毕业论文外文翻译样例.docx
《毕业论文外文翻译样例.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《毕业论文外文翻译样例.docx（11页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。
毕业论文外文翻译样例
毕业论文外文翻译样例
1.Brieflyoncontracts
Thelawofcontractsisconcernedwiththeenforcementofpromissoryobligations.Contractualliabilityisusuallybasedonconsentfreelygivenintheformofanexpresspromiseoroneimpliedinfactfromtheactsoftheparties.Insomecircumstances,however,thecourtswillimplyapromise（oftencalledimpliedinlaworquasicontract）inordertoavoidunjustenrichmentinspiteoflackofconsentbythepartywhoisboundbyit.
Thesubjectmatterofcontractlawcomprisescapacity,formalities,offerandacceptance,consideration,fraudandmistake,legality,interpretationandconstruction,performanceandconditionsofperformance,frustrationandimpossibility,discharge,rightsofassigneesandthirdpartybeneficiaries,andremedies.Ithas,toaveryconsiderableextent,preserveditsunitaryquality,resistingfundamentaldistinctionsbetweendifferentclassesofcontractsaccordingtoeitherthesubjectoftheagreementorthenatureoftheparties.
Accordingly,withsomeexceptions,itsprinciplesareapplicabletoagreementsonsuchvariedsubjectsasemployment,saleofgoodsorland,andinsurance,andtosuchdiversepartiesasindividuals,businessorganizations,andgovernmentalentities.
Itislargelystateratherthanfederallaw,butitdiffersusuallyonlyindetailfromonestatetoanther.Whileitisstillprimarilycaselaw,anincreasingnumberofstatutesdealwithparticularproblems.TheUniformCommercialCode,forexample,containssomespecialprovisionsontheformationofcontractsforthesaleofgoods.AndbytheTuckerActof1887,asamended,oneofthemostsignificantofthefederalstatutesinthefield,theUnitedStatesgovernmenthaswaiveditssovereignimmunityincontractactionsbyconsentingtosuitinthefederalcourts.Someruleslaiddownbystatute,andbycaselawaswell,aremandatoryorcompulsoryandcannotbeavoidedbytheparties,whileothersareimplicative,interpretative,orsuppletoryandcanbevariedbyagreement.
Acontractmaybesimplydefinedasapromiseforthebreachofwhichthelawgivesaremedy,althoughtheword“contract”mayalsobeusedtorefertotheseriesofactsbywhichthepartiesexpressedtheiragreement,tothedocumentwhichtheymayhaveexecuted,ortothelegalrelationswhichhaveresulted.Notallpromiseareenforceableandseveralcriteriamustbemetbeforethelawwillgivearemedy.Twoofthemostfundamentalofthesearetherequirementofawritingandrequirementofconsideration.therequirementofawritingisimposedbystatutesoffrauds,derivedfromtheEnglishStatuteofFraudsof1677,whichhavebeenenactedthroughouttheUnitedStates.Typicallytheyprovidethat,withsomeexceptions,specifiedkindsofcontractsareunenforceableunlessevidencedbyawriting.Theyusuallycovercontractstosellgoodsofmorethanaminimumvalue,contractstosellland,contractstoanswerforthedebtofanother,andcontractsnottobeperformedwithinayear.Manyagreements,suchasmostcontractstofurnishservices,arenotincludedandareenforceableevenifthereisnowriting.AlthoughdissatisfactionhasledtotherepealofmostoftheEnglishStatuteofFraudsin1954,therehasbeennoseriousmovementforitsabolitionintheUnitedStates.
