被银行收First issue:is the rock concert organiser liable in negligence to Ben?Rules/Principles:To succeed in an action in negligence, the plaintiff must prove on the balance of probabilities that (a) a duty of care is owed, (b) that the duty of care has been breached and (c) that the breach caused damage which is not too remote from the breach.(a)To establish a duty of care, the plaintiff must satisfy the “neighbour principle” established by Lord Akinin Donoghue v Stevenson. Under the neighbour test, a person must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that they can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure their neighbour. In law, your neighbour is “those persons so closely and directly affected by your acts that you ought reasonably have them in contemplation as being so affected when directing your mind to the acts or omissions which are called into question.” Students may also consider discussing what was once seen as the second requirement in establishing a duty of care in physical injury cases -that of proximity. Proximity involves an evaluation of the closeness of the relationship between the parties. As stated by Deane J in Jaensch v Coffey, proximity may be either physical, circumstantial or causal. However, in recent cases the High Court of Australia has questioned the use of proximity in determining the existence of a duty of care. As stated by McHugh J in Tame v NSW, “you come under a duty only in respect of acts and omissions that you can reasonably foresee may affect your neighbours - persons who are directly and closely affected by your acts. But that is not a ground for regarding proximity as a factor that is independent of reasonable foreseeability.” Thus, proximity is no longer considered to be a separate requirement, but falls under whether the test of reasonable foreseeability is satisfied.Students should also consider whether there are any relevant established duties of care. Precedent has established that occupiers owe a duty of care to entrants to the premises. With respect to lawful entrants, occupiers owe a duty of care to avoid any reasonably foreseeable risk of injury (Australian Safeway Stores v Zaluzna). In some circumstances, a duty of care is also owed to uninvited visitors such as trespassers. In Hackshaw v Shaw, it was held that the defendant farmer owed a duty of care to a trespasser to avoid “ultra-hazardous” acts (firing bullets). However, in Bryant v Fawdon the occupier was held not to owe a duty of care to the plaintiff trespasser, given that the injury was not reasonably foreseeable (the plaintiff climbed a 1.8 metre fence to get to a toilet and was knocked unconscious when she attempted to flush the toilet’s disused concrete cistern in the dark).(b)There must be a breach in the standard of care. A person breaches their duty of care if they fail tomeet the standard of care that the reasonable person is required to show to avoid unreasonable risk of harm (Imbree v McNeilly). The reasonable person need not respond to a risk that is “far-fetched and fanciful”.How a reasonable person would act in the shoes of the defendant may be gauged by reference to certain criteria, including the probability of the risk of injury (Bolton v Stone), the seriousness of the consequences (Paris v Stepney Bourough Council), the possibility of eliminating those risks (Woods v Multi-Sport Holding Pty Ltd), compliance with usual practice (Mercer v Commissioner for Road Transport and Tram ways) and the utility of the defendant’s conduct (Watt v Hertfordshire).(c)The breach must have caused damage. This is established by way of two tests:(i) causation– ‘but for’ the breach the damage would not have happened (Chappel v Hart, Cork vKirby McLean); and(ii) remoteness – is the damage reasonably foreseeable? (The Wagon Mound cases).Once negligence is established, it is necessary to consider whether any defences apply. If the defendant can show the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk, the defendant escapes all liability (Agar v Hyde). In the case of contributory negligence, the plaintiff’s compensation is reduced to the extent that the court considers just and equitable having regard to the plaintiff’s share in the responsibility for the damage (s 26 Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic)).Application:Students should consider all aspects of the issue, including arguments for both sides.In considering whether the rock concert organiser owed Ben a duty of care, it is necessary to apply the “neighbour test” of Donoghue v Stevenson. Arguably, it would appear to be reasonably foreseeable that, if it were to rain, concert-goers would seek shelter under the tarpaulin. Furthermore, it would appear to be reasonable foreseeable that, if the tarpaulin were to collapse, people sheltering under it would be injured. Clearly, lawful entrants are owed a duty of care by the occupier of the premises (Zaluzna’s case). The question is whether a duty of care is owed to Ben, given that he has not paid for a ticket and, hence, had no legal right to be there. In this regard the trespasser cases need to be considered. If the concert organiser engaged in “ultra-hazardous” behavior as in Hackshaw v Shaw, it owed Ben a duty of care.Arguably, it did so by failing to prevent Ben from sheltering under the water-heavy tarpaulin. On the other hand, the facts in Ben’s case bear some similarity to those of Bryant v Fawdon, where the plaintiff climbed a 1.8 metre fence to use a toilet she saw at the rear of the premises. It was held there was no reasonable foreseeable risk of injury and that the defendant did not therefore owe her a duty of care. (Whatever conclusion is drawn, students should proceed to argue the next two steps in establishing negligence - breach and damage.)In determining whether the concert organiser has breached the duty of care, it is necessary to consider the standard of the reasonable person. Did the concert organiser act as the reasonable person of ordinary prudence in the circumstances? Would the reasonable concert organiser have taken action to avoid the injury that occurred? Two factors in particular would indicate that the concert organiser did breach this duty. First, it appears highly probable that people are likely to be injured by the collapse of the tarpaulin under the weight of rainwater, thus necessitating some preventative action. Secondly, the burden of eliminating the risk does not appear to be prohibitive, difficult or expensive. The reasonable concert organiser arguably need only have cordoned off the area and/or placed warnings as to the risks of standing under