法律英语课件-Legal English(case brief)案例摘要
法律英语案例英语版(3篇)
第1篇Case Overview:In this legal English case, John Doe, a former employee of XYZ Corporation, filed a lawsuit against the company for wrongful termination and violation of the Employment Contract. The case revolves around the termination of John Doe's employment and the subsequent dispute between the parties.Background:John Doe was employed by XYZ Corporation as a Sales Manager. He was hired on a fixed-term employment contract, which was due to expire on December 31, 2020. According to the contract, XYZ Corporation was required to provide John Doe with a written notice of termination at least 30 days before the expiration of the contract.On November 15, 2020, XYZ Corporation terminated John Doe's employment without providing the required notice. John Doe claims that the termination was wrongful and in violation of the Employment Contract. He further alleges that the termination was due to discrimination based on his age and that he was replaced by a younger employee.Facts:1. John Doe was hired by XYZ Corporation on February 1, 2015, as a Sales Manager.2. He was employed under a fixed-term employment contract, which was due to expire on December 31, 2020.3. The Employment Contract explicitly states that XYZ Corporation must provide John Doe with a written notice of termination at least 30 days before the expiration of the contract.4. On November 15, 2020, XYZ Corporation terminated John Doe's employment without providing the required notice.5. John Doe claims that he was replaced by a younger employee who was offered the same position and salary.6. John Doe filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and received a right-to-sue letter.Issues:1. Did XYZ Corporation violate the Employment Contract by terminating John Doe's employment without providing the required notice?2. Did XYZ Corporation discriminate against John Doe based on his age in terminating his employment?3. Is John Doe entitled to damages for wrongful termination and discrimination?Arguments:1. Violation of the Employment Contract:John Doe argues that XYZ Corporation violated the Employment Contract by terminating his employment without providing the required notice. He claims that the contract clearly stipulates that XYZ Corporation must provide him with a written notice of termination at least 30 days before the expiration of the contract. By terminating his employment without notice, XYZ Corporation breached the contract.2. Age Discrimination:John Doe further argues that XYZ Corporation discriminated against him based on his age in terminating his employment. He claims that he was replaced by a younger employee who was offered the same position and salary. John Doe argues that this action demonstrates age discrimination and violates anti-discrimination laws.3. Entitlement to Damages:John Doe asserts that he is entitled to damages for wrongful termination and discrimination. He seeks compensation for lost wages, emotional distress, and any other damages resulting from the termination and discrimination.Defenses:1. Just Cause for Termination:XYZ Corporation argues that there was just cause for terminating John Doe's employment. They claim that John Doe engaged in misconduct and violated company policies, which warranted immediate termination.2. No Age Discrimination:XYZ Corporation denies the claim of age discrimination. They argue that the decision to replace John Doe was based on performance and business needs, not age.3. Lack of Notice Requirement:XYZ Corporation argues that the Employment Contract does not require them to provide notice of termination before the expiration of the contract. They claim that the contract only requires notice for termination during the contract term.Judgment:The court found that XYZ Corporation violated the Employment Contract by terminating John Doe's employment without providing the required notice. The court held that the contract clearly stipulated the notice requirement and XYZ Corporation breached its obligations under the contract.Regarding the claim of age discrimination, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that XYZ Corporation discriminated against John Doe based on his age. The court noted that the replacement of John Doe with a younger employee was based on performance and business needs, not age.As for the entitlement to damages, the court awarded John Doe lost wages for the period between the termination and the expiration of the contract. The court denied the claim for emotional distress and other damages, finding that John Doe failed to provide sufficient evidence to support such claims.Conclusion:In this legal English case, the court held that XYZ Corporation violated the Employment Contract by terminating John Doe's employment without providing the required notice. However, the court found insufficient evidence to support the claim of age discrimination. John Doe was awarded lost wages as damages, while the claim for emotional distressand other damages was denied. This case highlights the importance of adhering to employment contracts and the potential consequences of wrongful termination and discrimination.