LegalEnglish大学法律英语重点分析

合集下载

LegalEnglish解析

4. 句子的语气(sentence mood)
1.被动句式的大量使用 passive sentence pattern
由于法律英语不必要知道行为主体，或不知道行为主体或想强调行为结果。也因为被动句式与法律语言的准确性，规定性和强制性相一致。法律文体强调事实本身，强调客观性，必然更多地以目标语作为主语，从而采用被动语态。
shall
① shall 表示某种命令或某种法律义务, 相当于普通英语中的 must“必须” 。如:Under California law , someone who quali-fies as a sex offender shall register with the chiefof police or sheriff within a special time .一个被指控为性骚扰的人必须在特定的时间到警察局长或地方法官那里去登记。这里所用 shall 并不表示对将来事件的预测,而是设定了被告人必须进行登记的义务。使整个句子更具法律权威性。 ② shall 可表示法律上的正式“宣告”布” 。如:This Act shall be known as The Penal Codeof California. 这部法律被正式宣布为加利福尼亚州的刑法典。 ③ shall 可用于表述合同条款 ,表述一定要做到的事。表示“一定会” 或 “将会”。如：The Publisher shall pay the Author, . . . an advance , which shall be a charge of all sums tothe Author under this Agreement . 出版商应当预付作者稿酬, 这笔稿酬是按合同规定的总稿酬中的一部分。这里 shall 为合同中的一方设定了给付报酬的义务。句中的第一个 shall 指“一定会” ; 第二个 shall 是指一种“承诺”或一种正式“声明” ,但没有“命令”的含义。、 “

法律英语重点专业词汇解析

法律英语重点专业词汇解析1. 法律英语概述法律英语是法学专业中的重要分支之一，涉及到法律文件、合同、法律案例等与法律相关的各种文字材料。

掌握法律英语的专业词汇对于理解和应用法律文本具有重要意义。

2. 法律英语重点专业词汇在法律英语中，有许多准确而专业的词汇需要掌握。

以下是一些常见的法律英语专业词汇的解析：- Act: 法案，指一项通过国会或议会法律程序，成为法律的法案。

- Arbitration: 仲裁，指由第三方解决争议的法律程序。

- Defendant: 被告，指在法庭上被控告的一方。

- Injunction: 禁令，指法院颁发的禁止某些行为的命令。

- Jurisdiction: 管辖权，指法院有权处理某一特定案件的权力。

- Litigation: 诉讼，指通过法律程序解决争议的过程。

- Patent: 专利，指一项新的发明或发现的独特技术。

- Plaintiff: 原告，指在法庭上提起诉讼的一方。

- Tort: 侵权行为，指侵犯他人权益的非法行为。

- Waiver: 放弃，指明确放弃某种合法权利的行为。

3. 法律英语研究方法了解法律英语的专业词汇是研究法律英语的基础。

以下是一些研究法律英语的方法：- 积累词汇：通过背诵和记忆法律英语的专业词汇，增加词汇量和理解能力。

- 阅读法律文本：阅读法律文件、合同和案例，提高对法律英语的理解和应用能力。

- 借助工具：使用法律英语词典、翻译软件等工具，提供准确、专业的词汇解释和翻译。

4. 结论法律英语的专业词汇对于学习和理解法律文本具有至关重要的意义。

通过积累词汇、阅读法律文本以及借助工具，我们可以提高对法律英语的掌握和应用能力。

希望这篇文档能够为学习法律英语的同学们提供一些帮助。

法律英语英文案例分析(3篇)