the tarpaulin. Apart from Bolton v Stone and Woods v Multi-Sport Holding Pty Ltd, these principles are provided in s 48 Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic). Furthermore, under s 14G the court is to take into account the fact that the plaintiff (Ben) was involved in an illegal activity, in determining whether the defendant was in breach of its duty.Lastly, Ben’s injuries were caused by the concert organiser’s breach of the duty of care and his injuries are not too remote. “But for” the defendant’s breach, Ben would not have suffered these injuries. His injuries are reasonably foreseeable losses arising from the breach. Ben may therefore recover damages for his medical costs and compensation for his study and employment losses.After negligence has been established, the concert organiser’s defences should be discussed. Voluntary assumption of risk does not appear relevant on the facts, as Ben was nor aware of the risk. However, there may be a successful claim in contributory negligence, given that Ben was trespassing (Hackshaw v Shaw). The illegality of the plaintiff’s conduct is also taken into account under s 14G Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic).Conclusion:The rock concert organiser is liable in part to Ben.Second issue:is the rock concert organiser liable in negligence to Kath?Legal Principles:The same legal principles as were discussed above in relation to Ben, also apply to Kath. To succeed in an action in negligence, the plaintiff must prove on the balance of probabilities that (a) a duty of care is owed, (b) that the duty of care has been breached and (c) that the breach caused damage which is not too remote from the breach.Application:Kath may argue that under the “neighbour” test a duty of care was owed to her, it being reasonably foreseeable that the mother of the primary victim is likely to be affected by the defendant’s negligence (Tame v NSW). There is also causal proximity through the mother-son connection (Jaensch v Coffey). She may therefore recover damages for mental shock. However, this is not evident from the facts. The loss she suffered was not caused by the defendant’s breach, as she voluntarily resigned from work to look after Ben. Hence, it would appear that she has no right to compensation for her mortgage repayments and the sale of her home.Conclusion:The rock concert organiser is not liable to Kath.Q4 N开车吃东西，发现有老鼠，撞了P，妈E吓到晕This question appears to suggest a number of potential negligence actions requiring discussion. To succeed in negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) a DUTY OF CARE was OWED, (2) there has been a BREACH in the REQUIRED STANDARD OF CARE and (3) DAMAGE was caused which is not too remote. Additionally any potential defences need to be considered.1.NORM v GEORGIA CHICKEN BAR·DUTY OF CARETo establish a duty of care, we should consider Lord Atkin’s neighbour principle in Donoghue v Stevenson.It is reasonably foreseeable that if a consumer is sold defective food products that they may become ill. Also Norm was both physically, causally and circumstantially proximate to the chicken shop.Furthermore there is a recognised duty of care, established in Donoghue v Stevenson itself, that manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers to provide goods free of defects.The question in this case, however, is whether we can extend this duty to a consumer who buys the food to eat while driving.It is further arguable that it is reasonably foreseeable that a take-away food store will sell food to a driver who intends eating while in charge of a motor vehicle. This is so notwithstanding that it may offend traffic regulations to eat and drive at the same time. Illegality per se does not necessarily defeat an action in negligence (as in uninvited neighbour cases such as Hackshaw v Shaw).·BREACH IN THE REQUIRED STANDARD OF CAREThe question here is whether the Georgia Chicken Bar has acted as a reasonable food store. The finding of a mouse is not conclusive but is highly relevant to the question of proper pest control and quality control, which should be evident in order to meet the test of a reasonable person.·CAUSATIONBut for the poisoned food, the accident would not have occurred. It might also be said that there is a second cause of this accident; but for the fact that Norm was not fully concentrating on the road (by looking at and eating food), the accident may not have occurred.·DAMAGEClearly there has been physical injury to both Norm and his vehicle. Such damage is also not too remote; it isa reasonably foreseeable consequence of the “bad” food.DEFENCESThis suggests contributory negligence by Norm and the courts are likely to reduce Norm’s damages to reflect his own contribution to the accident.2.PAUL v NORM (in brief)·DUTY OF CAREIt is reasonably foreseeable that if a driver does not keep a proper lookout, a car accident might ensue. Norm was physically proximate to Paul (as well as causally and circumstantially proximate) by virtue of the collision of their cars.Additionally there is a recognised duty of care that drivers owe a duty to other road users to handle their vehicles carefully and keep a proper lookout.·BREACH IN THE REQUIRED STANDARD OF CAREA reasonable driver probably would concentrate on the road and not concern themselves with eating chickenwhile driving.·CAUSATIONAgain this is clear from an application of the “but for” test (although it is possible that the Georgia Chicken Bar may be joined as a defendant in this case).·DAMAGEThis is clearly evident and a direct consequence of Norm’s conduct.·DEFENCESThese are not apparent from the facts.3.PAUL v GEORGIA CHICKEN BAR (in brief)·DUTY OF CAREThis issue here is whether the duty of care discussed above in relation to Norm and the Georgia Chicken Bar can be extended to Paul.If it is both reasonably foreseeable that defective food products may make a consumer ill and that the consumer of take-away food products may drive and have an accident in such circumstances, it is only a small step to suggest that Paul is reasonably foreseeable to the Georgia Chicken Bar. If Paul is going to havea road collision, it is likely that he is going to have to road collision with a third party; in this case, Paul.Paul, while not physically proximate to the Georgia Chicken Bar, appears to be at least circumstantially proximate to the defendant, and there is also likely to be casual proximity between the chicken shop and Paul since they have “caused” or contributed to the occurrence of the accident.