第2篇Case No.: 12345 ABCDCourt: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los AngelesDate: January 15, 2023Facts:In the summer of 2021, John Smith, a resident of Los Angeles, purchased a new car from Johnson Motors, a local dealership. The car, a 2021 model, was advertised as being in "like new" condition and had a warranty of 36 months or 36,000 miles, whichever came first. Smith drove the car for approximately 6 months before he noticed that the engine was emitting excessive smoke and making unusual noises. Upon investigation, it was discovered that the engine had been severely overheated and had suffered irreparable damage.Smith took the car back to Johnson Motors, presenting the warranty and seeking a repair or replacement. Johnson Motors denied the claim,stating that the damage was due to misuse and not covered under the warranty. Smith, believing that the car was sold with false representations, filed a lawsuit against Johnson Motors for breach of warranty and fraudulent misrepresentation.Issues:1. Whether the warranty terms are enforceable.2. Whether Johnson Motors breached the warranty by denying Smith's claim.3. Whether Johnson Motors engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation.Arguments:1. Enforceability of the Warranty Terms:Smith argues that the warranty terms are enforceable and that Johnson Motors is bound by the terms of the warranty. He points to the fact that the warranty was clearly stated in the sales contract and that he relied on these terms when purchasing the car. Johnson Motors counters that the warranty terms were ambiguous and that the damage to the engine was not covered by the warranty.2. Breach of Warranty:Smith claims that Johnson Motors breached the warranty by denying his claim for repair or replacement. He argues that the warranty explicitly covers engine issues and that the damage to his car falls within the scope of the warranty. Johnson Motors argues that the damage was caused by Smith's misuse of the vehicle and that the warranty does not cover such damages.3. Fraudulent Misrepresentation:Smith further claims that Johnson Motors engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation by advertising the car as being in "like new" condition when it was, in fact, defective. He argues that this false representation induced him to purchase the car and that he suffered damages as a result.Ruling:The court, after hearing the arguments and examining the evidence, rendered the following decision:1. Enforceability of the Warranty Terms:The court held that the warranty terms are enforceable and that Johnson Motors is bound by the terms of the warranty. The court found that the warranty was clear and unambiguous and that Smith relied on these terms when purchasing the car.2. Breach of Warranty:The court found that Johnson Motors breached the warranty by denying Smith's claim. The court noted that the warranty explicitly covers engine issues and that the damage to Smith's car fell within the scope of the warranty. The court also found that the evidence did not support Johnson Motors' claim that the damage was due to misuse.3. Fraudulent Misrepresentation:The court found that Johnson Motors did engage in fraudulent misrepresentation. The court held that the advertisement of the car as being in "like new" condition was false and that it induced Smith to purchase the car. The court found that Smith suffered damages as a result of this misrepresentation.Remedies:The court awarded Smith the following remedies:1. The cost of repairing or replacing the car, as covered under the warranty.2. Compensatory damages for the emotional distress and inconvenience caused by the car's malfunction.3. Punitive damages against Johnson Motors for engaging in fraudulent misrepresentation.Conclusion:This case serves as a reminder to consumers to carefully read and understand warranty terms before making a purchase. It also underscores the importance of honesty in advertising and the legal consequences of fraudulent misrepresentation. The court's decision in favor of Smith sends a strong message to businesses that they must honor their warranties and provide accurate information to their customers.Legal Principles Involved:1. Warranty Law: The court applied principles of warranty law to determine whether Johnson Motors breached the warranty terms.2. Fraudulent Misrepresentation: The court applied principles of fraudulent misrepresentation to find that Johnson Motors made false statements that induced Smith to purchase the car.3. Damages: The court awarded damages to Smith for the breach of warranty and fraudulent misrepresentation.End of Case.第3篇Court: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los AngelesCitation: 123 Cal. Rptr. 3d 456 (2010)Facts:In the year 2005, John Smith ("Plaintiff") purchased a house in Los Angeles, California, from James Johnson ("Defendant"). The property was advertised as a "fixer-upper," and the purchase price was $500,000. The contract of sale included a clause that the property was being sold "as is," meaning that the Defendant made no warranties regarding the condition of the property.After the purchase, Plaintiff discovered that the house had significant structural damage, including foundation issues and a leaking roof. Plaintiff hired an engineer to inspect the property and determine the extent of the damage. The engineer's report estimated the repairs would cost $150,000.Plaintiff brought a lawsuit against Defendant, alleging breach of contract and fraud. Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant had knowledge of the property's condition and intentionally misrepresented it as being in good repair. The Defendant denied these allegations and claimed that the "as is" clause released him from any liability.Issue:The issue before the court was whether the "as is" clause in thecontract of sale effectively released the Defendant from liability for the property's condition, or whether the Plaintiff could prove fraud or breach of contract.Decision:The court, after considering the evidence presented by both parties, found that the "as is" clause did not absolve the Defendant of liability. The court held that while the "as is" clause limited the Defendant's warranties, it did not completely release him from liability for fraudor material misrepresentations.The court found that the Defendant had indeed made material misrepresentations regarding the condition of the property. The evidence showed that the Defendant knew about the structural damage and roofleaks but failed to disclose them to the Plaintiff. The court further found that the misrepresentations were intentional and resulted in the Plaintiff purchasing the property under false pretenses.The court also found that the Defendant's actions constituted fraud. The court explained that fraud occurs when a party makes a false statementof material fact with the intent to induce another party to rely on that statement and to enter into a contract. In this case, the Defendant's failure to disclose the property's condition was a false statement that induced the Plaintiff to enter into the contract.Rationale:The court's decision was based on the principle that while "as is" clauses can limit the seller's warranties, they do not eliminate the seller's duty to disclose known defects. The court emphasized that the purpose of the "as is" clause is to inform the buyer that the seller is not making any representations about the condition of the property, but it does not grant the seller the right to misrepresent the property's condition.The court further held that the Defendant's misrepresentations were material, meaning that they were likely to influence the Plaintiff'sdecision to purchase the property. The court found that the structural damage and roof leaks were significant defects that would have been a major consideration for the Plaintiff in deciding whether to purchase the property.Remedy:The court awarded the Plaintiff damages in the amount of $150,000, which represented the cost of repairs to the property. The court also ordered the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff's attorney's fees and costs.Conclusion:This case serves as an important reminder that "as is" clauses in real estate contracts do not completely release sellers from liability for their actions. Sellers must still disclose known defects and cannot make material misrepresentations about the condition of the property. Buyers should be cautious when entering into "as is" contracts and should conduct thorough inspections to protect themselves against potential defects.Legal Principles:1. "As Is" Clauses: These clauses typically limit the seller's warranties and disclaim any representations about the condition of the property. However, they do not absolve the seller from liability for fraud or material misrepresentations.2. Fraud: Fraud occurs when a party makes a false statement of material fact with the intent to induce another party to rely on that statement and to enter into a contract.3. Material Misrepresentations: These are false statements that are likely to influence the decision of the buyer.4. Duty to Disclose: Sellers have a duty to disclose known defects to potential buyers.References:- California Civil Code § 1790.4- Restatement (Second) of Torts § 538- Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 107Additional Notes:This case is an example of the application of common law principles in a real estate context. The court's decision reflects the balance between protecting buyers from fraudulent sellers and upholding the intent of "as is" clauses. Buyers should be aware of their rights and obligations when entering into real estate transactions and should consult withlegal professionals to ensure their interests are protected.。
法律英语法律出版社 各课课件第七课
• /
18
22.07.2021
• Killing during the course of a felony such as robbery.
• 在抢劫这样的重罪过程中杀人
• Gun goes off accidentally killing the robbery victim, or a bystander, or a police officer.
Capital punishment
DEATH PENALTY
4
22.07.2021
5
22.07.2021
6
22.07.2021
Insanity defense 精神不正常辩护
Ronald Reagan
John Hinc7kley
22.07.2021
Criminal homicide——有罪杀人
Express malice vs. Implied malice
Push another off the side of a mountain
Fire a rifle at a moving passenger train
16
22.07.2021
法律英语ppt
现代英语的演进
1066年，Norman（诺曼底人）从法国北部 入侵，征服了英格兰。（Justice, sovereign, court, parliament） parliament 后来，英国人主动从法语中扩充电磁， chauffer，bourgeois，bourgeoisie （小资）
法律英语的渊源
一、法律英语写作的语法与标点符号
3.3 “不写以BECAUSE, AND, BUT 打头的 句子。” 3.4 “少用一句话段落。” 3.5 “使用 I, ME, YOU” 代词时要谨慎考虑 表达的语气。”
一、法律英语写作的语法与标点符号
4. 疑难单词
二、法律英语写作文体
1.清晰 2. 一致 3. 法律效力
Covering Letters :
Briefly introduce yourself; what job you are applying for; where you saw the advert, etc. Give reasons why you are applying for this job in this organisation. Demonstrate your enthusiasm and understanding of the job/employer Explain why you are a good candidate; highlight important points from your CV; add any relevant information or explanations not in the CV.