第1篇IntroductionThe case of Johnson v. Smith is a landmark decision in the field of contract law, particularly focusing on the interpretation of written contracts and the principles of consideration. This analysis will delve into the facts of the case, the arguments presented by both parties, the court's reasoning, and the broader implications of the decision.Facts of the CaseThe case of Johnson v. Smith revolves around a contract between two individuals, John Johnson and Mark Smith. Johnson, a well-known contractor, agreed to undertake the construction of a residential property for Smith, a real estate developer. The contract was a detailed written agreement, outlining the scope of work, the timeline, and the payment terms.The contract stipulated that Johnson would complete the construction within six months from the date of the contract, with payments to be made in installments upon the completion of specific milestones. However, after three months, Johnson encountered unforeseen delays due to issues with the foundation of the property. Despite several attempts to renegotiate the terms with Smith, Johnson was unable to secureadditional time or funds.Johnson, unable to meet the contractual obligations, decided toterminate the contract. He notified Smith of his intention to cease work and demanded payment for the work completed up to that point. Smith, however, refused to pay, arguing that Johnson had breached the contract by failing to complete the work within the stipulated time frame.Arguments PresentedJohnson's Legal Argument:1. Force Majeure: Johnson argued that the unforeseen delays were due toa force majeure event, which excused him from fulfilling his contractual obligations. He cited the unforeseen foundation issues as an example ofan event beyond his control that prevented him from completing the work on time.2. Modification of Contract: Johnson claimed that he and Smith had verbally agreed to modify the contract to extend the completion date. He provided evidence of several conversations between the two parties, which he argued demonstrated an intention to alter the original terms.Smith's Legal Argument:1. Breach of Contract: Smith contended that Johnson's failure to complete the work on time was a clear breach of the contract. He argued that the contract was a legally binding agreement and that Johnson was obligated to complete the work within the specified timeframe.2. No Modification of Contract: Smith denied the existence of any verbal agreement to modify the contract. He argued that any such modification would require a written document to be legally binding.Court's ReasoningThe court, after hearing both parties' arguments and examining the evidence presented, ruled in favor of Smith. The court's reasoning can be summarized as follows:1. Force Majeure: The court found that while unforeseen delays may indeed be grounds for excusing performance under certain circumstances, the evidence presented by Johnson did not establish that the foundation issues were a force majeure event. The court emphasized that such events must be beyond the reasonable control of the contractor and must prevent the contractor from fulfilling their obligations.2. Modification of Contract: The court ruled that the evidence of verbal agreements between Johnson and Smith was insufficient to prove a modification of the contract. The court emphasized that modifications to written contracts should be in writing and signed by both parties to be legally binding.Broader ImplicationsThe decision in Johnson v. Smith has several broader implications for contract law:1. Interpretation of Written Contracts: The case underscores the importance of interpreting written contracts strictly according to their terms. Parties should carefully review and understand the terms of their agreements before entering into them.2. Consideration: The court's decision highlights the principle of consideration, which is a fundamental requirement for a contract to be legally binding. Both parties must provide something of value (consideration) in exchange for the promises made in the contract.3. Modification of Contracts: The case serves as a cautionary tale for parties attempting to modify contracts. Any modification should be in writing and signed by all parties involved to avoid disputes over the terms of the agreement.ConclusionThe case of Johnson v. Smith is a compelling example of the complexities involved in contract law, particularly in the interpretation of written contracts and the principles of consideration. The court's decision serves as a valuable precedent for future cases and underscores the importance of careful contract drafting and adherence to contractual obligations.第2篇IntroductionThis legal English case analysis focuses on the United States v. John Doe, a landmark case that revolves around the interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The case highlights the complexities surrounding the definition of "authorized access" and its implications for individuals accused of unauthorized computer access. The analysis will delve into the facts of the case, the legal arguments presented, the court's decision, and the broader implications of the ruling.Facts of the CaseJohn Doe, an employee of XYZ Corporation, was charged with violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) after he accessed the company's computer system to retrieve personal information about his colleagues. Doe had been terminated from his employment and, feeling aggrieved, sought to retaliate against the company by leaking sensitive information to the media. Doe argued that he had authorized access to the company's computer system, as he was an employee at the time of the alleged offense.Legal ArgumentsThe prosecution argued that Doe's access to the company's computer system was unauthorized, as he had exceeded the scope of his employment by accessing information that was not necessary for his job. The prosecution cited the CFAA, which defines "unauthorized access" as "access to a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access."Doe, on the other hand, contended that his access was authorized, as he was an employee at the time of the offense. He argued that the term "authorized access" should be interpreted broadly to include any access that is not prohibited by the company's computer usage policy.Court's DecisionThe district court ruled in favor of Doe, finding that his access to the company's computer system was authorized. The court interpreted the term "authorized access" narrowly, holding that it did not encompass access that was merely beyond the scope of the employee's job responsibilities. The court further stated that the CFAA was not intended to criminalize all unauthorized computer access but rather to target those who exceeded their authorized access or accessed computers without authorization.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision, finding that Doe's access was indeed unauthorized. The appeals court held that the term "authorized access" should be interpreted broadly, encompassing any access that isnot explicitly permitted by the company's computer usage policy. The court reasoned that the CFAA was designed to protect computer systems from unauthorized access and that the term "authorized access" should be given a broad construction to achieve this purpose.AnalysisThe United States v. John Doe case presents a critical issue in the realm of computer fraud and abuse law: the interpretation of the term "authorized access." The case highlights the complexities surrounding this issue and the differing interpretations that can arise from it.1. Interpretation of "Authorized Access"The district court's narrow interpretation of "authorized access" was based on the principle that an employee's access is only authorized ifit falls within the scope of his or her job responsibilities. This interpretation, however, could have unintended consequences, as it could make it difficult to prosecute individuals who exceed the scope of their employment in accessing computer systems.In contrast, the appeals court's broad interpretation of "authorized access" aligns with the purpose of the CFAA, which is to protect computer systems from unauthorized access. This interpretation allowsfor a more flexible approach to determining whether an individual has exceeded their authorized access, thereby ensuring that the CFAA is effective in deterring computer fraud and abuse.2. Implications for EmployersThe case has significant implications for employers, particularly in terms of developing and enforcing computer usage policies. Employers must ensure that their policies clearly define what constitutes authorized access and that employees are aware of these policies. Employers should also consider implementing regular training sessions to educate employees on the importance of adhering to computer usage policies and the potential consequences of unauthorized access.3. Broader ImplicationsThe United States v. John Doe case has broader implications for thelegal landscape surrounding computer fraud and abuse. The decision has been influential in shaping the interpretation of the CFAA and has been cited in numerous subsequent cases. The case also highlights the needfor ongoing dialogue and debate regarding the proper balance between protecting computer systems and ensuring that individuals' rights are not unduly infringed upon.ConclusionThe United States v. John Doe case is a significant legal precedent that addresses the interpretation of the term "authorized access" under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The case highlights the complexities surrounding this issue and the differing interpretations that can arise from it. While the appeals court's broad interpretation of "authorized access" aligns with the purpose of the CFAA, the case also underscores the need for clear and comprehensive computer usage policies, as well as ongoing dialogue regarding the appropriate balance between protecting computer systems and safeguarding individual rights.第3篇Introduction:The following case analysis is focused on the legal dispute between Jane Doe, a plaintiff, and XYZ Corporation, the defendant. The case revolves around a breach of contract and negligence claims. The analysis will provide an overview of the facts, legal issues, and the court's decision.Facts of the Case:Jane Doe, a 32-year-old woman, was employed by XYZ Corporation as a sales representative. Jane was required to travel extensively for work, which often involved long hours and demanding schedules. During her employment, Jane was given a verbal agreement by her supervisor, John Smith, that she would receive a bonus of $10,000 at the end of the year if she met certain sales targets.Jane diligently worked towards achieving the sales targets set by the company. She spent countless hours attending meetings, contacting clients, and closing deals. By the end of the year, Jane successfully exceeded the sales targets set by XYZ Corporation. However, when the bonus was due, Jane was informed that her bonus would not be paid due to a change in company policy.Jane was shocked and disappointed by the company's decision. She felt that she had fulfilled her end of the verbal agreement and that the company was breaching its obligations. Additionally, Jane claimed that her supervisor, John Smith, had assured her that she would receive the bonus, which she believed to be a representation made by the company.Jane filed a lawsuit against XYZ Corporation, alleging breach of contract and negligence. She sought damages for the unpaid bonus and for emotional distress caused by the company's actions.Legal Issues:1. Breach of Contract:Jane's primary claim was that XYZ Corporation breached its verbal agreement to pay her the bonus. To establish a breach of contract, Jane had to prove the following elements:a. Existence of a contract: Jane had to show that there was a valid contract between her and XYZ Corporation. In this case, the existence of a verbal agreement was in question.b. Breach of the contract: Jane had to prove that XYZ Corporation failed to perform its obligations under the contract. This involved demonstrating that she met the sales targets and that the company failed to pay the bonus.c. Damages: Jane had to establish that she suffered damages as a result of the breach. This included the monetary value of the unpaid bonus and any emotional distress caused by the company's actions.2. Negligence:Jane also claimed that XYZ Corporation was negligent in failing to pay the bonus. To prove negligence, Jane had to prove the following elements:a. Duty of care: XYZ Corporation had a duty to act with reasonable care towards Jane.b. Breach of duty: XYZ Corporation breached its duty of care by failing to pay the bonus.c. Causation: Jane had to prove that the company's breach of duty caused her damages.d. Damages: Jane had to establish that she suffered damages as a result of the company's negligence.Court's Decision:The court heard both parties' arguments and considered the evidence presented. After careful consideration, the court ruled in favor of Jane Doe on both her breach of contract and negligence claims.Regarding the breach of contract claim, the court held that a verbal agreement between Jane and her supervisor, John Smith, was sufficient to create a binding contract. The court further ruled that XYZ Corporation breached its obligations under the contract by failing to pay the bonus despite Jane meeting the sales targets.In the negligence claim, the court found that XYZ Corporation owed Jane a duty of care and breached that duty by failing to pay the bonus. The court also concluded that the company's breach of duty caused Jane emotional distress, which entitled her to damages.Conclusion:The case of Jane Doe v. XYZ Corporation serves as an important reminder of the enforceability of verbal agreements and the duty of care owed by employers to their employees. In this case, the court recognized the validity of a verbal agreement and held XYZ Corporation liable for breaching its obligations. The decision highlights the importance ofclear communication and adherence to contractual agreements in the workplace.。