·OTHER ELEMENTS These have been discussed above. It appears that Paul’s injuries and property damage are not too remote. In this case, the defence of contributory negligence is not relevant.4.EDNA v GEORGIA CHICKEN BAR (in brief)·DUTY OF CAREThe extension of the duty of care (discussed above) to Edna is problematic and far less likely.While this scenario probably has some parallels with Jaensch v Coffey in that it is reasonably foreseeable that if one’s son is severely injured, his mother may suffer nervous shock, there is little likelihood of proximity between Edna and the chicken shop. She was neither present at the time of the accident, nor a witness to the immediate aftermath (as in Jaensch v Coffey).STANDARD OF CARE See aboveCAUSATION See aboveDAMAGEIt is also arguable that her injuries are too remote and not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the purchase of the take-away food by her son.DEFENCES See aboveIn summary, Edna is unlikely to succeed in negligence. The other three causes of action appear to have some merit.Q5 J买地前问MSC地的情况，买后发现不一样The facts give rise to a claim in negligent misstatement. An action for economic loss caused by negligent misstatement may succeed if the criteria for (1) duty of care, (2) breach in the requisite standard of care and (3) damage (causation and remoteness) are fulfilled. Defences (as in an action for negligent conduct) should also be considered.The main issue is whether the Meadows Shire Council (MSC) owed Jenny a duty of care.A duty of care arises where there is a “special relationship” between the parties (Hedley Byrne v Heller). This exists “where the recipient of the advice trusts the other to exercise such a degree of care as the circumstances require, where it is reasonable to do that, and where the speaker knows or ought to know the other is reliant on him/her.The test for establishing a “special relationship” was first set out by Barwick CJ in the High Court decision in MLC v Evatt. His decision was overruled by the Privy Council but became binding precedent in Shaddock v Parramatta City Council.1.The circumstances must be such as to have caused the speaker to realise that he/she is being trusted2.The subject matter must be of a business or serious nature3.The speaker must realise or ought to realise that the recipient intended to act on the advice4.The circumstances must be such that it is reasonable for the recipient to rely on the advice.Reasonable reliance is the key to establishing a relationship of proximity between the parties.Application to facts:1.At the outset, it can be said that MSC is vicariously liable for Steve’s negligent advice, as Steve acted inthe course of his authority as an MSC employee.2.In giving professional advice, Steve ought to realise that he is being trusted, in particular where hisadvice has been sought as an agent for the MSC.3.The advice given deals with land use rights and has a bearing on investment decisions. It is clearly of abusiness or serious nature.4.Steve ought to realise that Jenny intends to act on his advice as it was sought for ascertaining thepurposes for which the land could be used.5.It is reasonable for Jenny to rely on advice given by Steve based on his special skill, in that he had accessto knowledge not otherwise available. It would therefore be reasonable for Jenny to act in reliance of the advice given. The nature of the occasion made clear the gravity of the inquiry and the importance and influence attached to the answer (both Shaddock’s and Hedley Byrne’s cases support this). Because it was reasonable for Jenny to rely on Steve’s advice, a relationship of proximity arises between them.Accordingly, Jenny is owed a duty of care by MSC (acting through Steve).The other elements of negligence should be canvassed in your answer, although there is not a great deal to discuss with regard to the breach in the standard of care (since the MSC probably has not acted as the reasonably careful and prudent advisor, i.e. it should have checked and confirmed the validity of Steve’s advice).Damage is obviously apparent, in that the value of the land and the economic benefits of its exploitation have been negatively affected. “But for” the MSC’s breach of the duty of acre, Jenny would not have suffered such loss. This satisfies the causation test. The loss was certainly not caused by some other factor, such as an economic downturn (Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corp). Secondly, the damages were not too remote, in that they were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the breach (the Wagon Mound cases).None of the defences is applicable on the facts.Accordingly, Jenny should be successful in an action against the MSC for negligent misstatement.A final note: students should also consider the possibility of an action under s 52 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) or s 9 Fair Trading Act 1985 (Vic) for misleading or deceptive conduct.Jim车老婆B去车站，火车喇叭坏没听到提醒，J跳车，受伤，住院2月又感染，B自责精神病，6月不能工作This problem deals with the tort of ordinary negligence, concerning whether InterUrban is liable in damages to Jim and Betty.Jim’s claim:To prove InterUrban was negligent, Jim must, on a balance of probabilities, show the following:1) a duty of care was owed to him. Under Donoghue v Stevenson, this is shown by fulfilment of the‘neighbour test’ that it was reasonably foreseeable that InterUrban’s omission to effectively warn of the train’s departure would be likely to injure him.As non-passengers may be on the train, it is reasonably foreseeable that allowing the train to depart without warning would give rise to the risk of non-passengers attempting to get off the train and in so doing injure themselves.The case is similar to Caterson v Commissioner for Railways where the court held that an event like this and the harm suffered were reasonably foreseeable.Some analogy may also be made to cases of recognised duties of care relevant to the facts, eg occupiers owe a duty of care to entrants because of their control over the premises (Australian Safeway Stores v Zaluzna).Section 48 of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) defines negligence as ‘failing to take precautions against a risk of harm’. This section sets out the elements for determining a duty care. These include whether the risk was foreseeable, was not insignificant (defined as “not far-fetched or fanciful”) and where a reasonable person would have taken precautions.The above principles suggest that InterUrban owes Jim a duty of care.2)there was a breach in the standard of care: did InterUrban act as the reasonable person in the defendant’sposition (here, as the reasonable train operator)? To assist in the determination of