法律英语案例Word文档格式.docx
- 文档编号:21686668
- 上传时间:2023-01-31
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:58
- 大小:87.82KB
法律英语案例Word文档格式.docx
《法律英语案例Word文档格式.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《法律英语案例Word文档格式.docx(58页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
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
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
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- 法律 英语 案例