New_Method
.pdfA third point; I would recommend that the |
product, he was claiming rights over |
clause includes |
additional property. This, of course, meant |
wording to the effect that the buyer agrees |
the transaction was a charge. In another case, |
that he won't resell the goods until they've |
retrieving the product was possible - it was |
been paid for. Remember that there'll be a |
attached to the floor of a building - and so it |
greater risk that the clause amounts to a |
could be retrieved by unscrewing. In that |
charge if the buyer has the right to sell the |
case, the clause was valid. |
goods before the seller's received payment for |
My fifth and final point is the issue of |
them. |
recovery of the goods. A well-written clause |
I now come to my fourth point. Another thing |
will say that the supplier has a right of entry |
to take into consideration is what the buyer |
to recover the goods. Allow me to give you |
will do with the goods. If the buyer intends to |
another example. In one case, a supplier of |
use the goods in a way that'll result in their |
computer equipment was able to walk right |
losing their form, this means they can't be |
into an office and pick up and take away the |
recovered, and so the clause may be void. In |
goods under a retention of title clause. No |
one case, the product was a chemical, an |
one said anything or tried to stop him, and the |
ingredient used to make another product, and |
clause allowed this. |
the court held that once it was used in the |
Are there any questions? Not yet? Well, then |
manufacturing process, a claim over the |
I'd suggest at this point that we have a look at |
finished product under the retention of title |
a well-drafted retention of title clause. |
clause was invalid because the original |
|
product no longer existed. So when the seller |
|
tried to claim rights over the resulting |
|
60
1. |
|
|
Answer Key |
1. breach of contract. |
2. The lawyer thinks it’s hard to say |
||
2. |
1. e 2. I 3. b |
4. h |
5. g 6. f 7. c 8. d 9. a |
3. |
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 |
|
|
4. |
1. b 2. e 3. d |
4. a |
5. c |
5. |
1. draft: an answer, a brief, a complaint, a motion, a pleading |
||
2.issue: an injunction, a notice, a writ
3.file: an affidavit, an answer, a brief, a complaint, a motion, a notice, a pleading
4.serve: a complaint, an injunction, a notice, a pleading, a writ
5.submit: an affidavit, an answer, a brief, a complaint, a motion, a notice, a pleading, a writ.
6.inter alia, sic, e.g.,v.
7. |
1. c |
2. e |
3. f |
4. b |
5. h |
6. g |
7. a |
8. d |
|
8. |
1. d |
2. g |
3. a |
4. b |
5. h |
6. f |
7. c |
8. e |
9. j 10. i |
9. |
1. barrister |
2. attorney 3. in-house counsel 4. solicitor |
|||||||
10. |
1. advise: clients, corporations, defendants |
||||||||
2.draft, contracts, decisions, law, legislation
3.litigate: cases, disputes
4.practice: law
5.represent: clients, corporations, defendants
6.research: cases, decisions, law, legislation
11.-
12.1. He worked at G.R. Foster and Co. Solicitors, Cambridge< UK.
2.He speaks English, French and Swedish
3.He did his first degree at the University of Essex, Colchester, UK.
4.His main duty at the European Commission was drafting opinions in English and French dealing with contracts awarded for projects.
5.He is presently enrolled in a Master’s Programme in Law and Information Technology at the University of Stockholm, Sweden.
13.1. He says that the firm is traditional, and people are hard-working and serious, but friendly.
2.He says that the size sounds ideal, that it is not as small as the firm he worked for in Cambridge, but not too big either (unlike the EU Commission).
14.
15.
1. |
Mr. Robertson |
2. Full Partners 3. Real Property |
4. Salaried Partner |
5. |
Associate |
6. Paralegal |
|
Department/Company: is/are headed by, (is/are in charge of)
Person: is/are assisted by, is/are responsible for, is/are in charge of, report to
Both: is/are managed by
16.-
17.Speaker 1: 3, 4, 5
Speaker 2: 1, 2, 3, 4
Speaker 3: 2, 3, 4
Speaker 4: 2,4,5
Speaker 5: 1,2,3
18.-
19.–
20.1. Will improve future job opportunities
2.Four weeks
3.Do clerkships starting in first year of law school, in a variety of firms
21.-
22.-
23.2, 3, 5, 7, 8
24.C corporation
25.3, 6
26. |
1. False |
2. False |
3. False |
4. True 5. True 6. True 7. False |
27. |
1. b 2. d |
3. c |
4. a 5. f |
6. e |
28.1. The purpose of a rights issue is to raise cash from shareholders
2. If they do not want to buy the newly issued, they the option to waive their pre-
|
emption rights or to vote to cancel them; the shares may then be issued by the |
|||
|
company to third parties. |
|||
29. |
1. b |
2 c |
3 c |
4 a |
30. |
1. c |
2 c |
3 b |
|
31. |
1. False |
2. True 3. True 4. false 5. True 6. True |
||
32.1. They are discussing an increase in a company’s share capital.
2.A board meeting and an EGM
3.Three: the ordinary resolution, the notice of increase of nominal capital and the amended memorandum.
33. |
1. share capital 2. Determine the amount 3. a board meeting |
|
|
4. directors 5. pass a resolution |
6. short notice 7. chairperson |
|
8. a simple majority 9. within 15 |
10. nominal capital |
34.1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9
35.1. While bargaining, it means giving up some items in order to get other ones from the other party.
62
2. The purpose of a merger clause is to ensure that anything that was said or written before the agreement is not admissible in proceedings unless it is explicitly written in the agreement.