法律英语的课堂笔记.doc

法律英语的课堂笔记一、Characteristics of legal English 法律英语的特点Lengthy and complex sentences 长句和复杂句Archaic words and expressions 古词语表达Latin Words 拉丁语使用（如Versus，Per se 本身，De facto De facto marriage 事实婚姻，Stare Decisis 遵循先例原则，Pro forma等）二、Plain English and Terms 简明法律英语Ask RequestBecause In view of the fact thatBefore Prior toCarry out ImplementCause Give rise toCome EmanateExplain ClarifyGive Make a donation ofIf In the event of三、Terms in Legal Context 专业术语He possesses a good title to the house complete ownershipThey initiated a class action in the courtBoth his personal property and real property have been involved in the lawsuitThe invention should be different from the prior art 现有技术四、Terms with Special Meanings 特殊意义的词侵权tort/infringement - （IPR Intellectual Property Rights）the infringement against the copy right （patent，trademark，etc）裁决verdict/judgment verdict （made by jury）/ judgment （made by judge）起诉状：information/indictment information （charging document issued by prosecutor）/indictment（issue by grand jury）规定stipulates（in contract）/ prescribe（in Law）起诉sue（civil cases）/charge（criminal cases）Frisk and stop （criminal procedure）Arrest （criminal procedure）来源：法律英语翻译。

浅析法律英语的特点及翻译原则

浅析法律英语的特点及翻译原那么法律英语和普通英语的重要区别之一就是法律英语中用到的很多普通词汇往往具有专业特定含义，本文来浅析法律英语的特点及翻译原那么。

作为专业英语(esp)的分支学科之一，法律英语(legal english)是应用型、功能型英语。

法律英语，在英语国家中被称为legal language或language of the law，即法律语言，指表述法律科学概念以及诉讼或非诉讼法律事务时所用的语种或某一语种的局部用语。

随着改革开放的深入和国际贸易交流的日益广泛，法律英语翻译的需要翻译需求空前旺盛。

法律英语就其文体来说属于职业专用英语，是一种正式的书面语体，是应用语的一个分支，其行文庄重、构造严谨、表达准确。

作为一种专用英语，法律英语具有以下几个特征。

1.专业的特定性法律英语和普通英语的重要区别之一就是法律英语中用到的很多普通词汇往往具有专业特定含义，因此不能简单当作普通英语看待，否那么很容易对法律英语的理解出现偏差。

比方aoid，普通英语是“避开”的意思，而在法律英语中是“躲避取消”的意思;party在普通英语中翻译成“群，组，团队”，而在法律英语中要翻译成“社会集会一方，当事人”;sere在法律英语中尤指“当用人送达(传票等)”，而不能翻译成“为某人工作”。

2.词义的传承性法律词汇具有明显的传承性特征。

沿用旧的法律用语，即古体词，就是这一特征的表现。

一词汇在现代英语的许多文体中不再使用，但是在法律文体中，它们经过漫长的历史并没有随着法律的开展而改变，仍然保持其原有的含义。

法律英语古体词从古英语和中古英语时期沿袭而来，其由两局部组成，有些于法语、拉丁语和少量希腊语等外来词语，例如“suit”，“testimony”等。

另外一些古英语，例如由here-，there-和where-组成的复合词(hereunder=under it， thereof=of that，where for=for the reasons mentioned aboe)用来表示确定的含义。

法律英语的特点

法律英语的特点法律英语的特点一、法律英语的概念法律英语（Legal English），在英语国家中被称为Legal Language 或Language of the Ｌaw，即法律语言，在英语中指表述法律科学概念以及诉讼或非诉讼法律事务时所用的语种或某一语种的部分用语。

从此概念可以看出，法律英语所使用的语言不仅是英语本身，还包括其它语种，如法语、拉丁文等。

二、法律英语的语言特点法律英语作为专业英语（ＥＳＰ）的分支学科之一，具有ＥＳＰ的一般特点：１课程设置是为满足学习者的特定需要；２采用所服务的专业学科的教学研究方法和活动组织方式；３学习重点在于与该专业相适应的语言（语法、词汇、语域）、技巧、语篇以及体裁；4 材料的真实性，即材料来于立法文件、司法文件以及法学家的论著。

法律英语是法律科学与英语语言学间交叉学科研究的结晶，因此其研究应从两个视角进行探析。

一方面，按照法律的观点、方法以及法律规范、法律文书的特殊需要来研究英语在法学理论及实践中的运用；另一方面，运用语言学，尤其是应用语言学的基本原理和方法研究法律科学和法律实践的英语语言特点。

