美国财产法（第2版）（英文版）_薛源著_9787566305404

　　《英美法案例精选丛书：美国财产法（第2版）（英文版）》选编了44个典型案例，分为财产的取得、不动产权益、不动产租赁、不动产转让、私人对土地使用的控制和国家对土地使用的管理六个部分。
　　《英美法案例精选丛书：美国财产法（第2版）（英文版）》可以作为大专院校法律学科教师和学生讲授和学习“比较物权法”的案例辅助教材，为法律工作者和其他专业人士了解美国财产法的基本概念和原则提供参考，也可以为对法律英语感兴趣的人士提供了解财产法方面专业词汇和提高专业英语水平的机会。

　　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。

　　It is undisputed that none of the foregoing circumstances apply in this case.Plaintiffs further concede that neither the contract of sale nor the deed expressly provides a right of entry onto the life estate.Plaintiffs argue，however，that a right of entry is implicit，as a matter of law，in the deed as a necessary incident to the right to convey plaintiffs' future interest in the life estate and present interest in the surrounding property.Plaintiffs contend such a right is consistent both logically and with the historical exceptions in-the Restatement of Law，Property，section 117.
　　The Court disagrees.It does not follow that，because one has a right to convey what he or she owns，one has a right to invade another's interest.
　　Similarly，the mere fact that a right of entry would.be beneficial in conveying an interest in property does not mean that such a right is necessary to either the perfection or assertion of the right to convey particularly or the reasonable protection of plaintiffs' future interest generally so as justify subordinating the right of the owner of a possessory estate for life not to be disturbed.
　　Plaintiffs have also failed to demonstrate that they are unable to convey the subject property without access to the life estate area.There has been no showing that the property，as a whole，cannot be conveyed for a lesser price or that the part of the property that is not subject to the life estate cannot be sold separate from the reserved life estate area.
　　Although plaintiffs' counsel contends that they are unable to sell the property，counsel elsewhere tacitly concedes that.The only harm is a diminution in the value of the property in arguing that the.Lack of access "is preventing effective marketing of the entire property for sale" （Memo at 8）.Similarly，the affidavit of real estate agent Donald Russell dated January 24，1995，p.6，states that lack of access has "prevented us from effectively marketing the property"，while the affidavit of real estate agent Anthony Castagno dated April28，1994，p.2，states that，without access，he "cannot be optimistic about the future sale of the Thorn property at its fair market value." The possibility that property will be less valuable to the owner of a future interest if access is denied to perform an act during the life estate，however，has been rejected by the Restatement of Property as a basis for allowing entry in its illustration 4 of comment d of section 117，p.136： "A，owning Black acre in fee simple absolute，transfers Black acre 'to B for life，'remainder to C and his heirs.'The proper long time utilization of Black acre requires the construction thereon of a commercial office building.The cost of such construction is likely to be much greater when B dies than it is at present.C desires to enter on Black acre and construct the building forthwith at his own expense.B has an unqualified right that C not disturb his possession in this manner."
　　……

我要评论