apartfromanyrequirementofawriting,apromiseisnotgenerallyenforceableintheUnitedStatesunlessitissupportedbyconsideration.Historicallyapromissorycouldmakeabindingwrittenpromise,evenwithoutconsideration,byaffixinghiswaxsealtothewriting.Butasthewaxsealwasreplacedbyapennedorprintedimitation,thesealbecameanemptyformalityanditseffectivenesshasnowbeeneliminatedoratleastgreatlydiminishedbystatestatutes.Considerationisessentiallysomethingforwhichthepromisorhasbargainedandwhichhehasreceivedinexchangeforhisownpromise.Itmaybeanotherpromisegiveninreturn,inwhichcasetheresultingcontractisknownasabilateralcontract,oritmaybeanactgiveninreturn,inwhichcasetheresultingcontractisknownasunilateralcontract.But,forexample,agratuitouspromise,includingonetopayforgoodsorserviceswhichhavealreadysupportedbyconsideration.Fortunatelythereareonlyafewsuchinstancesofbusinesspromisesinwhichtherequirementofconsiderationisnotmet.Oneofthemosttroublesomeinvolvesthe“firm”,orirrevocable,offer.TheusualruleintheUnitedStatesisthatanofferorhasthepowertorevokehisofferatanytimebeforeitsacceptancebytheofferee,andapromisebytheofferornottorevokeisnotgenerallyeffectiveunlesssupportedbyconsideration.Acommondeviceforholdingtheofferortohispromiseisthepaymenttohimofanominalsum,forexampleonedollar,asconsiderationforwhatisthenknownasan“option.”Evenwithoutconsiderationafewcourtshaveheldthattheofferorwasestopped,orprecluded,fromrevokinghisofferwheretheoffereereliedtohisdetrimentuponthepromise.Butthemostsatisfactorysolutionhasbeenthroughlegislation,adoptedinanumberofstates,makinganofferirrevocable,regardlessofconsideration,ifitisembodiedinasignedwritingwhichstatesthatitisirrevocable.Asthissuggests,thetendencyhasbeentoattempttoremedythedeficienciesofthedoctrineofconsiderationratherthantodiscardit.
IntheUnitedStates,contracts,likestatutes,arecharacteristicallydetailedandprolix.Thosepreparedbylawyersareoftencompoundedofstandardclauses,popularlyknownas“boiler-plate,”takenfromotheragreementskeptonfileorfrombooks.Evenwhenalawyerisnotdirectlyinvolved,thepartiesmayuseorincorporatebyreferenceastandardprintedformwhichhasbeendraftedbyalawyer,perhapsforaparticularenterprise,perhapsforanassociationofenterprises,orperhapsforsaletothegeneralpublic.Thisattentiontodetailmaybeduetoanumberofcauses,includingthestandardizationofroutinetransactions,thefrequentinvolvementoflawyersinallstagesofexceptionaltransactions,theinclinationtouselanguagewhichhasbeentestedinpreviouscontroversies,andthedesiretoavoiduncertaintywhenthelawofmorethanonestatemaybeinvolved.Alloftheseaddtothegeneraldispositionofthecase-orientedAmericanlawyertoprovideexpresslyforspecificdisputeswhichhaveariseninthepastorwhichmightbeforeseeninthefuture.