法律英语具有以下语言特点：词汇特点一、准确用词与模糊语言的同时出现法律语言，尤其是立法语言常把准确性与模糊性这一矛盾纳入同一法律规范。

根据严格解释原则，在适用法律时，书面文字是法官解释法律文件的唯一依据，因此法律语言用词造句必须十分准确。

法律语言尤其是立法语言中很少使用描绘性形容词，而且对表示时间、范围、程度等副词使用极为严格，为了避免不必要的歧义。

同时，为了追求语意确切、论证周详，法律语言中常使用同义、近义词,如《香港刑法摘要》（D igest of Hong Kong Criminal Law）第八章关于“参加暴动并阻碍船舶、飞机、或者铁路列车罪”中规定“It is an offence for any perso n taking part in a riot to unlawfully and with force (a)prevent , hinder or obstruct ,or attempt to prevent, hinder, or obstruct, t he loading or unloading, or the movement of ; or (b)board, or attempt to board with intent to do so ; any motor vehicle ,tra mcar ,aircraft ,train or vessel . 然而在现实中，有许多案子是由于对法律文字的理解不一造成的，这就有赖于法官在具体案件中对法律条文进行解释。

试析法律英语的词汇特点

试析法律英语的词汇特点摘要法律英语(Legal English),在英语国家中被称为Legal Language或Language of the Law,即法律语言,在英语中指表述法律科学概念以及诉讼或非诉讼法律事务时所用的语种或某一语种的部分用语。

法律英语是一门有别于普通英语的工具性语言。

作为一门法律习惯语言,法律英语在语法、词汇、逻辑上均有其自身的特点。

本文对法律英语的词汇特点从八个方面进行了简单的分析，希望对学习和掌握法律英语的学习者有所帮助。

关键词法律英语词汇精确性古体词法律语言法律词汇普通英语法律术语法学又称法律学或法律科学，其词源是罗马语族的拉丁文juris-pmdentia。

法律是由立法机构或者其他有权机构制定或认可的准则、规定、规则等。

法律英语（ＬｅｇａｌＥｎｇｌｉｓｈ）是指英国、美国、加拿大、澳大利亚、新西兰等国家的法律语言。

最贴切的英文解释是Ｅｎｇｌｉｓｈｆｏｒｔｈｅｌａｗ。

法律英语是一种特殊用途英语(ESP)，它属于应用语言学的范畴，是一种具有法律职业技能特征的行业语言。

词汇是法律英语语言的基本组成部分，它包括俚语、术语、行话等。

英语词汇分两种，一种是普通词汇，一种是专业词汇。

普通词汇有全面、稳定和造词能力强等特点。

语言中有大量的普通词汇。

法律专业词汇是人们在长期使用民族共同语的过程中，根据立法、司法工作的实际需要而逐步形成的一套具有法律专业特色的词汇和术语。

《牛津法律英语大词典》指出：法律语言部分是由具有特定法律意义的词组成，部分是由日常用语组成，但这些日常词汇往往具有特定法律意义。

我们将这一现象称之为具有普通词形态而无普通词意义的法律词汇。

法律英语是一门有别于普通英语的工具性语言。

作为一门法律习惯语言,法律英语在语法、词汇、逻辑上均有其自身的特点。

随着我国入世和对外开放程度的不断加深，国际合作日益加强，涉外法务活动空前频繁，法律英语的重要性日渐凸显。

2008年5月，教育部法律英语证书（LEC）全国统一考试委员会在中国政法大学成功举办了首次全国统考，把法律英语的学习和研究推向了高潮。

大学法律英语重点

Legal English考试分数占70 上课回答问占10 Presentation 占20客观题填空主观题名词解释占20 判断占80 简答题选择翻译论述题第一章总体介绍重点前五个关键词法系英美法特点两个主义遵循先例三推一1.【legal family 】The doctrine of legal families seeks to establish common groups, identifying similar legal practices, activities and subject matter and thereby classifying the entirety of global legal transactions and activities into "families" according to particular criteria. The traditional and almost exclusive focus on the continental European and Anglo-American systems.法系的信条是争取建立共同的团体,识别相似的法律实践,活动和主题从而将整个全球法律事务和活动分为“家庭”根据特定的标准。

传统的和几乎独有的法律都集中在欧洲大陆和英美系统。

Main characteristic① In the way of thinking and mode of operation of law, the common law system is the use of inductive methods. 归纳法② in the legal form, the case law plays an important role.判例法很重要③In the classification of the law, common law there is not strictly department law In the classification of the law, common law there is not strictly department law 普通法无严格分类 ④In education law area, common law in the United States is mainly located in vocational education.职业教育⑤In the legal profession, judges of the Federal Court of Justice are generally from lawyers. 从律师做到法官4.【遵循先例原则】后文也有此处提到The Doctrine of Stare ; The doctrine of stare decisis; Stare Decisis; the principle of stare decisis; the Precedent Principle.5.【犯罪构成理论：三推一】The theory of constitution of crime in civil law system.犯罪构成理论，强调严格以制定法为依据，将行为人和行为带入犯罪构成体系中进行衡量，得出是否构成犯罪的结论。

法律英语的案例分析(3篇)