General Advice :
Expect to spend several hours on an application It takes on average 2 minutes to read! Know yourself Know the employer – target CV to the j律英语写作的语法与标点符号
法律英语lesson5lawyer教材教学课件
VS
Case introduction
Provide a brief overview of the case, including the parties involved, the main issues, and the background information. Ensure that the introduction is clear and engaging.
Expert knowledge
Lawyers must have a comprehensive understanding of the law and legal principles, as well as the ability to apply this knowledge to practical legal problems. They must keep up-todate with legal developments and changes in the law.
3
Summative assessments include written assignments, presentations, and exams at the end of eachledge of legal English
Legal English Vocabulary
course arrangement
01
Teaching methods
02
Lectures, discussions, case studies, and simulations are
used to illustrate legal concepts and practical applications.
法律英语的案例分析(3篇)
第1篇Introduction:This legal English case analysis focuses on the case of Johnson v. Smith, a landmark decision in the United States that revolves around the interpretation of a lease agreement and the obligations of the landlord and tenant. The case highlights the importance of clear and precise language in legal documents and the principles of contract law. This analysis will delve into the facts of the case, the legal arguments presented, the court's decision, and the implications of the ruling.Facts of the Case:In 2010, Johnson (Tenant) entered into a lease agreement with Smith (Landlord) for a residential property located in New York City. Thelease agreement contained a clause that required the Tenant to maintain the property in good condition and to pay for any repairs or maintenance required during the term of the lease. The lease also included a provision that any alterations or modifications to the property without the Landlord's written consent would be deemed a breach of the lease.During the term of the lease, Johnson made several unauthorized changes to the property, including installing new flooring and painting the walls. Johnson argued that these changes were necessary for the comfort and safety of the occupants and did not significantly alter thestructure of the property. Smith, on the other hand, claimed that these alterations violated the lease agreement and demanded that Johnson restore the property to its original condition or pay for the repairs.Johnson refused to comply with Smith's demands, arguing that the changes were permissible under the "implied warranty of habitability" and that the Landlord had a duty to ensure the property was fit for habitation. Smith filed a lawsuit against Johnson, seeking a court order to restore the property to its original condition or pay for the repairs.Legal Arguments:The Landlord, Smith, argued that the lease agreement was clear and unambiguous, and that the Tenant, Johnson, was bound by its terms. Smith contended that the unauthorized alterations violated the lease and that Johnson was required to restore the property or pay for the repairs. Smith further argued that the "implied warranty of habitability" did not extend to unauthorized changes made by the Tenant.The Tenant, Johnson, responded by claiming that the lease agreement was ambiguous regarding the scope of alterations allowed and that the "implied warranty of habitability" required the Landlord to provide a habitable property. Johnson argued that the changes made to the property were necessary for the comfort and safety of the occupants and did not significantly alter the structure, thereby falling within the scope of the implied warranty.Decision of the Court:The court, after considering the arguments of both parties, held that the lease agreement was clear and unambiguous, and that the Tenant, Johnson, was bound by its terms. The court found that the unauthorized alterations made by Johnson violated the lease agreement, whichexplicitly required the Tenant to maintain the property in good condition and to obtain the Landlord's written consent for any alterations.The court further held that the "implied warranty of habitability" did not extend to unauthorized changes made by the Tenant. The court reasoned that the warranty was intended to ensure that the property was fit for habitation at the time of lease and not to allow the Tenant to make any changes they deemed necessary. The court ordered Johnson to restore the property to its original condition or pay for the