法律英语案例.docx

法律英语案例.docx

《法律英语案例.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《法律英语案例.docx（57页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

法律英语案例

Presentation要求：

1、每一个人估量上台讲解时刻为15-30分钟，依照案例的长短和人员的个数略有不同。

请合理安排时刻。

2、内容包括案例分析和回答讨论题。

案例分析的格式老师在课堂上已经讲过，依照书后面的案例分析格式，中英文都可，只要有利于表达就好；回答讨论题也是中英文都可。

3、讲解的辅助工具是PPT，案例分析需要，回答问题一样需要。

字体不能过小，以避免同窗看不见。

4、认真阅读案例，并重点研究老师划了颜色的文字，老师会不按时的针对案例的具体情形提问。

5、除自己负责的案例，其他同窗讲解的案例也要提早预习。

老师也会提问其他同窗，如此有利于大伙儿知识的积存和系统化。

第一讲合同与其他债

【教学目的和要求】

把握合同的相关概念，区别合同之债与其他债券债务关系。

【教学时数】约2学时

案例1：

合同之债与其他债-不妥得利

Beleyv.VenturaCountyMunicipalCourt

CourtofAppeal,SecondDistrict,Division5,California.

100Cal.App.3d5

December17,1979

ASHBY,J.

RealpartyininterestGerryHarmsma（hereinafterSeller）isabuildingcontractorwhobroughtanactioninthemunicipalcourttorecoverforservicesperformedandmaterialfurnishedinremodelingthehomeofappellantsJohnandLorraineBeley（hereinafterBuyer）

OnJune10,1977,thepartiesexecutedacontract,atthehomeofBuyer,fortheremodelingofBuyer'shome.Thecontractpricewas$11,689andtheworkwastobecompletedbyAugust15..…Theworkwasnotcompletedontime,andonNovember10,1977,Buyergavewrittennoticethatthecontractwascanceled.

Buyermovedforsummaryjudgment,contendingthatthecontractwasahomesolicitationcontract（whichdidnotcontainthemandatorynoticeofBuyer'srighttocancelwithinthreedays（;thatBuyerthereforehadtherighttocancelatanytimepriortoSeller'sgivingtherequirednotice（,subd.（e））;thatBuyercanceledthecontractonNovember10,1977（§;andthatSellerwasentitledtonocompensationfortheservicesperformed（,subd.（c））.（[Buyeralsosoughtthereturnofthe$8,566BuyerhadpaidtoSeller.

Althoughthehomesolicitationcontractstatutewasenactedin1971primarilytoprotectresidentsfromthehigh-pressuretechniquesofdoor-to-doorsalespersons,itwasinterpretedin（decidedshortlyaftertheexecutionofthecontractinthepresentcase）toapplytocontractsenteredinthehome,evenwherethebuyerhadtelephonedthesellerandinvitedhimtocometothehome.Thus,underWeatherall,theinstantcontractwasahomesolicitationcontract.BecausetheinstantcontractdidnotcontaintherequirednoticegivingtheBuyerarighttocancelwithinthreedays,thestatutetechnicallyextendedindefinitely（untiltheSellercompliedwiththenoticerequirement）theBuyer'srighttocancel（,subd.（e）.）HereBuyerexercisedthisstatutoryrighttocancel,butonlyafterSellerhadapparentlysubstantiallycompletedthejob.BuyerarguesthatthestatutegivesBuyertherighttoretainallthesubstantialbenefitsconferredbySeller'sperformancewithoutpayinganythingatallforthem.Wedisagree.