第1篇Introduction:This legal English case analysis focuses on the case of Johnson v. Smith, a landmark decision in the United States that revolves around the interpretation of a lease agreement and the obligations of the landlord and tenant. The case highlights the importance of clear and precise language in legal documents and the principles of contract law. This analysis will delve into the facts of the case, the legal arguments presented, the court's decision, and the implications of the ruling.Facts of the Case:In 2010, Johnson (Tenant) entered into a lease agreement with Smith (Landlord) for a residential property located in New York City. Thelease agreement contained a clause that required the Tenant to maintain the property in good condition and to pay for any repairs or maintenance required during the term of the lease. The lease also included a provision that any alterations or modifications to the property without the Landlord's written consent would be deemed a breach of the lease.During the term of the lease, Johnson made several unauthorized changes to the property, including installing new flooring and painting the walls. Johnson argued that these changes were necessary for the comfort and safety of the occupants and did not significantly alter thestructure of the property. Smith, on the other hand, claimed that these alterations violated the lease agreement and demanded that Johnson restore the property to its original condition or pay for the repairs.Johnson refused to comply with Smith's demands, arguing that the changes were permissible under the "implied warranty of habitability" and that the Landlord had a duty to ensure the property was fit for habitation. Smith filed a lawsuit against Johnson, seeking a court order to restore the property to its original condition or pay for the repairs.Legal Arguments:The Landlord, Smith, argued that the lease agreement was clear and unambiguous, and that the Tenant, Johnson, was bound by its terms. Smith contended that the unauthorized alterations violated the lease and that Johnson was required to restore the property or pay for the repairs. Smith further argued that the "implied warranty of habitability" did not extend to unauthorized changes made by the Tenant.The Tenant, Johnson, responded by claiming that the lease agreement was ambiguous regarding the scope of alterations allowed and that the "implied warranty of habitability" required the Landlord to provide a habitable property. Johnson argued that the changes made to the property were necessary for the comfort and safety of the occupants and did not significantly alter the structure, thereby falling within the scope of the implied warranty.Decision of the Court:The court, after considering the arguments of both parties, held that the lease agreement was clear and unambiguous, and that the Tenant, Johnson, was bound by its terms. The court found that the unauthorized alterations made by Johnson violated the lease agreement, whichexplicitly required the Tenant to maintain the property in good condition and to obtain the Landlord's written consent for any alterations.The court further held that the "implied warranty of habitability" did not extend to unauthorized changes made by the Tenant. The court reasoned that the warranty was intended to ensure that the property was fit for habitation at the time of lease and not to allow the Tenant to make any changes they deemed necessary. The court ordered Johnson to restore the property to its original condition or pay for the repairs.Implications of the Ruling:The decision in Johnson v. Smith has several implications for landlords and tenants in lease agreements. Firstly, it emphasizes the importance of clear and precise language in legal documents, as ambiguity can lead to disputes and costly litigation. Landlords should ensure that theirlease agreements clearly define the obligations of both parties, including any restrictions on alterations or modifications to the property.Secondly, the case underscores the principle that a tenant's duty to maintain the property is not absolute. While tenants are generally required to keep the property in good condition, they may be excused from certain obligations if the changes are necessary for the comfort and safety of the occupants. However, any alterations must comply with the terms of the lease agreement and obtain the Landlord's written consent.Thirdly, the ruling clarifies the scope of the "implied warranty of habitability." Landlords have a duty to provide a habitable property, but this warranty does not extend to unauthorized changes made by the Tenant. Tenants should be aware of the limitations of the warranty and seek the Landlord's consent before making any alterations to the property.Conclusion:The case of Johnson v. Smith serves as a valuable lesson in the importance of clear and precise language in lease agreements and the obligations of landlords and tenants. The court's decision emphasizes the need for landlords to ensure their lease agreements are comprehensive and clearly define the rights and responsibilities of both parties. Additionally, tenants should be aware of the limitations of the "implied warranty of habitability" and seek consent before making any unauthorized changes to the property. This case analysis highlights the complexities of contract law and the implications of legal decisions on real-world scenarios.第2篇IntroductionThis legal case analysis revolves around the breach of contract and quantum meruit principles. The case involves Johnson, a contractor, and Smith, a homeowner. Johnson was hired to renovate Smith's house, but dueto various reasons, the work was not completed. Smith filed a lawsuit against Johnson for breach of contract and quantum meruit, seeking damages for the incomplete work. The case highlights the importance of contract law and the remedies available to parties when a contract is breached.Factual BackgroundIn 2018, Johnson, a reputable contractor, entered into a contract with Smith, a homeowner, to renovate his house. The contract specified that Johnson would complete the renovation work within three months. Thetotal cost of the project was $50,000, payable in installments upon completion of each phase.Johnson began work on the project in January 2019. However, due to unforeseen circumstances, such as inclement weather and material shortages, the work was not completed within the stipulated timeframe. By May 2019, only half of the work had been completed. Smith became increasingly dissatisfied with the progress and the quality of the workmanship. In June 2019, Smith terminated the contract and demanded that Johnson refund the remaining payment.Johnson refused to return the payment, claiming that he had already completed a substantial portion of the work. Both parties were unable to reach a compromise, and Smith filed a lawsuit against Johnson in the District Court of [Jurisdiction].Issues RaisedThe case raised two primary issues:1. Breach of Contract: Did Johnson breach the contract by failing to complete the renovation work within the stipulated timeframe?2. Quantum Meruit: Is Smith entitled to recover damages based on quantum meruit for the work that was completed?Analysis1. Breach of ContractTo determine whether Johnson breached the contract, the court examined the terms of the agreement and the evidence presented by both parties.The contract clearly stipulated that Johnson would complete the renovation work within three months. However, Johnson failed to fulfill this obligation. The court found that Johnson's failure to complete the work within the stipulated timeframe constituted a breach of contract.The court also considered the extent of the breach. Although Johnson completed a substantial portion of the work, he failed to complete the entire project. The court concluded that Johnson's breach was material, as the homeowner was left with an incomplete and unsatisfactory property.2. Quantum MeruitQuantum meruit is a legal doctrine that allows a party to recover damages for services rendered without a contract. In this case, the court examined whether Smith was entitled to recover damages based on quantum meruit for the work that was completed.The court found that Smith was indeed entitled to recover damages based on quantum meruit. The evidence presented by Smith showed that he incurred expenses for materials and labor related to the completed work. The court also considered the value of the work completed by Johnson and determined that Smith was entitled to recover the reasonable value of the work performed.JudgmentThe court held that Johnson breached the contract by failing to complete the renovation work within the stipulated timeframe. The court also ruled that Smith was entitled to recover damages based on quantum meruit for the work that was completed. The court ordered Johnson to pay Smith the reasonable value of the work performed, which was determined to be $25,000.ConclusionThis case highlights the importance of contract law and the remedies available to parties when a contract is breached. It underscores theneed for clear and precise contract terms and the importance offulfilling contractual obligations. Additionally, the case illustrates the principle of quantum meruit, which provides a remedy for parties who have rendered services without a contract. Parties should be aware of their rights and obligations under contract law to avoid disputes and litigation.第3篇IntroductionThe case of Johnson v. Smith is a notable legal dispute that highlights the intersection of contract law and employment law. This case involves the termination of an employment contract and the subsequent legalaction taken by the employee against the employer. The case issignificant as it delves into the nuances of contractual obligations,the just cause for termination, and the protection of employees' rights under the law. This analysis will explore the facts of the case, thelegal principles at play, and the court's decision.Facts of the CaseJohn Johnson, a long-standing employee of Smith Corporation, was terminated without notice on March 1, 2020. Johnson had been employed by Smith Corporation for 15 years and was a manager in the sales department. He was terminated on the grounds of "unauthorized disclosure of confidential information to a competitor."Johnson, feeling aggrieved by the termination, filed a lawsuit against Smith Corporation, claiming that the termination was in breach of his employment contract and without just cause. Johnson alleged that he did not disclose any confidential information and that his termination was retaliatory for his whistle-blowing activities regarding unethical practices within the company.The employment contract between Johnson and Smith Corporation contained a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) that prohibited Johnson from disclosing any confidential information to third parties, including competitors. The contract also contained a non-solicitation clause that prohibitedJohnson from soliciting customers or employees of Smith Corporation fora period of two years after the termination of his employment.Legal Principles at Play1. Contract Law: The case revolves around the interpretation and application of the employment contract between Johnson and Smith Corporation. The court would have to determine whether the terminationof Johnson's employment was in accordance with the terms of the contract, particularly the NDA and non-solicitation clause.2. Just Cause for Termination: The court would also have to consider whether Smith Corporation had just cause for terminating Johnson's employment. Under employment law, just cause for termination typically involves serious misconduct or a breach of the employment contract.3. Whistle-blowing Protections: Johnson claimed that his termination was retaliatory for his whistle-blowing activities. The court would have to assess whether Johnson's actions were protected under the whistle-blowing laws, which provide employees with legal protection against retaliation for reporting illegal or unethical conduct within their workplace.Court's DecisionThe court, after hearing both parties' arguments and reviewing the evidence, ruled in favor of John Johnson. The court found that Smith Corporation did not have just cause for terminating Johnson's employment and that the termination was in breach of the employment contract.The court held that Johnson's alleged disclosure of confidential information was not substantiated by any evidence, and thus, the termination was without just cause. The court further ruled thatJohnson's whistle-blowing activities were protected under the whistle-blowing laws, and his termination was retaliatory.Regarding the non-disclosure and non-solicitation clauses, the court found that Johnson had not breached these clauses, as he did notdisclose any confidential information to a competitor and did notsolicit any customers or employees of Smith Corporation.The court ordered Smith Corporation to reinstate Johnson to his former position or pay him damages equivalent to the salary he would have earned had he not been terminated. The court also imposed a fine on Smith Corporation for its retaliatory termination of Johnson.ConclusionThe case of Johnson v. Smith serves as a critical reminder of the importance of adhering to the terms of employment contracts and the protection of employees' rights. The court's decision emphasizes the need for employers to ensure that terminations are based on just cause and not retaliatory in nature. Additionally, the case underscores the significance of whistle-blowing laws in safeguarding employees who report illegal or unethical conduct within their workplace.For employers, it is crucial to review and update employment contracts to ensure clarity on termination clauses and non-disclosure agreements. For employees, the case highlights the importance of understanding their rights and protections under the law, and the need to seek legal counsel when faced with wrongful termination or retaliatory actions by their employers.。