repairs.Implications of the Ruling:The decision in Johnson v. Smith has several implications for landlords and tenants in lease agreements. Firstly, it emphasizes the importance of clear and precise language in legal documents, as ambiguity can lead to disputes and costly litigation. Landlords should ensure that theirlease agreements clearly define the obligations of both parties, including any restrictions on alterations or modifications to the property.Secondly, the case underscores the principle that a tenant's duty to maintain the property is not absolute. While tenants are generally required to keep the property in good condition, they may be excused from certain obligations if the changes are necessary for the comfort and safety of the occupants. However, any alterations must comply with the terms of the lease agreement and obtain the Landlord's written consent.Thirdly, the ruling clarifies the scope of the "implied warranty of habitability." Landlords have a duty to provide a habitable property, but this warranty does not extend to unauthorized changes made by the Tenant. Tenants should be aware of the limitations of the warranty and seek the Landlord's consent before making any alterations to the property.Conclusion:The case of Johnson v. Smith serves as a valuable lesson in the importance of clear and precise language in lease agreements and the obligations of landlords and tenants. The court's decision emphasizes the need for landlords to ensure their lease agreements are comprehensive and clearly define the rights and responsibilities of both parties. Additionally, tenants should be aware of the limitations of the "implied warranty of habitability" and seek consent before making any unauthorized changes to the property. This case analysis highlights the complexities of contract law and the implications of legal decisions on real-world scenarios.第2篇IntroductionThis legal case analysis revolves around the breach of contract and quantum meruit principles. The case involves Johnson, a contractor, and Smith, a homeowner. Johnson was hired to renovate Smith's house, but dueto various reasons, the work was not completed. Smith filed a lawsuit against Johnson for breach of contract and quantum meruit, seeking damages for the incomplete work. The case highlights the importance of contract law and the remedies available to parties when a contract is breached.Factual BackgroundIn 2018, Johnson, a reputable contractor, entered into a contract with Smith, a homeowner, to renovate his house. The contract specified that Johnson would complete the renovation work within three months. Thetotal cost of the project was $50,000, payable in installments upon completion of each phase.Johnson began work on the project in January 2019. However, due to unforeseen circumstances, such as inclement weather and material shortages, the work was not completed within the stipulated timeframe. By May 2019, only half of the work had been completed. Smith became increasingly dissatisfied with the progress and the quality of the workmanship. In June 2019, Smith terminated the contract and demanded that Johnson refund the remaining payment.Johnson refused to return the payment, claiming that he had already completed a substantial portion of the work. Both parties were unable to reach a compromise, and Smith filed a lawsuit against Johnson in the District Court of [Jurisdiction].Issues RaisedThe case raised two primary issues:1. Breach of Contract: Did Johnson breach the contract by failing to complete the renovation work within the stipulated timeframe?2. Quantum Meruit: Is Smith entitled to recover damages based on quantum meruit for the work that was completed?Analysis1. Breach of ContractTo determine whether Johnson breached the contract, the court examined the terms of the agreement and the evidence presented by both parties.The contract clearly stipulated that Johnson would complete the renovation work within three months. However, Johnson failed to fulfill this obligation. The court found that Johnson's failure to complete the work within the stipulated timeframe constituted a breach of contract.The court also considered the extent of the breach. Although Johnson completed a substantial portion of the work, he failed to complete the entire project. The court concluded that Johnson's breach was material, as the homeowner was left with an incomplete and unsatisfactory property.2. Quantum MeruitQuantum meruit is a legal doctrine that allows