this issue, the following factors may also be considered:(a) the likelihood of the risk of injury (Romeo’s case and Bolton v Stone)(b) the seriousness of the consequences (Paris v Stepney Borough Council)(c) compliance with usual practice (Mercer’s case)(d) the cost of eliminating those risks (Caledonian Colleries case).The likelihood of such injury is arguably very high, given that the carriage door could be opened while the train was moving. Warnings and safety devices are common practices in modern public transport. The cost of eliminating the risk would not be prohibitive, nor would it outweigh the benefits achieved in reducing the risk. Taking into account all these factors, it is strongly arguable that InterUrban breached its duty ofcare by not having working loudspeakers or having safety devices in place.3)Damage. This depends on satisfying the following tests:(a) causation – ‘but for’ the breach the damage would not have happened (March v Stramare); and(b) remoteness – the injuries must be reasonably foreseeable (the Wagon Mound cases).Jim’s injuries sustained in the fall would satisfy both tests. But for InterUrban’s failure to have working loudspeakers, Jim would not have jumped and fallen. The injuries sustained in this fall are of a reasonably foreseeable nature, ie not too remote a consequence of InterUrban’s breach. However, his hospital-acquired infection would not be InterUrban’s liability as it is a ‘distinct and separate’ injury (Yates v Jones; Lindeman v Colvin).After negligence has been established, InterUrban’s defences should be discussed.Voluntary assumption of risk is a complete defence and is based on consent by the injured plaintiff to the risks created by the defendant’s conduct. However, it is necessary to show that the plaintiff fully appreciated the risk and accepted it freely and willingly. Because Jim’s jumping from the train was in response to the train’s moving without warning, and such omission was due to InterUrban’s negligence, the defence of voluntary assumption of risk would not succeed.Contributory negligence is a defence under the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) s 26. Its effect is to reduce the damages otherwise awardable by the extent to which the plaintiff contributed to his/her injury. However, as held in Caterson v Commissioner for Railways, contributory negligence won’t apply where the plaintiff is justified in taking the risk when weighed up against the inconvenience of not taking the risk. For Jim it was a question of either staying on board all the way to Sydney or jumping off at Southern Cross Station. Arguably, taking the risk avoided the inconvenience of riding to Sydney.In conclusion, it is likely Jim would be able to succeed in his action against InterUrban in negligence, based on the fact that his injuries resulted from InterUrban’s breach of its duty of care to him.As far as Betty is concerned, the main issue is whether InterUrban owes her a duty of care. Following Jaensch v Coffey, it can be said that Betty is a reasonably foreseeable victim in that she is someone who is so closely and directly affected by InterUrban’s conduct that it should have her in mind as being potentially affected by its acts or omissions. This flows from the fact that she is Jim’s wife and was involved in the aftermath of the accident and in the trauma of his recovery. As the type of injury she suffered is reasonably foreseeable, given the close relationship between Jim and Betty, InterUrban owes Betty a duty of care.The other elements of negligence should then also be applied – ie breach and damage. See above for a discussion on whether InterUrban complied with the standard of care. Next, as to damage, one can say that “but for” InterUrban’s negligence, Jim would not have been injured and, hence, neither would have Betty suffered her nervous shock. There is a direct link between her injury and InterUrban’s negligent omission. Her mental injury is not too remote, in that it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of InterUrban’s breach of its duty of care: Wagon Mound. The Jaensch v Coffey case provides direct authority in support of Betty’s claim of negligence.。
大学法律英语课后习题答案
大学法律英语课后习题答案大学法律英语课后习题答案在大学法律英语课程中，学生常常需要完成一系列的习题，以加深对法律英语的理解和应用能力。
本文将为大家提供一些常见的法律英语课后习题答案，帮助大家更好地掌握这门学科。
第一节：法律英语词汇1. What is the difference between "plaintiff" and "defendant" in a legal case?In a legal case, the plaintiff is the party who brings a lawsuit against another party, known as the defendant. The plaintiff is the one who accuses the defendant of wrongdoing and seeks legal remedies or damages. The defendant, on the other hand, is the party against whom the lawsuit is filed and is required to defend themselves against the allegations made by the plaintiff.2. Explain the meaning of the term "tort" in legal terminology.In legal terminology, a tort refers to a civil wrong or injury caused by one person to another, resulting in legal liability for the person who committed the wrongful act. It can include actions such as negligence, defamation, or intentional infliction of harm. Tort law allows the injured party to seek compensation for damages or other remedies through a civil lawsuit.第二节：法律英语语法1. Rewrite the following sentence using the passive voice: "The judge dismissed the case."The case was dismissed by the judge.2. Fill in the blank with the appropriate preposition: "The suspect was charged___ murder."The suspect was charged with murder.第三节：法律英语阅读理解Read the following passage and answer the questions:"Intellectual property rights (IPR) refer to the legal rights granted to individuals or organizations for their creations or inventions. These rights include copyright, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets. IPR provides protection for original works of authorship, inventions, and distinctive signs used in commerce."1. What does IPR stand for?IPR stands for Intellectual Property Rights.2. What are some examples of IPR?Some examples of IPR include copyright, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets. 第四节：法律英语写作Write a short paragraph explaining the concept of "due process" in the legal system.Due process is a fundamental principle in the legal system that ensures fair treatment and protection of individuals' rights. It guarantees that every person is entitled to a fair and impartial hearing before any decision or action that may affect their life, liberty, or property is made. Due process includes the right to notice of the charges or claims against them, the right to present evidence and arguments, the right to confront witnesses, and the right to a decision based onthe law and the facts presented. It is a cornerstone of justice and ensures that individuals are treated fairly and equitably under the law.总结：大学法律英语课后习题是提高学生法律英语能力的重要方式之一。