法律英语案例分析要素(3篇)

第1篇一、引言法律英语案例分析是法律学习过程中必不可少的一个环节，通过对具体案例的分析，可以帮助学生深入理解法律条文、法律原则以及法律适用等问题。

在分析法律英语案例时，我们需要关注以下几个要素。

二、案例分析要素1. 案例背景在分析法律英语案例之前，首先要了解案件的背景。

这包括案件的起源、涉及的法律关系、争议焦点等。

了解背景有助于我们更好地把握案件的全貌，为后续分析奠定基础。

2. 法律条文法律条文是案例分析的基石。

在分析法律英语案例时，我们需要找出与案件相关的法律条文，并对其进行解读。

这包括对条文内容的理解、条文适用范围以及条文在法律体系中的地位等。

3. 法律原则法律原则是指导法律条文适用的基本准则。

在分析法律英语案例时，我们需要关注案件所涉及的法律原则，并探讨这些原则在案件中的适用情况。

这有助于我们理解法律条文背后的价值取向，以及法律原则对案件判决的影响。

4. 案例事实案例事实是案件分析的核心。

在分析法律英语案例时，我们需要梳理案件的事实，包括争议事实、事实认定以及事实与法律条文的关系等。

通过对案例事实的分析，我们可以判断案件是否符合法律条文的规定，以及法律原则的适用情况。

5. 案例判决案例判决是案例分析的重要环节。

在分析法律英语案例时，我们需要关注案件的判决结果，并分析判决理由。

这包括对判决结果的合理性、判决依据的合法性以及判决对类似案件的影响等。

6. 案例争议法律英语案例往往涉及争议，这些争议可能源于法律条文、法律原则或案例事实。

在分析案例时，我们需要关注这些争议，并探讨争议产生的原因以及如何解决争议。

7. 案例启示通过对法律英语案例的分析，我们可以总结出一些有益的启示。

这些启示包括对法律条文、法律原则的理解、对案例事实的把握以及法律适用的技巧等。

这些启示对于法律学习者和实践者都具有重要的指导意义。

三、案例分析步骤1. 阅读案例，了解背景在分析法律英语案例之前，首先要仔细阅读案例，了解案件的背景、涉及的法律关系和争议焦点。

法律英语法律英语课程教学大纲

法律英语法律英语课程教学大纲《法律英语》课程教学大纲（Legal English）课程编号：070434适用专业：法律（本科）总学时数：54课时学分：3分编制单位：社会科学系法学教研室查晓雯编制时间：xx年11月30日一、课程的地位、性质和任务(The Status, Character and the Teaching Purpose)《法律英语》是依据《大学英语教学大纲》对大学英语应用提高阶段在专业英语方面的教学要求，适应中国加入世贸组织后进一步扩大对外交流形式的需要，以培养更多既有扎实法律专业知识又精通外语的法律人才的需求，所开设的法学专业本科必修课程的课程。

本课程以英美法为教学核心内容,包括英语法律术语、英美法系与大陆法系的比较、英美律师职业介绍、英美主要部门法、WTO 法律文件选读、国际经贸法律、法学研究技巧与资源的运用。