a party to recover damages for services rendered without a contract. In this case, the court examined whether Smith was entitled to recover damages based on quantum meruit for the work that was completed.The court found that Smith was indeed entitled to recover damages based on quantum meruit. The evidence presented by Smith showed that he incurred expenses for materials and labor related to the completed work. The court also considered the value of the work completed by Johnson and determined that Smith was entitled to recover the reasonable value of the work performed.JudgmentThe court held that Johnson breached the contract by failing to complete the renovation work within the stipulated timeframe. The court also ruled that Smith was entitled to recover damages based on quantum meruit for the work that was completed. The court ordered Johnson to pay Smith the reasonable value of the work performed, which was determined to be $25,000.ConclusionThis case highlights the importance of contract law and the remedies available to parties when a contract is breached. It underscores theneed for clear and precise contract terms and the importance offulfilling contractual obligations. Additionally, the case illustrates the principle of quantum meruit, which provides a remedy for parties who have rendered services without a contract. Parties should be aware of their rights and obligations under contract law to avoid disputes and litigation.第3篇IntroductionThe case of Johnson v. Smith is a notable legal dispute that highlights the intersection of contract law and employment law. This case involves the termination of an employment contract and the subsequent legalaction taken by the employee against the employer. The case issignificant as it delves into the nuances of contractual obligations,the just cause for termination, and the protection of employees' rights under the law. This analysis will explore the facts of the case, thelegal principles at play, and the court's decision.Facts of the CaseJohn Johnson, a long-standing employee of Smith Corporation, was terminated without notice on March 1, 2020. Johnson had been employed by Smith Corporation for 15 years and was a manager in the sales department. He was terminated on the grounds of "unauthorized disclosure of confidential information to a competitor."Johnson, feeling aggrieved by the termination, filed a lawsuit against Smith Corporation, claiming that the termination was in breach of his employment contract and without just cause. Johnson alleged that he did not disclose any confidential information and that his termination was retaliatory for his whistle-blowing activities regarding unethical practices within the company.The employment contract between Johnson and Smith Corporation contained a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) that prohibited Johnson from disclosing any confidential information to third parties, including competitors. The contract also contained a non-solicitation clause that prohibitedJohnson from soliciting customers or employees of Smith Corporation fora period of two years after the termination of his employment.Legal Principles at Play1. Contract Law: The case revolves around the interpretation and application of the employment contract between Johnson and Smith Corporation. The court would have to determine whether the terminationof Johnson's employment was in accordance with the terms of the contract, particularly the NDA and non-solicitation clause.2. Just Cause for Termination: The court would also have to consider whether Smith Corporation had just cause for terminating Johnson's employment. Under employment law, just cause for termination typically involves serious misconduct or a breach of the employment contract.3. Whistle-blowing Protections: Johnson claimed that his termination was retaliatory for his whistle-blowing activities. The court would have to assess whether Johnson's actions were protected under the whistle-blowing laws, which provide employees with legal protection against retaliation for reporting illegal or unethical conduct within their workplace.Court's DecisionThe court, after hearing both parties' arguments and reviewing the evidence, ruled in favor of John Johnson. The court found that Smith Corporation did not have just cause for terminating Johnson's employment and that the termination was in breach of the employment contract.The court held that Johnson's alleged disclosure of confidential information