《大學(xué)專業(yè)英語系列教材:法學(xué)專業(yè)英語教程(第3版)(下)》專供具有大學(xué)英語四級水平的法律專業(yè)學(xué)生使用的英語教材。它較全面系統(tǒng)地介紹美國民商法的基本情況,又提供了案例閱讀,形成了一本精泛讀相結(jié)合、配有各種口筆頭練習(xí)的易于操作的全新的法學(xué)英語學(xué)習(xí)體系。使用本教材的學(xué)生在循序漸進(jìn)提高英語水平的同時,可了解美國法律的概貌,掌握各種法律概念的英語表述。正因為此,它自1999年問世以來頗受廣大師生的好評。
《法學(xué)專業(yè)英語教程》是一套專供具有大學(xué)英語四級水平的法律專業(yè)學(xué)生使用的英語教材。它較全面系統(tǒng)地介紹美國民商法的基本情況,又提供了案例閱讀,形成了一套精泛讀相結(jié)合、配有各種口筆頭練習(xí)的易于操作的全新的法學(xué)英語學(xué)習(xí)體系。使用本教材的學(xué)生在循序漸進(jìn)提高英語水平的同時,可了解美國法律的概貌,掌握各種法律概念的英語表述。正因為此,它自1999年問世以來頗受廣大師生的好評。2007年首次修訂,更新了部分內(nèi)容。然而,在過去的五年中,技術(shù)發(fā)展突飛猛進(jìn),經(jīng)濟(jì)跌宕起伏變幻莫測,社會變革的深度和廣度前所未有,這些變化必然也帶動了法律的發(fā)展。為使這套教材在內(nèi)容上緊跟美國法律發(fā)展的腳步,出版社提議再次修訂,編者本著對使用者負(fù)責(zé)的態(tài)度,欣然接受了這一任務(wù)。
本次修訂的重點是案例閱讀部分。舊版的案例大多在內(nèi)容上緊扣課文,擴(kuò)充和詮釋了課文內(nèi)容,但其中一些案例年代久遠(yuǎn),對學(xué)生的吸引力不大。本次修訂,保留了原版的經(jīng)典案件,但作了刪節(jié),使之更簡練。同時又增添了不少近五年的新案例,使21世紀(jì)以來的案例達(dá)到三分之一以上。新增的案例,有涉及轟動全美的“龐氏騙局”的刑事案United Statesv.Madoff,詮釋薩班斯-奧克斯利保護(hù)告密者條例的案例Tides v.The Boeing Company,權(quán)衡無過錯產(chǎn)品質(zhì)量索賠和保護(hù)新興產(chǎn)業(yè)之間的利弊的Russell Bruesewitz v.Wyeth //C,界定和區(qū)分不可申請專利的科學(xué)發(fā)現(xiàn)和可申請專利的技術(shù)成果的Mayo Collaborative Servicesv.Prome-theus Laboratories,Inc等。新選的案例不少涉及電信、生物技術(shù)等新興產(chǎn)業(yè)和金融保險等當(dāng)今的熱門行業(yè),案例的當(dāng)事方有不少是學(xué)生熟悉的跨國公司,這樣必然會增加學(xué)生閱讀案例的興趣。更重要的是,案件解決的爭議也是我國當(dāng)今法律界面臨的問題,判決意見書多數(shù)出自聯(lián)邦最高法院的法官,他們透徹的分析,也將開闊學(xué)生的視野和思路,可以幫助他們?yōu)槿蘸髲氖路晒ぷ鞔蛳赂鼮樵鷮嵉幕A(chǔ)。
由于課文是介紹經(jīng)久不變的法律基本原則的,除最后一章公司法有新添內(nèi)容外,其他改動較少。課文的注解和案例閱讀中的問題及答案,這次也作了不少修改,使表達(dá)更加簡練明晰。
……
Unit Four Negotiable Instrumennts and Secured Transaction
Lesson One Commeraal Paper and the Concept of Holder in Due Course
Lesson Two Check Collection and Allocation of Liability
Lesson Three The Bank and Its Customer: Rights, Duties and Liabilities
Lesson Four Secured Transactions
Cases for Supplementary Reading
(1) Bank of Miami v.Florida City Express, Inc.(1979)
(2) MidWisconsin Bank v.Forsgard Trading, Inc.(2003)
(3) Wachovia Bank, N.A.v.Federal Reserve Bank (2003)
(4) Yacht Club Sales v.First Nat.Bank of North Idaho (1980)
(5) Charles Ragusa & Son v.Community State Bank (1978)
(6) Greenberg, Trager & Herbst v.HSBC Bank USA and Citibank (2011)
(7) H.Schultz & Sons, Inc.v.Bank of Suffolk County (1977)
(8) Gibbs v.King (1978)
(9) Chapman Parts Warehouse, Inc.v.Guderian (1980)
Unit Five The Law of Property
Lesson One Property: Real and Personal
Lesson Two Transfer of Real Property
Lesson Three Real Estate Brokers and the Law of Agency
Lesson Four Intellectual Property
Cases for Supplementary Reading
(1) United States v.Causby (1946)
(2) Susette Kelo v.City of New London, Connecticut (2005)
(3) State of New Jersey v.Shack and Tejeras (1971)
(4) Baker v.Weedon (1972)
(5) First Federal Savings & Loan Assn.of Miami v.Fisher (1952)
(6) Gerruth Realty Co.v.Pire (1962)
(7) Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v.Grokster, Ltd.(2005)
(8) Mayo Collaborative Services v.Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.(2012)
(9) The People v.Levy (2010)
Unit Six Tort Law
Lesson One Introduction to Tort Law
Lesson Two Intentional Torts
Lesson Three Negligence
Lesson Four Liability Without Fault and Products Liability