本课程历时一个学期，其教学目的旨在培养和提高学生在法律领域里应用英语的能力。

在教师的指导下，学生通过阅读一些精选的法律类英语文章掌握法学基本概念和基本理论以及专业术语。

在教学过程中着重于扩大学生的专业词汇量，提高学生的英语阅读理解水平。

同时，本课程采用个人发言和小组讨论等多种形式以增加学生的语言实践机会，使他们能将专业知识与英语知识很好地结合，最终具有较强的英语口头交流能力和翻译能力Aording to the Teaching Criteria of the College English, Legal English, as a required course for the law school students, is aimed at training much more law experts whom are familiar with the foreign legal system.The main content of this course is Anglo-American Law system, including thelegal terminology, the international business and trade law, the parison between the Anglo-American law system and the Continental law system, the introduction of legal profession, the legal departments of the Anglo-American, the supplementary reading material of WTO, and the techniques and sources for legal research (skills for presenting and legal writing).Legal English lasts one semester with its purpose of developing students’ ability to take use of English in the legal field. With help of the teachers, the students can suessfully master some basic legal terminology and theories, and in Law by reading some well-selected English legal essays. In process of teaching and learning, the emphasis is placed on enlarging students’ vocabulary in legal English and on raising their English reading prehensive levels. Meanwhile, the course adopts individual speeches or group discussions and other teaching methods in order to provide as more lingual practice as possible for students, helps them well-bine their knowledge both in major and English. At last, they can suessfully plete the course study paratively good English oral skills in munication and translation.二、本课程与其他专业课程的关系（本课程学习所必备的知识）(Necessary knowledge)学生要重视其他各法律核心和专业课程的学习, 掌握基本法律知识和概念，在学习的同时还要对英美法律制度认真研习。

法律英语课程教学教案

《法律英语》课程教学教案（Legal English）适用专业：外语（专科）总学时数：88课时学分：6分编制单位：外语系法律英语教研室编制时间：2005年11月30日一、课程的地位、性质和任务(The Status, Character and the Teaching Purpose)《法律英语》是依据《大学英语教学大纲》对大学英语应用提高阶段在专业英语方面的教学要求，适应中国加入世贸组织后进一步扩大对外交流形式的需要，以培养更多既有扎实法律专业知识又精通外语的法律人才的需求，所开设的课程。

本课程历时一个学期，其教学目的旨在培养和提高学生在法律领域里应用英语的能力。

在教师的指导下，学生通过阅读一些精选的法律类英语文章掌握法学基本概念和基本理论以及专业术语。

在教学过程中着重于扩大学生的专业词汇量，提高学生的英语阅读理解水平。

同时，本课程采用个人发言和小组讨论等多种形式以增加学生的语言实践机会，使他们能将专业知识与英语知识很好地结合，最终具有较强的英语口头交流能力和翻译能力According to the Teaching Criteria of the College English, Legal English, as a required course for the law school students, is aimed at training much more law experts whom are familiar with the foreign legal system.Legal English lasts one semester with its purpose of developing students’ability to take use of English in the legal field. With help of the teachers, the students can successfully master some basic legal terminology and theories, and in Law by reading some well-selected English legal essays. In process of teaching and learning, the emphasis is placed on enlarging students’vocabulary in legal English and onraising their English reading comprehensive levels. Meanwhile, the course adopts individual speeches or group discussions and other teaching methods in order to provide as more lingual practice as possible for students, helps them well-combine their knowledge both in major and English. At last, they can successfully complete the course study comparatively good English oral skills in communication and translation.二、本课程与其他专业课程的关系（本课程学习所必备的知识）(Necessary knowledge)学生要重视其他各法律核心和专业课程的学习, 掌握基本法律知识和概念，在学习的同时还要对英美法律制度认真研习。

《法律英语》知识点归纳

unit 1lesson11.A basic purpose of law in our society is to maintain order and to resolvedisputes. For this purpose we make laws to define our rights and duties and prescribe what we should and should not do.在我们的社会里，法律的一个基本目的是维持秩序、解决争议。

为此目的我们制定法律，以界定权利义务，规定我们应做什么不应做什么。

6.If deals with wrongful acts against a person or his property and is based on the theory that in a civilized society, people who injure others or their property must compensate them for their loss.它(侵权法)处理危害人身或财产的过错行为，它的理论依据是:在文明社会里,危害他人或他人财产者必须赔偿损失。

9.The phrase “sources of law”is used to describe methods and procedures by which law is created and developed,or the origin from which particular lawsderive their authority or coercive force. “法的渊源”这一术语用以描述法律形成和发展的方法和程序，或特定法律获取权威和强制力的源头。

T1.There are many ways to define law, but no single definition is completely satisfactory.w brings about changes in society, so it is an instrument of change.F5. Judicial decisions are an important source of law in France and Germany.w can be___defined___ in different ways according to its different __puqxjses____ .3. Even if the court ____imposes____ a fine （罚款）on him, the judgment will notbe ____enforceable_____ because he is too poor to pay.7. Substantive laws define rights while procedural laws ___establish,___ procedures by which rights are ___protected___ and enforced.9. Public laws ___affect,___ the public generally, while ___private___ laws deal with the relationship between___individuals___ 。

大一上法律英语知识点

大一上法律英语知识点在大一上学期学习法律英语期间，我掌握了许多重要的法律英语知识点。

以下是我在这个学期里学到的关于法律英语的重要知识点的总结。

一、法律体系与法律职业：法律体系是指一个国家的法律规范的组织结构。

主要包括宪法法律、法律法规、行政法规、地方性法规等。

同时，我们也学习了法律职业的不同分支，如律师、法官、法务经理等。

法律职业需要具备的素质有专业知识、分析问题的能力、沟通能力等。

二、法律英语基础：1. 法律英语词汇：学习法律英语首先需要熟悉一些基础词汇，比如contract（合同）、tort（侵权行为）、plaintiff（原告）、defendant（被告）等。