Arelatedphenomenonisthewidespreaduseofstandardforms“contractsofadhesion,”suchastickets,leases,andretailsalescontracts,whichareforceduponthepartywithinferiorbargainingpower.Inrecentyears,courtsandlegislatureshavebecomeincreasinglyconcernedwiththeeffectswhichunrestrainedfreedomofcontractmayhaveinsuchsituations.Courtswhichhadalwaysrefusedtoenforceagreementscontemplatingcrimes,torts,orotheractswhichwereclearlycontraryto
所规定的。
欺诈防止法一般都规定：
特定种类的契约如无书面证明不得执行；但也有例外。
通常，这些特定契约包括超过最低价值的商品销售契约、土地买卖契约、承担他人债务的契约和一年后履行的契约。
许多协议（如大多数提供服务的契约）则不包括在内，因此即使没有书面形式也能执行。
虽然人们的不满导致英国于1954年废除了英国《欺诈防止法》的大部分，但在美国却没有认真要求废止欺诈防止法的动向。
在美国，除要求书面形式外，允诺如无约因的支持，一般也是不能执行的。
历史上，允诺人甚至没有约因，也能在文书上盖用火漆印而作出由约束力的书面允诺。
但随着火漆印为钢笔或印刷的复制品所取代，印章也就徒有其名了。
因此，其效力现已被制定法所取消，至少也已被制定法所大大限制了。
约因主要是允诺人要谈判到手，而且也是允诺人以其允诺换来的某事物。
约因可以是对方所回报的另一个允诺（这样形成的契约就是双务契约）或一个行为（这样形成的契约便是单务契约）。
但是，比如说，一个无偿允诺（其中也包括因作出允诺时早已提供了的商品和劳务而作出的允诺在内）是没有约因支持它的。
幸好，不符合约因要求的商业允诺，其实例寥若晨星。
其中最麻烦的情况之一，涉及到“硬”要约，即不可撤回的要约。
在美国，通常的规则是：
要约人能在要约经被要约人承诺之前随时撤回，而且要约人关于不撤回要约之允诺，如无约因一般是无效的。
使要约人信守允诺的常用办法，是向他支付一笔有名无实金额（如一美元），作为取得因而被称作“选择权”者之对价。
即使没有约因（对价），少数法院也主张：
被要约人因相信允诺而蒙受损害时，要约人不得出尔反尔，撤回其要约。
但是最令人满意的解决办法，是通过立法（这是某些州的办法）规定要约不问有无约因只要具备签了名的书面形式而且记明不得撤销者，一律不得撤销。
由此可见，发展的趋势是弥补约因论的缺点而不是摒弃约因论。
在美国，契约也同制定法那样，是以详细和冗长为其特征的。
由律师拟定的契约往往由标准条款组成，这种条款或取自己归档的其它契约，或来自书本，俗称为“做成纸型的”条款。
即使没有律师直接参与其事，当事人也可以直接采用或参照吸收一种标准格式。
这种格式早由律师拟定以供某企业或企业联合会之用或公开发售。
美国企业特别重视细节，这也许是有一些原因的。
其中包括：
常规性交易的标准化、特殊性交易之每一阶段往往都有律师参与其事、倾向于使用在过去纠纷中经过考验的语言以及希望能在所涉及的是不止一个州的法律时防止捉摸不定的一种愿望。
所有这一切更使得以案例为中心的美国律师增强下列愿望：
就过去业已发生或今后可以预见的争端，在契约中作出明文规定。
一个与此有联系的现象时诸如发售的票子、租赁契约和零售契约之类强加于谈判力差的一方的标准式“单方面契约（合同）”之广泛使用。
近些年来，法院和立法机构对在上述情况下契约自由竟会丝毫不受限制的后果越来越感到关切。
过去一向对企图犯罪、侵权或为其它明显违反公共利益行为的协议拒不予以执行的法院，现在已开始以解释契约的名义偏护处于劣势的一方，并在趋于极端的案件中拒不承认由一方当事人单方面说了算的条款有任何效力――尽管协议内容本身并无违法之可言。
立法机关也颁布了规定诸如雇佣契约中最高工作时数和最低工资之类的条件甚至规定了整个契约（如保险单之类）并予行政机关以规定诸如运输业和电力业的价格和条件的权力。
契约自由论虽已在许多领域遭受侵蚀，但仍不失其为原则而尚未成为例外。
2.Torts
Leadinglegalwritersagreethatnoonehassatisfactorilydefinedatort.thisispartlybecausetortsaresocommon,sowidespreadandsovaried.Youarefarmorelikelytobethevictimofatortthanofacrime,andyouarealsofarmorelikelytocommitatortthanacrime.
Atortisacivilwrongagainstanindividual.Acrime,ontheotherhand,isanoffenseagainstthepublicatlarge,orthestate.Anautomobiledriverwhocarelesslybumpsintoyourcarinaparkinglotandcrumplesthefenderhadcommittednocrime.
Suppose,however,thatafterleavingtheparkinglotthesamedrivergoestoanearbybar,downssixwhiskeys,thencareensthroughacrowdedcitystreetatfiftymilesanhour.Nowhehascommittedatleastthesecrimes:
drunkendriving,recklessdrivingandendangeringthelivesofothers.Butunlessheactuallydamagesanothercarorinjuressomeonehehasnotviolatedtherightsofnayindividual.
Acrime,then,iswrongfulactagainstsociety.Whenacrimeiscommitted,itisthestate’sresponsibilitytoinvestigate,prosecuteandbeartheexpenseoflegalactingagainstthedefendant,inthecourthandlingcriminalmatters.
Atort,ontheotherhand,isanactthatviolatesyourprivateorpersonalrights.Ifyoubelievesomeonehasviolatedyourpersonalrights——buthasnotactedagainsttheinterestsofthepublicasawhole——itisentirelyuptoyoutoseekreliefbysuinghiminthecivilcourts.Ifthepersonwhoyoubelievehas
升级会员 