36.They are talking about a franchise agreement. The two clauses they mention are the non-competition clause and the arbitration clause.
37. |
1. False 2. True 3. True 4. False |
38.One of the techniques Arthur Johansson used was horse-trading, i.e. trading one item (in this case offering to be flexible on the arbitration clause) for another (getting the other party to reduce the scope of the non-competition clause). The second technique he used was to suggest a number that he knew the other party would not accept (in this case, he suggested reducing the length of the noncompetition clause to one year) in the expectation that the other party suggested two years), with the hope that they would agree to meet halfway of a number Mr Johansson actually wanted originally.
39.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9
40.a Our proposal is to…
|
We suggest… |
|
We’d like… |
|
What we are looking for is… |
|
b I Think we could live with that. |
|
That’s certainly a step in the right direction. |
|
I’m afraid that’s out of the question. |
|
We’d be happy with that. |
|
The most forceful phrase for rejecting a proposal is I’m afraid that’s out of the |
|
question. |
41. |
1. True 2. False 3. False |
42. |
1. produced 2. a third party 3. signature 4. transfer 5. harmful |
43.The program written by the software company contained unnecessary code and did not function with Macintosh computers, so the client had to have it rewritten.
44.Read through the contract.
45.1. 3, 4, 5, 7
46. 1 c 2 b 3 c 4 b
47.-
48.2, 4, 6
49.-
50.The three points of evidence Ron will use are:
- excellent credit rating of prospective buyer;
63
-expert witness on commercial lease transactions who will testify that Jones had sufficient information to make a decision;
-evidence that suggests the relationship between the men was not a good one.
51.–
52.1, 3, 4, 6
53. |
1 b 2 a |
3 a 4 b |
54. |
1. False |
2. True 3. True 4. True 5. False |
55.If an ROT clause is interpreted as a charge and has not been registered, it is void.
56.1. a good clause will be clear. It will state that ownership or title in the goods sold will not pass to the buyer until payment is made.
2.The clause should require that the buyer keeps the goods separate from other goods. The goods
3The clause should state that the buyer will not resell the goods until payment is made.
4Take into consideration what the buyer will do with the goods. If the goods will be used by the buyer, and they lose their form and can't be recovered, the clause may be void.
5A well-written clause will say that the supplier has a right of entry to recover the
|
goods. |
57 |
1 b 2c 3a 4c |
58 |
1 supplied 2 seller 3 in full 4 buyer 5 value |
|
6 recover 7 premises 8 due 9 solvency |
59The clause does contain a clear statement that titles shall not pass until the buyer has paid in full for the goods. It also contains a provision giving the seller the right to enter the buyer's premises to take advantage of them. Unfortunately, the clause fails to include the other points addressed by the speaker. The clause does not make any mention of requiring the buyer to keep the goods separate from other goods, nor is there mention of serial-number markings on the goods corresponding to invoices. No provisions have been made for a prohibition on further sale until the goods are paid for in full. In fact, the wording appears to state the direct opposite. Finally, no wording exists to deal with the problem of changing or incorporating the goods into other goods.
64
References
1.Adam J.H. Longman Dictionary of Business English. Longman: York Press, 1997
2.Alison Riley. English for Law. Longman, 2005
3.Amy Krois-Lindner and TransLegal. International Legal English. Cambridge University Press, 2006
4.Andrianov S. N., Berson A.S., Nikifirov A.S. English-Russian Law Dictionary. Moscow “Russo” 2005
5.Dictionary of English Language and Culture. Longman
65
Попова Татьяна Петровна
Legal Listening
Учебно-методические материалы по аудированию для студентов 2-го и 3-го курсов факультета права
Тираж 100 экз. Заказ № НФ ГУ-ВШЭ, г.Н.Новгород, ул. Б. Печерская, 25/12
ГОСУДАРСТВЕННЫЙ УНИВЕРСИТЕТ ВЫСШАЯ ШКОЛА ЭКОНОМИКИ Нижегородский филиал
Кафедра иностранных языков
Т.П.Попова
Глоссарий юридических терминов
(на английском языке)
Учебно-методические материалы для студентов 2-го и 3-го курсов факультета права
Нижний Новгород
2009 год
Кафедра иностранных языков
Т.П. ПОПОВА
Глоссарий юридических терминов
(на английском языке)
Учебно-методические материалы для студентов 2-го и 3-го курсов факультета права
Нижний Новгород
2009 год
ББК 81.2 Англ-923
П
Попова, Т.П. Глоссарий юридических терминов (на английском языке): Учебно-методические материалы для студентов 2-го и 3-го курсов факультета права. Т.П. Попова. – Н. Новгород: НФ ГУ-ВШЭ, 2009.- с.
Учебно-методические материалы обсуждены на заседании кафедры иностранных языков 26. 02. 2009г., протокол № 3 , и одобрено Учебнометодическим советом НФ ГУ-ВШЭ.
Настоящие учебно-методические материалы предназначены для студентов второго и третьего курсов факультета права НФ ГУ-ВШЭ, изучающих английский язык в качестве первого иностранного.
Глоссарий дает толкование юридических терминов на английском языке и предназначено для работы студентов с аутентичными текстами правовой тематики.
Материалы охватывают основные тематические блоки, включенные в Учебную программу 2-го и 3-го курсов юридического факультета: The
Practice of Law, Company Law, Contract Law, Employment Law.
Рецензенты: доцент, к.ф.н. Калинина Э.Н. доцент, к.ф.н. Скребнева Т.Г.
©Попова Татьяна Петровна, 2009
©Нижегородский филиал ГУ-ВШЭ, 2009
2