2. 法律英语语法：了解一些特定的语法规则在法律英语中很重要。

比如，在表达法律条款时需要使用被动语态，句子结构要清晰简洁。

三、合同法：合同法是法律英语中一个重要的领域，它规范了合同的成立、履行和解除等方面。

在学习合同法时，我们需要了解以下内容：1. 合同的要素：合同的要素包括合同的主体、合同的内容、合同的形式等。

当合同中缺少任何一个要素时，合同可能无效。

2. 合同的履行：了解合同的履行过程、履行的方式，以及违约责任等。

3. 不当竞争禁止：学习了解竞业禁止协议的法律规定，以及企业之间在竞争方面的权利与义务等。

四、知识产权法：知识产权法保护创意和创新，以鼓励人们在各个领域中进行研究和创作。

以下是知识产权法的一些要点：1. 版权法：了解版权的定义、著作权的保护期限，以及侵权行为的法律后果等。

2. 商标法：学习商标的注册过程、商标的保护范围，以及商标权的侵权行为等。

3. 专利法：了解专利的种类、专利权的取得方式，以及专利的侵权认定等。

五、争议解决：1. 诉讼程序：了解民事诉讼的一般程序，如起诉、答辩、举证等。

2. 仲裁程序：了解仲裁的特点、仲裁协议的要素，以及仲裁结果的强制执行等。

六、国际商法：国际商法规范了跨国商业活动中的法律关系。

在学习国际商法时，需要了解以下方面：1. 国际货物销售合同：了解国际货物销售合同的成立、履行和争议解决等方面。

The Main Features of Legal English (students version) 法律英语

Legal English (revised version for the students)Ch.1 The Main Features of Legal English一、法律英语的英译：David Mellinkoff（加州大学洛杉矶分校法学院教授）：《The Language of the Law》19631.legal English---Lawful EnglishLegal parlance（说法、用语）/legal lingo（行话、隐语）/legal jargon（行话、黑话）/legalese( 法律八股文)/language of jurisprudence(法理语言)2. the English Language of the Law or shortened as “the language of the law”3. 法律英语与法学英语二、法律英语的范围：是否凡是涉及法律的英语（词汇、表达方法、句子结构……）都是法律英语？英美法学界所公认的法律英语主要是指普通法国家（common-law countries）的法律人所用的习惯语言（customary language），包括某些词汇、短语，或具有特色的一些表达方法(mode of expressions)。

三、法律英语的主要特点：I. precise or exact (准确)正常情况下，起草法律文件时，用词造句务必十分精准（with great exactness），因为一旦笔者的思想、观点、企图落实成文字，即成为法庭判断是非的重要依据，因为按严格解释原则(principle of strict construction)或唯名论原则(principle of nominalism)，尽管实践中还存在推测意图原则(principle of presumed intent)，但其不占主导地位，书面文字仍然是法官解释法律文件的唯一依据。

LegalEnglish大学法律英语重点分析

传统的和几乎独有的法律都集中在欧洲大陆和英美系统。

法律英语复习重点

WhyWhatToolsHowAdditional advice & course descriptionArrangement of the textbookHomeWhat to learn?To learn and refine your own English（扎实的基本功，法律语言句式复杂，长句多）Acquire the language of lawAcquire knowledge of the basic legal conceptsSome features of legal languagecommon words with special meaningOld and Middle English wordsLatin words and phrasesFrench wordsUse of argotLong sentenceWORDS LEGAL MEANINGaction 诉讼Consideration补偿/对价/约因Counterpart副本executed签名使契据生效Hand签字Instrument文件eg. Legal instrument: legal document(1) common words with special meaningWORDS LEGAL MEANINGLetters 许可证Party 诉讼方、合同缔结方、当事人Prayer诉讼请求Presents本文件this legal documentSaid上述的mentioned beforeEg. the said witness 该证人Serve送达Specialty盖印合同sealed contractProvide for 规定Remedy补救办法(2) Old and Middle English wordsIf any of the terms or provisions of this Contract shall be declared illegal or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, then the parties hereto agree to do all things and cooperate in allways open to them to obtain substantially the same result or as much thereof as may be possible, including the amendment or alteration of these presents若主管法庭宣布本合同任何条款或规定非法或无效，双方同意将尽最大努力采取一切可行措施，包括修改或更换合同，以取得大体相同或尽可能多的效益here words: hereafter（此后、将来）, hereby（籍此）, herein（此中、此处）, hereinafter（在下文）, hereof, heretothere words: thereby, thereof（因此）, therein（在那里）, thereon, thereto, theretofore, thereupon, therewithaforesaid如前所述said (used as an adjective)Such上述的forthwith立刻thence从那时起, thenceforth从那时起/其后Where words: whereby（由是、因此）, whereof（关于它）witness (used in the sense of testimony by signature, oath, etc. as “In witness whereof, I have set my hand, ...”签字盖章,特此为证witnesseth鉴于(meaning to provide formal evidence of something, the Old English present indicative, third person singular verb form.)(3) Latin words and phrasesalias别名, 化名Alibi不在犯罪现场的证明/不在犯罪现场一种辩护形式bona fide善意/真诚的versus(4) French wordsAction 诉讼Agreement 协议Appeal 上诉arrestarson 纵火assault 袭击attorneys 律师battery 殴打罪bill 法案、议案claim 索取Condition 条款contractevidence 契约法、合同法execution 执行guarantee担保物/抵押品infant未成年人judgesjudgment 审判jurors 陪审员justice(5) Use of argotThe language of the law, sometimes even a particular word, has a dual aspect. Lawyers use language that is intended to speak to lawyers and laymen, as in contracts, jury instructions, notices, and even laws. Lawyers also use language that is intended to speak primarily to each other, as in pleadings, opinions, argument and in the day-to-day negotiation and discussion that is the lawyer's life. In this aspect, a portion of the language of the law is ARGOT, a 'professional language'.E.g.:alleged有嫌疑的casecause of action 原告的起诉原由damages 损害赔偿due care 应有注意inferior court 下级法院issue of fact关于事实的争论点issue of law关于引用法律的争论点pursuant to stipulationreversed and remanded发回重审superior court 高级法院Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, while having dealings of any kind with any other public body, offers any advantage to any public servant employed by that public body, shall be guilty of an offence.任何人与其它公共机构进行任何事务往来时,无合法权限或合理理由而向受雇于该公共机构的公职人员提供任何利益﹐即属犯罪。