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（58页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

法律英语案例

Presentation要求：

1、每个人预计上台讲解时间为15-30分钟，根据案例的长短和人员的个数略有差异。

请合理安排时间。

2、容包括案例分析和答复讨论题。

案例分析的格式教师在课堂上已经讲过，按照书后面的案例分析格式，中英文均可，只要有利于表达就好；答复讨论题也是中英文均可。

3、讲解的辅助工具是PPT，案例分析需要，答复下列问题同样需要。

字体不能太小，以免同学看不见。

4、仔细阅读案例，并重点研究教师划了颜色的文字，教师会不定时的针对案例的具体情形提问。

5、除了自己负责的案例，其他同学讲解的案例也要提前预习。

教师也会提问其他同学，这样有利于大家知识的积累和系统化。

第一讲合同与其他债

【教学目的和要求】

掌握合同的相关概念，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-不当得利

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（Civ.Code,§1689.5）whichdidnotcontainthemandatorynoticeofBuyer'srighttocancelwithinthreedays（§1689.7）;thatBuyerthereforehadtherighttocancelatanytimepriortoSeller'sgivingtherequirednotice（§1689.7,subd.（e））;thatBuyercanceledthecontractonNovember10,1977（§1689.6）;andthatSellerwasentitledtonocompensationfortheservicesperformed（§1689.11,subd.（c））.（WeatherallAluminumProductsCo.v.Scott,71Cal.App.3d245[139Cal.Rptr.329].）Buyeralsosoughtthereturnofthe$8,566BuyerhadpaidtoSeller.

Althoughthehomesolicitationcontractstatutewasenactedin1971primarilytoprotectresidentsfromthehigh-pressuretechniquesofdoor-to-doorsalespersons,itwasinterpretedinWeatherallAluminumProductsCo.v.Scott,supra.,71Cal.App.3d245,248（decidedshortlyaftertheexecutionofthecontractinthepresentcase）toapplytocontractsenteredinthehome,evenwherethebuyerhadtelephonedthesellerandinvitedhimtocometothehome.Thus,underWeatherall,theinstantcontractwasahomesolicitationcontract.BecausetheinstantcontractdidnotcontaintherequirednoticegivingtheBuyerarighttocancelwithinthreedays,thestatutetechnicallyextendedindefinitely（untiltheSellercompliedwiththenoticerequirement）theBuyer'srighttocancel（Civ.Code,§1689.7,subd.（e）.）HereBuyerexercisedthisstatutoryrighttocancel,butonlyafterSellerhadapparentlysubstantiallycompletedthejob.BuyerarguesthatthestatutegivesBuyertherighttoretainallthesubstantialbenefitsconferredbySeller'sperformancewithoutpayinganythingatallforthem.Wedisagree.

.…

AlthoughBuyer'sstatutorycancellationgivesBuyeradefensetoSeller'sfirstcauseofactiononthecontract,SellerhasalsoallegedinhissecondcauseofactionaquantummeruitquasicontractualtheoryforrecoveryofthereasonablevalueofthebenefitsconferredonBuyerbySeller'sperformance.（See1Witkin,SummaryofCal.Law（8thed.1973）Contracts,§49,p.60.）AlthoughthestatutegivesBuyerarighttoavoidthewrittencontract,therewasnothingillegalorimmoralaboutthecontractitselforthenatureoftheservicesandmaterialstobefurnishedunderit.（SeeTrumbov.BankofBerkeley,77Cal.App.2d704,709-710[176P.2d376].）Therefore,eventhoughSellercouldnotrecoverontheexpressbuildingcontract,SellerisentitledtorecoveryonquantummeruitforthereasonablevalueoftheimprovementsBuyerhasreceived.（Simsv.PetalumaGasLightCo.,131Cal.656,660[63P.1011].）

NothinginWeatherallAluminumProductsCo.v.Scott,supra.,71Cal.App.3d245,precludessuchequitableadjustmentoftherightsanddutiesoftheparties.Thereisnoindicationinthatopinionthatthesellerinthatcaseraisedanequitablequasicontractualtheoryforthereasonablevalueofbenefitsconferred,asdistinguishedfromanactiononthecontract.NordoesCivilCodesection1689.11precludeSeller'squasicontractualrecovery..…

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

Thejudgmentisaffirmed.

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

讨论题：

1.本案双方争议的焦点是什么？

2.在本案中，加州的民法典赋予了“买方〞〔被装修房屋的房主〕什么权利？

该方基于什么事实可以行使该法赋予的权利？

3.买方是在卖方〔装修房屋的一方〕已经实质性地完成了其装修工作之后宣布解除合同的。

这一事实对本案判决有什么影响？

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

5.本案所运用的或确定的法律规那么是什么？

6.请结合HarrySchott案〔案例一〕和本案的情况，思考“公正考量〞在决定合同一方的行为是否构成不当得利时起的作用。

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况下会发生。

【教学时数】4学时

案例2：

诺言的存在-确定性

MilicPesovicv.SvetozarPesovic

AppellateCourtofIllinois,FirstDistrict,SecondDivision.

10Ill.App.3d708,295N.E.2d261

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.（Gabrenasv.Romanecki,331Ill.95,101,162N.E.161.）Thecontractcannotbepartlywrittenandpartlyoral.（Koppraschv.Satter,331Ill.126,127,162N.E.141;Weberv.Adler,311Ill.547,143N.E.95.）Anditisnotenoughtoshowthatsomekindofcontractexistedbetweentheparties;itmustapp