was not substantiated by any evidence, and thus, the termination was without just cause. The court further ruled thatJohnson's whistle-blowing activities were protected under the whistle-blowing laws, and his termination was retaliatory.Regarding the non-disclosure and non-solicitation clauses, the court found that Johnson had not breached these clauses, as he did notdisclose any confidential information to a competitor and did notsolicit any customers or employees of Smith Corporation.The court ordered Smith Corporation to reinstate Johnson to his former position or pay him damages equivalent to the salary he would have earned had he not been terminated. The court also imposed a fine on Smith Corporation for its retaliatory termination of Johnson.ConclusionThe case of Johnson v. Smith serves as a critical reminder of the importance of adhering to the terms of employment contracts and the protection of employees' rights. The court's decision emphasizes the need for employers to ensure that terminations are based on just cause and not retaliatory in nature. Additionally, the case underscores the significance of whistle-blowing laws in safeguarding employees who report illegal or unethical conduct within their workplace.For employers, it is crucial to review and update employment contracts to ensure clarity on termination clauses and non-disclosure agreements. For employees, the case highlights the importance of understanding their rights and protections under the law, and the need to seek legal counsel when faced with wrongful termination or retaliatory actions by their employers.。
法律英语课件-legal English(2014)
组织有关信息并得出合理结论的能力
批判性地推理能力
对他人的推理进行分析和评价的能力
LSAT考试满分为180分，最低分为120分
，其计算方法是根据选择的正确的答案的数目 来确定。选对25个左右，分数大概为130分； 选对39个左右，分数大概为140分；选对55个 ，分数大概为150分；选对72个，分数为160； 选对87个，分数为170分；选对98个以上，分 数为满分180分。一般好的学校要求的成绩都在 160分以上。考试成绩一般在考后五周左右由主 办机构寄出，直接寄给考生本人。LSAT成绩在 5年内有效。
到众多法律英语爱好者和法律工作求职者的
关注。TOLES考试包括三个等级：TOLES
Advanced; TOLES Higher; TOLES Foundation。
ห้องสมุดไป่ตู้
考生应该根据自身的英语水平和法律知
识水平选择相应的考试，而不一定要三个等
级考试全都参加。TOLES考试每年3月、6月
、和11月举行3次
TOLES FOUNDATION EXAMINATION
ILEC作为ESOL于2008年推出的又一项崭 新的职业认证证书目前已被欧洲公司律师公会
、欧洲法律专业学生协会、国际青年律师公会 及欧洲青年律师公会认可。ILEC考察证书申请 人在法律领域运用英语的能力，分为听力（40 分钟）、阅读（75分钟）、写作（75分钟）和 口语（16分钟）四个部分。语言等级相当于雅 思（IELTS）5.0-7.0分。成绩分为三个及格等 级和两个不及格等级。
该考试的目的是以法律英语这门技术语 言为媒介，来核查考生对英美法民商事部门 法知识的掌握，从而满足律师事务所、公司 、法律机构、律师和法律系学生测评个人法 律英语水平的需要。
法律英语课件
法律英语
21
第21页，此课件共64页哦
• The mobility as well as the sense of public responsibility in the profession is evidence by the career of Harlan Fiske Stone who was, at various times, a successful New York lawyer, a professor and dean of the Columbia School of Law, Attorney General of the United States, and Chief Justice of the United States.
1872- 1946
法律英语
23
第23页，此课件共64页哦
• After graduating from Amherst College in 1894, he continued on to Columbia University from which he received his law degree in 1898. The next year he was admitted to the New York bar.
Solicitors：诉状律师、 小法律英律语 师、非诉律师27
第27页，此课件共64页哦
• there is no branch of profession that has a special or exclusive right to appear in court, nor is there a branch that specializes in the preparation of legal instruments.
法律英语教学案例(3篇)
第1篇一、案例背景随着全球化进程的加速，国际商务往来越来越频繁，合同法在国际贸易中的作用愈发重要。
法律英语作为国际商务交流的桥梁，对于法律专业学生的培养具有重要意义。
本案例以合同法中的“Force Majeure”条款为切入点，探讨法律英语教学中的实际应用。
二、案例描述某外贸公司A与外国公司B签订了一份为期一年的供货合同，合同金额为100万美元。
合同约定，A公司应在每月底前将货物运至B公司指定的港口。
然而，在合同履行过程中，由于遭遇罕见的自然灾害，A公司无法按时履行合同义务。
B公司认为，由于自然灾害属于不可抗力因素，A公司不应承担违约责任。
双方就此事产生争议，最终诉至法院。
三、教学目标1. 通过本案例，使学生掌握“Force Majeure”条款的基本概念和适用条件。
2. 培养学生运用法律英语分析合同条款的能力。
3. 提高学生在国际商务谈判中运用法律英语进行沟通的能力。
四、教学步骤（一）导入1. 教师简要介绍“Force Majeure”条款的定义和作用。
2. 引导学生思考：在合同履行过程中，如何界定“Force Majeure”？（二）案例分析1. 教师将案例呈现给学生，要求学生阅读并分析。
2. 学生分组讨论，总结“Force Majeure”条款在案例中的具体应用。
3. 学生代表汇报讨论成果，教师进行点评和总结。
（三）法律英语运用1. 教师讲解“Force Majeure”条款的相关法律英语词汇和表达方式。
2. 学生练习运用法律英语表达对案例中“Force Majeure”条款的理解。
3. 教师选取典型句子，让学生进行翻译和口语练习。
（四）国际商务谈判1. 教师模拟国际商务谈判场景，让学生扮演A公司和B公司的代表。
2. 学生运用法律英语进行谈判，争取自身利益。
3. 教师点评谈判过程，指出学生运用法律英语的优点和不足。
五、教学评价1. 学生对“Force Majeure”条款的理解程度。
2. 学生运用法律英语分析合同条款的能力。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
A. The name and the citation of the case ____names of litigants and correct legal citation for this reported case. B. The judicial history ____What happened to bring the parties before the court? C. The facts ____What happened to bring the parties before the courts?
of the supreme courts that give the common law lawyer information on the status of the law. It is also these decisions that a student of law school.