.…

AlthoughBuyer'sstatutorycancellationgivesBuyeradefensetoSeller'sfirstcauseofactiononthecontract,SellerhasalsoallegedinhissecondcauseofactionaquantummeruitquasicontractualtheoryforrecoveryofthereasonablevalueofthebenefitsconferredonBuyerbySeller'sperformance.（See1Witkin,SummaryofCal.Law（8thed.1973）Contracts,§49,p.60.）AlthoughthestatutegivesBuyerarighttoavoidthewrittencontract,therewasnothingillegalorimmoralaboutthecontractitselforthenatureoftheservicesandmaterialstobefurnishedunderit.（See[Therefore,eventhoughSellercouldnotrecoverontheexpressbuildingcontract,SellerisentitledtorecoveryonquantummeruitforthereasonablevalueoftheimprovementsBuyerhasreceived.（[

Nothinginprecludessuchequitableadjustmentoftherightsanddutiesoftheparties.Thereisnoindicationinthatopinionthatthesellerinthatcaseraisedanequitablequasicontractualtheoryforthereasonablevalueofbenefitsconferred,asdistinguishedfromanactiononthecontract.NordoesprecludeSeller'squasicontractualrecovery..…

Thiscasedoesnotinvolveanattempttoevadethestatuteortopressurethebuyerbytheperformanceofasmallportionofthecontractwithinthefirstthreedays.HerewehavealargebuildingcontractwhichwassubstantiallycompletedoveralongperiodoftimebeforeBuyerexercisedBuyer'stechnicalrightunderthestatutetocancel.ItwouldbegrosslyinequitabletointerpretthestatutetomeanthatSellergetsnocompensationeventhoughBuyerhasthebenefitofseveralthousanddollars'worthofhomeimprovements.Ofcourse,indeterminingthereasonablevalueofthebenefitsconferredonBuyer,thecourtcanalsotakeintoaccountthedamagessufferedbyBuyerfromtheincomplete,delayedorimproperperformanceofthejob.

Thejudgmentisaffirmed.

Stephens,ActingP.J.,andHastings,J.,concurred.

讨论题：

1.本案两边争议的核心是什么？

2.在本案中，加州的民法典给予了“买方”（被装修衡宇的房主）什么权利？

该方基于什么事实能够行使该法给予的权利？

3.买方是在卖方（装修衡宇的一方）已经实质性地完成了其装修工作以后宣布解除合同的。

这一事实对本案裁决有什么阻碍？

4.therewasnothingillegalorimmoralaboutthecontractitselforthenatureoftheservicesandmaterialstobefurnishedunderit.这一事实有什么重要性？

5.本案所运用的或确信的法律规则是什么？

6.请结合HarrySchott案（案例一）和本案的情形，试探“公正考量”在决定合同一方的行为是不是组成不妥得利时起的作用。

第二讲意思表示和许诺的作出

【教学目的和要求】

了解一项对表意人产生约束力的许诺在何种情形下会发生。

【教学时数】4学时

案例2：

诺言的存在-确信性

MilicPesovicv.SvetozarPesovic

AppellateCourtofIllinois,FirstDistrict,SecondDivision.

10Ill.App.3d708,295261

March13,1973

LEIGHTON,Justice:

Thiswasanejectmentsuitbyafather,theappelleeMilicPesovic,againsthisson,appellantSvetozarPesovic,inwhichMilicsoughttoevictSvetozar,hiswifeandtheirthreeminorchildrenfromahouseinChicago.Inananswerthatevincedabitterfamilydispute,SvetozarinterposedthedefensethatMilichadeithermadeacontracttoconveythehousetohimorhadgivenhimthehouseasanoralgiftofland.…TheissueinthisappealiswhethertheevidenceinthisrecordprovedthatthehousehadbeenthesubjectofeitheracontracttoconveyoranoralgiftbyMilicPepovictohissonSvetozar.

I.

MilicPesoviccametothiscountryfromYugoslaviain1950.HeleftafamilythatincludedSvetozar.MilicbecameanAmericancitizenonJune21,1956.InJuly1957,havingpaid$7500,hereceivedawarrantydeedtoasix-roomhousesituatedinChicagoat10041SouthExchangeAvenue.