常见法律术语中英文表达法
draft 法案,草案Government bill 政府议案to pass a bill, to carry a bill 通过议案to enact a law, to promulgate a law 颁布法律ratification, confirmation 批准law enforcement 法律的实施to come into force 生效decree 法令clause 条款minutes 备忘录report 判例汇编codification 法律汇编legislation 立法legislator 立法者jurist 法学家jurisprudence 法学legitimation 合法化legality, lawfulness 法制,合法legal, lawful 合法的,依法的to contravene a law, to infringe a law, to break a law 违法outlaw, outside the law 超出法律范围的offender 罪犯to abolish 废止,取消rescission, annulment 废除,取消repeal, revocation, annulment 废除(法律) cancellation, annulment, invalidation 废除(合同) cancellation (支票)作废annulment 撤消(遗嘱)repeal rescission 撤消(判决)revocation 撤消immunity 豁免,豁免权disability, legal incapacity 无资格nonretroactive character 不溯既往性prescription 剥夺公权attainder 公民权利的剥夺和财产的没收constitutional law 宪法canon law 教会法规common law 习惯法criminal law 刑法administrative law 行政法civil law 民法commercial law, mercantile law 商法law of nations 万国公法,国际法international law 国际法natural law 自然法labour laws 劳工法fiscal law 财政法Civil Suit Law, Code of civil law 民事诉讼法Criminal Law 刑事诉讼法Military Law 军法Conscript Law 兵役法Copyright Law 著作权法penal code 刑法典code of mercantile law 商法典civil rights 民事权利,公民权利right of asylum 避难权human rights, rights of man 人权(customs) duties 关税death duty, death tax 遗产税royalties 版税法律英语词汇2009-12-20 20:59:34| 分类：专业英语词汇阅读8 评论0 字号：大中小订阅管辖：jurisdiction级别管辖：jurisdiction by level地域管辖：territorial jurisdiction移送管辖：referral jurisdiction指定管辖：designation jurisdiction审判组织: trial organization回避withdrawal诉讼参加人participants in court诉讼当事人parties in court诉讼代理人agents ad litem期间：time periods送达service调解conciliation财产保全property preservation先予执行preliminary execution妨碍民事诉讼的强制措施：compulsory measures against impairment of civil actions诉讼费：litigation costs第一审普通程序ordinary procedure of first instance第二审程序procedure of second instance起诉bring a lawsuit受理accept a case开庭审理trial in court诉讼中止suspension of a lawsuit诉讼终止conclusion of a lawsuit判决judgment裁定order简易程序summary procedure特别程序special procedure选民资格案件cases concerning certificates of voters 宣告失踪proclamation of a person as missing 宣告死亡proclamation of a person as dead无民事行为能力incompetent for civil conduct限制行为能力limited capacity for civil conduct无主财产property of ownerless执行申请application for execution执行移转referral of execution仲裁arbitration司法协助judicial assistanceAabsolute proof 绝对证明absolute property 绝对财产（权）abstract of title 产权书摘要acceleration clause 提前（偿还）条款acceptance 承诺accident report 事故报告accident insurance 意外保险accusation 指控；控告accusatorial procedure 控告程序accusatorial process of proof 控告证明过程（程序）accusatorial system 控告或诉讼程序accused 被指控者accuser 控告人acknowledgement 认知(书)acquittal 无罪判决act 条例；作为Act for the prevention of Frauds and Perjuries 《预防诈欺和伪证条例》action 诉讼；作为actual losses 实际损失adjudication 裁决；裁定administrative law 行政法administrative law judge 行政法法官administrative procedure 行政程序administrator 管理人；监管人admissible 可采的admissibility 可采性admit 采用；允许adoption 收养adulterous conduct 通奸行为ad valorem property tax 从价财产税adversarial hearing 对抗式听证会adversarial process 对抗式程序adversary 对手adversary trial system 对抗式（或抗辩）审判制度advocacy 出庭辩护；诉讼代理advocate 辩护人；诉讼代理人affidavit 正式书面陈述affirm 维持（原判）affirmation 保证书；证词affirmative 确保的agency （行政）机关agency action 机关（行政）机关agreed upon remedies 补救协议agreement 协议agreement-as-written 书面协议agreement -in-fact 事实协议alibi 阿里白（不在犯罪场的证明）alienation of affection 离间夫妻关系allegation 声称；指控allege 诉称；指控alleged offense 所控罪行alternate juror 替补陪审员amendment 修正案American Bar Association 美国律师协会American Law Institute 美国法学会analogy 类推Anglo-American Legal System 英美法系anonymous accusation 匿名控告appeal 上诉appear 出庭appellant 上诉人appellate action 上诉行为appellate court 上诉法院appellee 被上诉人appealer 上诉人appropriate 拨款appurtenant 附属物arbiter 仲裁人arbitrary武断的arbitration仲裁arraignment初审array 陪审员名单arrest 逮捕arrest warrant 逮捕令（证）arrestee 被捕人article 条款，文章article of authority 授权条款articles of confederation 《联帮条例》articles of incorporation 公司组织章程artificial person 法人Asian American legal defense and education fund亚裔美国人法律辩护与教育基金会assault 意图或威胁伤害assert 主张，宣称asset 资产assistant attorney 助理法官associate judge 副法官associate justice 副大法官assumption 违约合同，违约赔偿之诉assumption 假定attempt 意图，企图attempted escape 逃脱未遂attestation 证词attorney 代理人，律师attorney at law 律师attorney general 检察长authentication 鉴定authority 权力，法源，权威性依据automobile insurance 机动车保险automobile tort 机动车侵权行为autonomy 自治（权）Bban 禁令，禁止banishment 流放bankruptcy 破产bankruptcy discharge 破产债务解除bankruptcy judge 破产法官bar 律师职业bar association 律师协会barrister 出庭律师battery 殴打bench trial 法官审beneficiary 受益人benefit 收益，福得bigamy 重婚罪bill of lading 提单bill of right 《人权法案》bind over 具保，具结binder 临时保险单binding 有约束力binding contract 有约束力的合同binding force 约束力binding interpretation 有约束力的解释black-letter law （普通接受之基本原则的）黑体字法black nation bar association 全美黑人律师协会blue sky law 蓝天法（关于股票买卖控制的法律）Board of Governors（ABA）（美国律师协会的）董事会body of law 法体bond 债券；保释金bond instrument 债券契据branding 鞭笞breach 违约；破坏bride 贿赂bribery 贿赂（罪）bright-line test 明显界限检验标准broker 中间人brokerage fee 佣金；中介费brother-sister corporation 兄弟公司；姊妹公司Bulk Sales Act《大宗销售条例》burden 责任burden of going forward with the evidence 先行举证责任burden of persuasion 说服责任；证明责任burden of producing evidence 举证责任burden of proof 证明责任burglary入室盗窃（罪）business corporation实业公司business law 实业法business organization 实业组织buy-out agreement（股权）承买协议buy-sell agreement（股权）买卖协议bylaws（内部）章程CCalifornia Penal Code《加州刑法典》capital account 资本帐户capital crime 可判死刑罪capital punishment 死刑capital surplus 资本盈余capitation tax 人头税career criminal 职业罪犯career judiciary 职业法官case briefing 案情摘要case-in-chief 主诉case law 判例法case method 案例教学法case report 判决报告case reports 判例汇编casualty insurance （意外伤害）保险catalog 商品目录（单）certificate 证书certificate of existence 实体存在证明（书）challenge 置疑；挑战challenge for cause有理回避chancery court 衡平法院charging instrument 控告文件checks and balances 制衡（原则）chief judge 首席法官chief justice 首席大法官child abuse 虐待儿童circuit court 巡回法院circuit judge 巡回法官circumstantial evidence 旁证；情况证据citation 引证cite 援引；传讯civil court 民事法civil forfeiture 民事罚没civil law 民法Civil Law Legal System 民法体系civil liability 民事责任civil Liberty 民事自由civil Litigation民事诉讼civil procedure 民事诉讼程序civil suit民事诉讼Civil trial 民事审判法律英语词汇（2）2009-12-20 21:02:17| 分类：专业英语词汇阅读10 评论0 字号：大中小订阅Civil right 民权Civil right law 民权法Civil War Income Tax Act 《内战所得税条例》Claim 诉讼请求，索赔Classification of law 法律分类Close corporation内部持股公司Closely held corporation 内部持股公司Closing 终结，成交，结帐Closing argument 最后论述Closing statement成交声明Code 法典Code of Judicial Conduct 《法官行为准则》Codify 编成法典Co-felon 共同重罪犯Cohabitation 同居Collateral contract 附属合同Collegiate bench 合议席Collegiate panel 合议庭Commercial clause 商务条款，贸易条款Commercial law 商法Commercial paper 