Example: State v. Yoder, 49 Wis. 2d 430 , 182 N. W. 2d 539 (1971)
1.93N.J324, 461A.2d138(1983) 2.Morgan v. United States,298 U .S.468, 56S.Ct 906, 80L.Ed.1288(1936) 3.New York Times Co.v. Sullivan 376 U.S.254(1964)
1. Who are the parties ? 2.If the case is an appeal, what happened in the lower court(s)? 3.What happened to bring these parties into court in the first place? 4.What is the legal question before this court? 5.What rules (primary law ) did the court rely on in reaching its decision? 6.How did the court analyze the facts in light of the legal question and the rules? 7.How did the court resolve the dispute?
A citation identifies a legal authority or reference work, such as a constitution, statute, court decision, administrative rule, or treatise. The function of a citation is to help a reader to do legal researches, which serves to help the reader locate a legal authority or reference work.
Circuit‟s decision issued in 1973 and published in volume 483 of the Federal Reporter, Second Series [F. 2d] , beginning at page 754 in that volume. The Third Circuit „s decision was reviewed and affirmed[aff‟d] by the United States Supreme Court, whose decision was issued in 1974 and published in volume 419 of United States Reports[ U.S.] , beginning at page 345 in that volume.
配合意见(concurring opinion) ___opinion written by a judge agreeing with the majority
6. Votes of the court affirmance (维持原判） reversal (撤销原判） remandment （发回重审）
English Cases Case Brief Citation Case Reporter Civil litigation
How to read English Cases
Marbury v. Madison California v. O.J.Simpson Miranda v. Arizona Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. Hamer v. Sidway
Facts: Necessary fact Unnecessary fact Hypothetical fact
Nhomakorabea1. Case Name E.g. Marbury v. Madison V. is short for versus ( 诉求） 2. Court rendering the opinion E.g. New Jersey Supreme Court 3. Citation 4. Justice wrote the opinion 5.Opinion stating the issue raised, describing the parties and facts, discussing the relevant law, and rending judgment.
Court decisions are complied chronologically by date of issuance and published in volumes called case reporters.
Law reports
include decisions of court appeals and the decisions
Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co. , 384 F. Supp. 954(M.D. Pa. 1972 ), aff‟d , 483 F. 2d 754(3d Cir. 1973), aff‟d, 419 U.S. 345(1974)
Name : Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co. A decision in the case of Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Company is reported in volume 348 of the Federal Supplement, beginning at page 954 of that volume. This decision was issued by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania[ M.D. Pa.] in 1972. The District Court‟s decision was affirmed [ aff‟d] on review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [ 3d Cir.], with the Third
1. 主审法官的意见用现在时态；前审法院的意见用 过去时态； 2. 主审法官的意见是法院意见；
3. 除法院意见外还有两种意见，被称为“反对意见” 与“配合意见”。
反对意见（dissenting opinion) ___opinion offered by a judge disagreeing with the majority panel of judges‟ conclusion
A standard case citation contains:
1. the name of the case; 2. the published sources in which we can find the case; 3. information in parentheses indicating; A . the year the decision was issued , and B . When not apparent from the name of the cited reported volume, the court which issued thee decision; and 4. the prior or subsequent history, if any, of the case.
Hebb v. Severson, 201 P. 2d 156 (Wash. 1984)
Hebb----plaintiff Severson---defendant (volume 201 of the Pacific Reporter Second Series beginning on page 156) (Washington State Supreme Court)
D. The issues ____What is the legal question before this court? E. The rules ____What rules (primary law) did the court rely On in reaching its decision? F. The analysis (reasoning) ____How did the court analyze the facts in light of the legal question and the rules? G. The conclusion ____How did the court resolve the dispute?