Cases for Supplementary Reading
(1) Bonkowski v.Arlan's Department Store ( 1968)
(2) Hackbart v.Cincinnati Bengals, Inc.( 1979)
……
Unit Seven Business Associations
Unit Eight Corporate Law
Appendix Ⅰ Key to Exercises
Appendix Ⅱ Text Translation
Since the United States began operations in May, 1942, its four-motored heavy bombers, other planes of the heavier type, and its fighter planes have frequently passed over respondents' land and buildings in considerable numbers and rather close together.
They come close enough at times to appear barely to miss the tops of the trees and at times so close to the tops of the trees as to blow the old leaves off. The noise is startling. As a re- sult of the noise, respondents had to give up their chicken business. As many as six to ten of their chickens were killed in one day by flying into the walls from fright. The total chickens lost in that manner was about 150. Production also fell off. The result was the de-struction of the use of the property as a commercial chicken farm. Respondents are fre- quently deprived of their sleep and the family has become nervous and frightened. ... These are the essential facts found by the Court of Claims. On the basis of these facts, it found that respondents' property had depreciated in value. It held that the United States had taken an easement over the property on June 1, 1942 , and that the value of the propertydestroyed and the easement taken was $ 2,000* ...
It is anaent doctrine that at common law ownership of the land extended to the pe- riphery 0f the universe.*. But that doctrine has no place in the modern world. The air is a public highway, as Congress has declared. Were that not true, every transcontinental flight would subject the operator to countless trespass suits. Common sense revolts at the idea. To recognize such private claims to the airspace would clog these highways, seriously interfere with their control and development in the public interest, and transfer into pri- vate ownership that to which only the public has a just claim……
We have said that the airspace is a public highway. Yet it is obvious that if the land- owner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immedi- ate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run. The prinaple is recognized when the law gives a remedy in case overhanging structures are erected on adjoining land The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land. The fact that he does not occupy it in a physical sense-by the erection of buildings and the like-is not material. As we have said, the flight of airplanes, which skim the surface but do not touch it, is as much an appropriation 0f the use of the land as a more conventional entry upon it. We would not doubt that if the United States erected an elevated railway over respondents' land at the precise ahtitude where its planes now fly, there would be a partial taking, even though none of the supports of the structure rested on the land. The reason is that there would be an intrusion so immediate and direct as to subtract from the owner's full enjoyment of the property and to limit his exploitation of it.
……