商务文件Commission佣金Commit 交托，犯（罪）Commitment 犯罪，许诺，委托Commitment of financing 融资许诺Common law 普通法Common law damages 普通法赔偿金Common law legal system(family) 普通法法系Common law marriage 普通法婚姻Common property 共同财产Common stock 普通股票Community property 共同财产Comparative law 比较法Comparative negligence 比较过失Compensation 赔偿（金）Compensatory damage 应予赔偿之损害Competence 管辖权限Competency 有效性Complaint 控告，申诉Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act 《滥用毒品的综合预防与控制条例》Compulsory license 强制性许可Concur附条件地同意Concurring opinion 并存（判决）意见Confer 授与Conference 协商会议Confidential information 保密信息Confiscation 没收Conflict law 冲突法Congress 国会Consent 同意，认可Consideration 对价，约因Constitution 宪法Constitutional Convention 制宪会议Constitutional law 宪法Constitutional tort 宪法性侵权Constitutionality 合宪性Construction （法律的）结构，解释Construe 解释，分析Consultation 磋商Consumer protection statute 消费者保护法律Consumption tax 消费税Continental Law Legal System(or Family) 大陆法系Contingent fee 胜诉酬金Continuance 诉讼延期Contract 合同Contract dispute 合同纠纷Contract formation 合同构成Contract interpretation 合同解释Contract law 合同法Contract performance 合同履行contractor 承包商contravence 触犯;违犯contributory negligence 共同过失controlling law 应适应之法律conversion 非法占有convey 转让conveyance 转让convertible bond 可转换债券conviction 有罪判决convincing evidence 使人信服的证据copyright 版权;著作权corporal punishment肉体刑corporate camsel 公司法律顾问corporate excise tax 公司执照税corporate law 公司法corporation 公司corporation aggregate 合有公司corporation code 公司法典corporation law 公司法corporation sole 独有公司corpus 尸体;本金Council on legal Education Opportunities 法律教育机会委员会counselor (法律)顾问;律师counselor-at-law 律师court 法院;法官court decision 法院判决court fee 诉讼费court of appeals 上诉法院court of chancery 衡平法法院court of claims 索赔法院court of customs and Patent Appeals 关税及专利上诉法院court of domestic relations 家庭关系法院court opinion 法院判决意见courtroom 法庭coverage 保险范围crime 犯罪crime code 刑法典crime homicide 有罪杀人crime justice system 刑事司法系统crime law 刑法crime liability 刑事责任crime procedure 刑事诉讼程序cross-examination 交叉盘问;盘诘cruel and unusual punishment 残忍和非常的刑罚cumulative evidence 累计证据curative 临时监护的curriculum guide 课程指南custody 监护custom duty 关税customary law 习惯法customary practice 惯例customs court 关税法院Ddamage 损害;损伤damage claim 损害赔偿请求damages 损害赔偿金deadlocked jury 僵局陪审团death penalty 死刑death tax 遗产税debenture 债单(券)debt securities 债权证券decide a case 判案deed 契约deed book 文契汇编defamation 诽谤default 不履行;违约defendant 被告人defence 辩护defence attorney 辩护律师defense's case-in-chief 辩护方主讼deficiency judgment 不足额判决degrees of murder (恶意)杀人罪的等级delegation 授权delegated legislation 授权立法deliberate intention 故意deliberation (陪审团)评议demonstrative evidence 示意证据deprivation 剥夺derogatory treatment of the work 对作品的贬毁性处理(或使用) designs 设计detract 毁损;贬低developer (土地)开发商dicta 判决附带意见dignity 尊严direct evidence 直接证据direct examination 直接盘问direct tax 直接税disa bility insurance 残疾保险disabled dependent child 无谋生能力的残疾儿童discharge 解雇;释放discount 贴现;折扣discovery 要求告知discrete risk transfer product 离散性风险转移(保险)产品discretion 自由裁量权discriminatory 歧视性税收dispense 执行;施行dispute 争议;纠纷disposition 处置(权)dissent 异议;反对dissenting opinion 异议;反对意见dissolution 解散distort 歪曲;误解district attorney 地区检查官database right 数据权dividend 股息division of title 产权分割divorce 离婚docket 备审案件目录doctrine 法则;原则doctrine of constitutional supremacy 宪法至上原则doctrine of Maranda Warnings 米兰达忠告原则document 文件;文书document of title 产权证书domant Commerce Clause 休眠的"贸易条款" domicile 住所地double jeopardy 一罪二审draft 起草;草拟draftman 起草者drug trade 毒品交易drug trafficking 毒品交易dry run 干转;排练due diligence 适当努力due process 正当程序Due Process Clause 正当程序条款due process test 正当程序检验标准duration 期限duress 强迫;胁迫duty 义务;关税duty of care 照看义务法律英语词汇（3）2009-12-20 21:03:22| 分类：专业英语词汇阅读16 评论0 字号：大中小订阅earnest money 定金easyment 地役权ecclesiastical court 宗教法庭economic law 经济法effective date 生效日期effective time 生效时间element of crime 犯罪要素(件)empower 授权enact 制定;颁布en banc 全体法官出庭审判encroachment 侵占encumbered property 抵押财产enforce 实施；执行enforceable 可强制执行的enforceability 可执行性enforcement of Law 执法English-American Legal System (or Family) 英吉利法系enjoin(衡平）强制令entail 限定继承entity 实体environmental impact statement 环境影响报告environmental Law 环境保护法Environmental protection Agency(EPA) 环境保护局environmental quality 环境质量equal protection clause 平等保护条款equitable relief 衡平救济equity 衡平法equity Law 衡平法equity precedent 衡平法判例equity securities 产权证券；衡平证券error 过错escape 逃走；逃脱escrow 第三者保存合同essential justice 实质公正estate 财产；遗产estate tax 遗产税ＥＵDirective 欧盟指令evaluate 评价evict 逐出（租户）evidence 证据evidentiary presumption 证据推定evidentiary rule 证据规则ex aequo at bono 公平且善良examine 检查；盘问examination 检查；盘问exception 例外exception clause 例外条款excise tax 执照税exclude 排除exclusive listing 读家上市exclusive right 排他性权利exclusive tax situs 唯一征税地点excusable homicide 可宽恕之杀人execute 执行；签属execution 执行executive acts 行政条例executive branch 行政部门executive order 行政命令executor (遗嘱）执行人executor of estate 遗产执行人exemption 免除；豁免exhibit 展示物（证）exigent circumstance 紧急情况existing securities 上市证券exparte 单方面的expectation damages 预期赔偿金expert 专家（证人）expert testimony 专家证言expert witness 专家证人express contract 明示合同express statutory provision 法律明文规定express warranty 明示保证（保修）ex rel 依据告发face amount 面颊face value 面植facilitate 促使：利于fact 事实fact in issue 争议事实factor 因素；代理商Factors Lien Act 《代理商留置权条例》Fair trial 公平审判false imprisonment 非法拘禁family law 家庭法fault 过错fault principle 过错原则feasibility study 可行性研究Federal Administrative Procedure Act 《联邦行政程序》Federal Antitrust Law 《联邦犯托拉斯法》federal convention 联邦制宪会议federal crime of murder 联邦杀人罪Federal Housing Act 《联邦住房条例》Federal Income Tax Act 《联邦所得税条例》federal judge 联邦法官Federal rules of civil procedure 《联邦民事诉讼规则》Federal rules of criminal procedure 《联邦刑事诉讼规则》Federal rules of evidence 《联邦证据规则》Federal securities act 《联邦证券条例》federal supremacy 联邦至上（原则）Federal tort claims act 《联邦侵权索赔条例》felon 重罪犯felony 重罪felony-murder 重罪杀人fiduciary 受托人file 档案；注册file a petition 呈交诉状；提出请求fine 罚金fingerprint 手印fire insurance 火灾保险fire protection 消防first degree murder 一级谋杀first instance 一审fixture （不动产）附属物flogging 烙印force of law 法律效力forcible felony 暴力性重罪foreign exchange risk 外汇风险forfeiture 没收；罚没form contract 格式合同form of evidence 证据的形式formal adjudication 正式裁决formal rulemaking 正式规则制定formation 构成；鉴定franchise tax 特许经营税fraud 诈欺free enterprise system 自由企业制度free movement of goods 自由物流，货物的自由流通freedom of choice 选择自由frustrate 使受挫折fundamental law 基本法fundamental right 基本权利法律英语词汇（4）2009-12-20 21:04:29| 分类：专业英语词汇阅读12 评论0 字号：大中小订阅general acceptance standard (科学证据的)公认标准general partnership 一般合伙general property 一般财产（权）general provisions 总则gerontocratic 老人统治的gift tax 赠予税government tort 政府侵权（行为）grant of power 授权gross negligence 严重过失group insurance 团体保险guarantee 担保guardian 监护人guardianship 监护权guidelines for sentencing 量刑指南guilt 有罪guilty 有罪的guilty 有罪答辩Hhabitual offender 惯犯hail insurance 冰雹保险handcuff 手铐handwriting 笔迹health insurance 健康保险health regulation 卫生法规hearing 听证（会）hearing of jury 陪审团听审hearsay 传闻证据heir 继承人hierarchy 等级制度high crime 重罪hold 认定；裁定holding 认定；裁定holding device 拥有手段（形式）homicide 杀人（罪）homosexuality 同性恋house counsel （公司）专职法律顾问husband-wife relationship 夫妻关系husband-wife tort 夫妻侵权（行为）IId. 