英美商事法（第2版）（英文版）_朱建林著_9787566304933

　　《英美法案例精选丛书：英美商事法（第2版）（英文版）》选自英美法院的国际商事判例。这些判例主要涉及货物买卖合同、信用证交易、损害赔偿与救济以及法院对仲裁程序之监督与支持。鉴于这些判例在国际商事领域很具代表性，而且其理由分析、文字表达、逻辑推理等诸多方面都有参考和借鉴作用，本人非常乐意选择这方面的案例，编辑成书并推荐给从事国际商事法律与仲裁工作的同仁，尤其是选修国际商事法的学生，无论是法律本科生，还是研究生和博士生。

　　近年来，随着全球经济一体化进程的加快和我国对外贸易总量的大幅攀升，我国与外国主体间的贸易摩擦和经济纠纷呈现不断上升的态势，与此同时，随着我国大国地位的日益显现，在有关国际组织的法律岗位上，我国应当有数量更多、职位更高的代言人。凡此种种，都对培养能够服务于我国利益的高端国际化法律人才提出急迫的需求；与此同时，也会引发这样的问题：我国的大学在培养此类人才方面应当发挥什么作用？
　　毋庸置疑的是，能够服务于我国利益的高端国际化法律人才必须是学贯东西的人才，必须具有我国国内法律教育的背景，懂得中国国情和精通中国的法律。因此，作为他们成才的第一步，必须在中国的法律院校接受教育。这就决定了，我国的法学院在培养此类人才方面是可以有所作为的。
　　接下来的问题是，中国的法律院校应如何在学生接受国内教育的阶段，特别是在大学本科阶段，为他们后来成为高端国际化法律人才，在知识储备和能力培养方面奠定良好的基础？实践证明，高端国际化法律人才在其接受教育的过程中，必须在基础英语、法律专业英语、中国法知识、外国法知识，以及交叉学科知识等多个方面积累知识和扩展能力。由此为今后的出国深造，特别是在特定的专业法律领域的成功发展，奠定坚实的基础。
　　因此，对法律专业英语的学习是培养高端国际化法律人才的重要环节。进一步说，随着近年来我国法律事务中涉外内容的增加，即使对一般的法律工作人员来说，要胜任日常的工作，通常也需要在相当的程度上具备法律专业英语的能力。
　　本系列教材是很好的适合于在我国法律院校开展法律专业英语教学的教材。首先，本系列教材是以英美法为内容的教材。目前，英美法不仅在解决国际商事争端的法律体系中明显地占据着主导地位，并且WTO争端解决机制的运作模式也是以英美法为基础进行设计的。其次，本系列教材是案例教材。采用这套教材，有助于推动案例教学和法律教学改革的开展。最后，本系列教材自2007年出版以来，已经为一些法律院校采用。实践证明，这套教材的编写和使用对于我国国际化法律人才的培养已经起到了一定的作用。其效果之一是，由于这套教材中的案例大都是精选的为美国法学院的教材所采用的经典案例，在国内学习过此套教材的学生，借助原来学习的基础，在后来去英美法国家留学的过程中，往往能驾轻就熟，获得较好的成绩。
　　本系列教材第二版中的各个教材对第一版作了不同程度的改进和完善，进一步提高了质量。在这一版付梓之际，我谨代表作者们对使用本教材的各位教师表示衷心的感谢，并希望在我国的法律院校中，有更多的教师加入我国国际化法律人才培养的教师行列。

　　3.In the circumstance it was proper to infer that the goods were shipped within the shipment period and that they were shipped probably on Feb. 10，1984 so that the contractual allowance of 3.5 per cent became payable；beyond that sum nothing was recoverable and the appeal would be allowed and award varied.
　　The buyers appealed.
　　Sellers committed a breach of a condition of the contract in as much as the bills of lading were dated incorrectly and therefore any question of damages being limited to contractual allowances does not arise.
　　The essence of Mr.Russell's argument in favor of the buyers was deceptively simple，although，as the Judge had also pointed out，overlaid by a great deal of unnecessary complexity.His submissions were designed to demonstrate the importance of correctly dated bills of lading in the context of various aspects of c.i.f.contracts and contracts for the carriage of goods by sea No one doubts these matters for one moment， the whole basis of the decision in James Finlay was that one of the sellers' obligations under a c.i.f.contract is to present a correctly dated bill of lading. This obligation has the character of a condition，in the sense that the buyers are entitled to reject a tender of documents which include an incorrectly dated big.of lading，and thus entitled to refuse to pay for the goods. On a falling market it is self-evident that buyers would have availed themselves of this right if they had known that the tendered bill of lading was misdated As Lord Justice Scranton said in James Finlay at pp.249 and 409，the buyers would in that event have kept the price in their pocket And in James Finlay and Kwei Rek Chao the buyers accordingly recovered full damages on this basis. No more need be said by way of introduction.
　　One then comes to the buyers' seductive submission on these lines.Mr.Russell said that it followed that if，the buyers had known in this case that the bill of lading had been undated they would have rejected the documents，refused to pay the price and left the sellers to face the loss resulting from the fall in the market As a statement of what would have happened if the buyers had known the true facts this is obviously true.But it does not provide the correct test in law. The issue is not what the true facts are. The first question is： what would have been the buyers' rights if the sellers had not committed the breach on which the buyers rely？
　　The correct analysis of the issue is not only apparent from the passages cited from the judgments in James Finlay，but also as a matter of general principle.The object of an award of damages for breach of contract is to put the innocent party in the same position so far as money can do it as if the contract had not been broken So put，the answer-to the present problem becomes obvious. If there had been no breach，then the bill of lading under contract 83/703 would have been dated Feb.6 or 10 instead of Jan 31. In that event the buyers would have had no right to reject it or to refuse to pay for the goods. They would only have been entitled to the contractual allowance for shipment in February.In relation to contract 83/701 the position would have been different.A correctly dated bill of lading would have revealed the sellers' breach of condition in relation to the date of s：torment，whereas an incorrect date concealed this breach On that basis，following James Finlay，the buyers were nightly awarded full damages under contract 83/701.But the Board of Appeal was wrong in drawing no distinction in relation to contract 83/703 and awarding full damages in both cases.
　　……

我要评论