In1957,becauseofhispoliticalviews,SvetozarwasincarceratedinaYugoslavprison.HeescapedandbecameapoliticalrefugeeinGreece.WiththeaidoftheUnitedStatesandGreekgovernmentshewasjoinedbyhiswifeandchildren.Untilthemiddleof1959,SvetozarlivedintheGreekcityofFlorinaemployedbytheGreekarmyasadriverinamotorpool.Lifetherewasgoodandlivingstandardswere‘quitecomfortable.’

Sometimeduringthelasthalfof1958,MilicPesovicbegancorrespondingwithSvetozarurginghimtocometothiscountrywithhisfamily.InaletterwritteninSerbian,MilictoldSvetozarthat‘（w）henyoucometomeIwilldressupandshoeyouandyourfamily.IpromiseyouthatIwillbuyeverythingyouandyourfamilyneed.WhenyouarriveheretomeIwillneedalotofmoneytoshelteryouandyourfamily.’Intheclosingsentence,MilicaskedSvetozartotellhiswifeandchildrenthat‘theywillhavetheirownhome.’Earlier,toassistSvetozarinhisapplicationtoimmigrationauthorities,MilicexecutedanaffidavitinwhichhesaidthathelivedinHammond,Indiana;thathewasregularlyemployedbytheYoungstownSheetandTubeCompanyasamechanic'shelperearningmorethan$500permonths;thathedesiredtosponsorSvetozar'simmigrationfromFlorina,Greecetothiscountry;thatifanimmigrationvisaweregrantedhim,he,Milic,undertooktoseethatSvetozarwouldnotbecomeapublicchargeinthiscountry;thathewouldfurnishSvetozarwithfood,clothingandothernecessitiesoflife;thathewouldobtainemploymentforSvetozarinlocalindustry;thathehadadequatehousingandaccommodationsforSvetozarwhenhearrivedinthiscountry;andthathewouldhelpSvetozarbecomeestablishedintheAmericanwayoflife.InotherletterswrittenbyhimtoSvetozar,MilicurgedhissontoleaveFlorina,GreeceandcometotheUnitedStateswithhisfamily.

Promptedbytheseurgings,Svetozar,sometimeinthelatterhalfof1959,broughthisfamilytothiscountry.First,theylivedwithMilicinHammond,Indiana.Then,ashorttimelater,MilicgavethempossessionofthehouseinChicago.TheylivedthereforaboutoneyearwhenMilicbegandemandingrentfromSvetozar.Herefusedtopayandmovedhisfamilyoutofthehouse.InDecember1961,Svetozarsufferedaseriousindustrialaccident.HedemandedofMilicthesupportandassistancewhichMilichadpromisedinhislettersandintheaffidavitpreparedforimmigrationauthorities.Milicrefused.InMarch1964,SvetozarbecameanAmericancitizen.OnNovember25,1964,hefiledachancerysuitagainstMilicinwhichheallegedtheinducementsMilichadmadeinpersuadinghimtoemigratefromGreecetothiscountrywithhisfamily.SvetozarprayedthatthecourtorderMilictoconveytohimthehouseinChicagoandpayhimdamagesinthesumof$10,000.…

II.

Specificperformanceofacontracttoconveylandrequiresonethatisunambiguous,completeinitstermsandclearlyprove.（Thecontractcannotbepartlywrittenandpartlyoral.（Anditisnotenoughtoshowthatsomekindofcontractexistedbetweentheparties;itmustappearthatthecontractwascertaininallitstermssothatacourtcanspecificallyenforceit.  

Tobespecificallyenforceable,alandcontractmustpointoutthelandtobeconveyedorfurnishthemeansofidentifyingthelandwithcertainty.（Itmustnotbeindefinite.…NeitherMilic'sletterstoSvetozarnortheimmigrationaffidavithefurnishedcontainedtermsthatweredefinite,certainandcomplete.  Infact,theydidnotdiscloseacontractfortheconveyanceoflandwhichacourtofequitycouldenforcebyspecificperformance. Certainly,theydidnotmentionthehouseinChicago,althoughMili