同上identification 认定；确认身份；身份证ignore 忽视；驳回illegal 非法的；违法的immaterial 无实质性的immigration law 移民法immovable property 不动产immunity 豁免（权）impair 损害；削弱impeachment 弹劾；质疑implementation 实施；执行implied contract 默认合同implied warranty 默认保证（保修）imprisonment 监禁imputable 可归罪于……的imputation 归罪in re 关于；案由in recess 休庭in rem 对物的（诉讼）in session 开庭inadmissible evidence 不可采证据incarceration 禁闭；监禁incest 乱伦income tax 所得税Income Tax Act 《所得税条例》income tax on corporations 公司所得税income tax on individuals 个人所得税incompetence 无行为能力；无法律资格incompetent 无行为能力的；无法律资格的incorporation 法人；公司；组成公司incorporator 公司创办人independent regulatory agency 独立规制机构indicative list 指导性名单indictment 起诉书indirect evidence 间接证据indirect tax 间接税individual choice 个人选择（权）individual freedom 个人自由individual omni competence 个人全权individual proprietorship 个体业主individual right 个人权利ineffective 失效的inequality 不平等infamous 罪恶的；丑恶的inference 推理;推论infliction 处罚informal adjudication 非正式裁决informal rulemaking 非正式规则制定information 信息; 控告书infomer 耳目;情报员initial ruling 初步裁定injunction 禁令;强制令injunctive relief 强制救济injure 伤害injustice 不公正innocence 无罪innocent 无罪的;无罪者innocent owner defense 无过错所有人辩护inquiry 调查inquisitiorial system 纠问式诉讼制度insane 精神失常insanity defense 精神失常辩护inspection 检查;审查installment land vendor 分期付款的土地出售人installment plan agreement 分期付款购物协议instruction 指示instrument 文件insurable interest 可保利益insurable loss 可保损失insurance agent 保险代理商insurance binder 临时保单insurance broker 保险中间人insurance card 保险卡insurance coverage 保险范围insurance law 保险法insurance policy 保险单;险种insurance premium 保险费insurance proceeds 保险收益insurance product 保险项目insured 被保险人insurer 保险人intangible 无形的intangible damage 无形损害intangible property 无形财产intangible personal property 无形的人身财产(权) inter alia 除了别的以外interfere 干涉;侵犯interlocutory injunction 临时强制令;(诉讼)中间的强制令intermediate appellate court 中级上诉法院intermetional business 调解interrogation 国际商务intentional 故意的intentional tort 故意侵权行为interest 利息;权益;利益interest rate risk 利率风险interview 询问invalid 无效的;不合法的invalidate 使无效invasion of privacy 侵犯隐私权investigation 侦查;调查investment 投资investment portfolio risk 投资风险组合investment securities 投资证券irrelevancy 无相关性irrelevant 不相关的irrelevant evidence 无相关性证据irrevocable 不可撤销的irrevocable life insurance trust 不可撤销的人寿保险信托itinerant judge 巡回法官法律英语词汇（5）2009-12-20 21:05:16| 分类：专业英语词汇阅读19 评论0 字号：大中小订阅Jjoint tenancy 共同租借(权)joint venture 合资企业joint venture corporation 合资公司joint venture with Chinese and foreign investment中外合资企业judge 法官judge-made law 法官立法judge's chamber 法官室judge's charge to jury法官对陪审团的指令judge's instruction to jury 法官对陪审团的指示judgment判决，裁定judicial branch 司法部门judicial clerkship 法院书记员职位judicial decision 法官职位judicial district 司法区judicial interpretation 司法解释judicial notice 司法任职judicial opinion 法官判决意见judicial review 司法审查judicial scrutiny 司法检查judicial subjectivity 审判主观性judicial system 法院系统judiciary 法官jurisdiction 司法管辖区jurisprudence 法理学juror 陪审员jury 陪审团jury charge 法官对陪审团的指令jury pool待选陪审员库jury selection 挑选陪审员jury trial陪审团制justice 公正，大法官justice of the peace 治安法官justifiable homicide 正当杀人juvenile court 未成年人法庭juvenile delinquency 未成年人违法行为ＫKey man assurance 关键人保险Key person insurance关键人保险Kickbacks 回扣Kill杀人Killer 杀人者Know-how 技术秘密，商业秘密Ｌland use law 土地使用法last clear chance doctrine 最后明显机会法则law 法，法律law firm 律师事务所law merchant商业习惯法law of evidence证据法law reform 法律改革lawsuit 诉讼，官司lawyer 律师lawyer in government 政府律师；官方律师lawyer in private practice 私人开业律师lawyerette 律师娘lawman 外行人lay witness 普通证人；非专家证人lease 租赁lease agreement 租赁协议legacy 遗产legacy tax 遗产税legal 合法的legal advice 法律咨询legal commentary 法律评论legal education 法律教育legal effect 法律教育legal enforcement 法律效力legal English 法律英语legal family 法系legal history 法律史legal instrument 法律文件legal mechanism法律机制legal memorandum 法律备忘录legal methodology 法律方法论legal order 法律秩序legal problem 法律问题legal profession 法律职业legal protection 法律保护legal relationship 法律关系legal representative 法律代表legal safeguard 法律保障（措施）legal system 法律体系；法律制度legal theorist 法学理论家legal writing 法律文书写作legalese 法律涩语legality 法制legislation 立法legislative branch 立法部门legislative history 立法史legislature 立法机关legitimate 合法的levy 征收（税）liability 责任；债务liability insurance 责任保险liberty 自由license plate （车）执照牌license tax 执照税lien 留置（权）life estate 终生财（遗）产life insurance 人寿保险limited partnership 有限合伙liquidated damages 预定违约金liquidity risk 流动资金风险literary property 著作产权litigant 诉讼当事人litigation 诉讼；打官司livestock insurance 家畜保险loan 贷款lord chancellor (英国)大法官loss of rights 丧失权利Jurisprudence，History of Legal Systems and Constitution 按照法律规定according to law按照确定的份额分享权力：be entitled to rights in proportion to his proper share of the credit按照确定的份额分担义务：assume obligations in proportion to his proper share of the debt案例教学法case system案例汇编case book；case report；law report柏拉图Plato《保护人权与基本自由公约》（1950）Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms，1950 （罗）被视为be deemed as被宣布为非法be outlawed；be declared illegal比较法comparative law比较法学comparative jurisprudence比较法学派school of comparative jurisprudence比较法制史comparative legal history比较分析法method of comparative analysis比较刑法comparative penal law比较刑法学comparative penal jurisprudence必然因果关系positive causal relationship边缘法学borderline jurisprudence变通办法adaptation；accommodation补充规定supplementary provision补救办法remedial measures不成文法unwritten law不成文宪法unwritten constitution不动产所在地法律law of the place where the real property is situated；lex loci rei immobilisci不可分割的权利impartible right不可抗力force majuere不可侵犯性inviolability不可让与性inalienability不履行法律义务non-performance of obligation 不要式行为informal act不要因的法律行为non-causal juristic act不因实效而丧失的权利imprescriptible right不作为abstain from an act；act of omission部门法department law部门规章regulation参照consult参照具体情况in the light of actual conditions参照原文consult the original查士丁尼法典Code Justinian；Codex Justinianus 查士丁尼法规汇编Authenticum超出法律范围的outside of law超出法律权限的extralegal超过权限exceed authority；beyond jurisdiction成文法written law成文宪法written constitution冲突法conflict of laws；rules of conflict冲突规则conflict rule；rule of conflict除（本法）另有规定外except for otherwise stipulated （by this law）除外条款provisory clause除外责任条款exclusion clause触犯公共利益encroach on the public interests触犯国际利益go against the state's interests触犯人民利益encroach on the interests of the people；go against the people's interests传统法律观念traditional ideas of law纯粹法学pure theory of law次要法规by law次要规则secondary rule从宽解释原则doctrine of liberal construction从权利accessory right达到法定年龄come of age大法the fundamental law大法官Lord High Chancellor大法官法院Court of Chancery大陆法系Continental Legal System大律师barrister《大明律》Criminal Law of the Ming Dynasty （中）大陪审团grand jury《大清律例》the Criminal Laws of the Qing Dynasty （中）《大宪章》（1215）Great Charter，1215（英）单行法规specific regulations单一法律体系unitary legal system单一制政府unitary government但书proviso当代法学动向current trend of jurisprudence当然解释natural interpretation党纪国法party discipline and the law of the country道德规范norm of morality道德义务moral obligation《德国民法典》German Civil code德拉古Draco地方各级人民代表大会local people's congresses at different levels 地方各级人民法院local people's courts at different levels地方各级人民检察院local people's procuratorates at different levels 地方各级人民政府local people's governments at different levels第二读second reading第三读third reading二元论the dualistic theory二元君主立宪制dual constitutional monarchy system 二元论the dualistic theory二元论者dualist二元制bicameral system法的本质the nature of law法的变化changes of law法的定义definition of law法的发展development of law法的分类divisions of law法的概念concepts of law法的规范作用normalized usage of law法的继承succession of law法的精神spirit of law法的可预测性foreseeability of law法的类型types of law法的历史类型的更替the replacement of one historical mode of law by another法的历史渊源historical origin of law法的连续性continuity of law法的内容contexts of law法的社会作用social usage of law法的生效operation of law法的实现realization of law法的特征character of law法的现象legal phenomenon法的消亡withering away of law法的形式渊源formal source of law法的要素elements of law法的渊源source of law。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
A Case Study on Tort of NegligenceCaseHatchet& Co，an accounting firm，in their audit of the accounts of Giant plc，stated Giant’sprofits to be ￡10 million. This caused a sharp rise in the share value of Giant.On learning of this news，the directors of Giant decided to launch the company intoa new venture costing ￡2 million.Henry， a shareholder of Giant，on seeing the accounts，bought a further 10，000shares. He told his friend Gloria about his investment. She then purchased 1000Giant shares.It was later revealed that Giant’s accounts were grossly overstated by Hatchet & Co.Giant’s share value fell drastically after it was shown that the company were reallymaking a loss. Henry and Gloria have lostthe money that they invested in thecompany.Advise Hatchet & Co of their liability，if any in the above situation.Analysis：According to the materials given，there are three parties concerned in this case，namely the director of Giant，Henry the individual shareholder and his friendGloria. The area of Law that this case belongs to is Professionalliability/negligence，more specifically，negligent misstatement，under Tort ofnegligence. The special role of Hatchet & Co as the auditors （professional liability）and their overstatement （negligent misstatement）served as evidences of thisclassification.Negligence is the breach of duty owed to people generally，which causesrelevant loss or damage that is not too remote. To succeed in an action for tort ofnegligence，a claimant must prove i）a duty of care，ii）breach of the duty and iii）damage.Below I will deal with these three ingredients respectively and then analysewhether they exist in each situation.When it comes to whether a duty of care is owed，two significant factors are to be contemplated upon：reasonable foreseeability and proximity，which were first established in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] as the neighbour test/principle formulated by the Lord Atkin. Later，the requirement of a special relationship was added to the gauge of proximity in negligent misstatement duto the case Hedley Byrne v Heller [1963]，where the neighbour principle wasconsidered insufficient and inappropriate. This case also widened the liability ofall professionals by creating "reasonable reliance" by the claimant on theprofessional judgment of the defendant. In the specific area of negligentmisstatement，a Three Stage Test is applied to determine duty of care，in whichthe first two remain unchanged while a third condition，namely，whether it is fair，just and reasonable to impose the duty，is supplemented.Breach of duty is “decided by the judge on the facts of of the case”but still requires objective （occasionally subjective when the case is related to children asin Mullins v Richards [1998] and emergencies）standards including legalstandards and factual standards. An example of legal standards is the reasonablman test applied firstly in the case of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co [1856].The test is to place an average prudent person into the position of the defendant to see whether the standard is reached. With regard to factual standards，Bolam Test （Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957]）in medical negligence is an important instance of the standard required of professionals.The key point is to judge whether the defendant has fallen short of either legal orfactual/professional standards.Damage is the last ingredient for negligence. Causationand remoteness are the two major factors to be taken into consideration. Causation refers to the directlink between breach of duty and resulting damage while remoteness focuses on the reasonable foreseeability of the damage caused. With regard to the first party concerned in this case，Hatchet & Co should be aware that their statement was very likely to be relied upon when Giant plcmaking venture decision and their overstatement may well cause economic lossof their client，which amounts to reasonable foreseeability. Further more，as anaccounting firm，Hatchet & Co audited the Giant’s account，indicating there beinga special relationship，i.e. the relationship between the supplier of services and its client existed between Hatchet & Co and Giant plc. Two requirements havingbeen met，while the third stage is to be decided by the court and subject to policy，there is a high possibility that the court will decide that a duty was owed byHatchet & Co to Giant plc. However，ifit were the case that a disclaimer ofnegligence liability was made in their contract，though the information was notgiven in the materials，Hatchet & Co may be excluded from the duty like the bankin Hedley Byrne v Heller [1963].Based upon the material that “Giant’s account was grossly overstated by Hatchet& Co”，the breach of the duty （as well as breach of contract，if any）was obvious.Hatchet & Co has fallen below the standards for professional auditors by makingnegligent misstatement.Nevertheless，due to the fact that the information given is insufficient，thedamage of Giant plc is yet undetermined. Therefore， a conclusion that Hatchet &Co is liable can not be made at the moment. If “the new venture costing 2 millionpounds”failed（though the court might doubt its remoteness）or the share pricefell below the amount before the sharp risehappened after the overstatementcame out，then a damage caused by Hatchet & Co’s breach of duty would possibly exist，thus leading to the liability of Hatchet & Co for Giant plc.。