具体描述
内容简介
商务和法律教育的目标不仅要使学生系统掌握理论和规则,还应培养学生的思辨能力,使其能够将特定的规则与相应的生活实践联系起来,并进而运用规则去解释和处理现实生活和工作中的问题。因此,高等院校的专业教学应该以学生为中心,使教师的“教”和学生的“学”相结合,调动学生的积极性,才能较好地实现教学目的。案例教学侧重于实践教学,从素质教育和培养学生创造能力的角度,对激发学生专业学习兴趣、培养学生专业素质、提高学生在实践中探究学习方法的自觉性、有效地将理论知识转化为专业技能等多方面都能发挥重要作用。
《最新国际商法英文案例选编/全国高等院校双语案例教程系列教材》适用于各高校的商学院、法学院以及其他学院的国际商务专业及商务英语专业的教学,主要为全英教学或双语教学的商务类或法律类课程,提供具有参考价值的、国内外有影响力的国际商法案例。既可帮助学生加深对国际商法基本概念、实践操作的理解,同时也为教师在教学中选择案例、组织讨论提供便利。
与其他同类案例教材相比,本书在编写过程中贯彻了如下特点:
1.《最新国际商法英文案例选编/全国高等院校双语案例教程系列教材》并非以某一本特定的商务或法律英文原版教材的编写结构为顺序来编写案例,而是按一般商法教材的编写结构,涉及国际商法的几大领域,如公司法、合同法、销售法、代理法、票据法、WTO法、竞争法、电子商务法。这样有助于各所高校选择不同英文原版教材的教师在教学过程中按不同主题选择案例。
2.《最新国际商法英文案例选编/全国高等院校双语案例教程系列教材》在案例的选择上经过仔细筛选,兼顾其影响力和时效性。案例多选择美、英、中、澳等经济大国的案例,多选择具有重大影响力甚至是里程碑意义的案例,并纳入不少2000年后国内外的新近案例。
3.《最新国际商法英文案例选编/全国高等院校双语案例教程系列教材》在编排结构上注重有针对性的引导学生思考,并非是英文案例的简单堆积。
在每一章节开篇设置导读部分“Introduction”,对本章节内容进行提纲挈领的介绍,以最基本的法理和知识要点为主,兼顾整体性,方便学生复习或预习该主题。 目录
Chapter 1 Company Law
Section One Corporate Personality
Case 1-1-1 Carte Blanche Pte., Ltd. v Diners Club InternationaL Inc,
Section Two Formation of Corporations
Case 1-2-1 American Vending Services, Inc. v Morse
Section Three Corporate Finance
Case 1-3-1 Weston v Weston Paper andManufacturing Co,
Case 1-3-2 State Ex Rel. Pillsbury v Honeywell, Inc,
Section Four Corporate Fiduciary Duties
Case 1-4-1 Shlensky v Wrigley
Case 1-4-2 Klinicki v Lundgren
Chapter 2 Contract Law
Section One Elements of a Contract
Case 2-1-1 Goldsworthy v Brickell and Another
Case 2-1-2 Rosman v Cuevas
Section Two Formation of a Contract
Case 2-2-1 Moulton v Kershaw
Case 2-2-2 Detroit Football Co, v Robinson
Case 2-2-3 Cantu v CentraIEducation Agency
Case 2-2-4 Columbia HyundaL Inc, v CarlIHyundaL Inc
Section Three Breach of Contract and Remedies
Case 2-3-1 White v Benkowski
Case 2-3-2 Hadley v Baxendale
Section Four Discharge of a Contract
Case 2-4-1 Krell v Henry
Case 2-4-2 Transatlantic Financing Corp. v United Statesof America
Case 2-4-3 Taylor v Caldwell
Chapter 3 CISG
Section One Formation of a CISG Contract
Case 3-1-1 PharmaceuticaISocietyof GreatBritain v Boots Cash Chemists
Case 3-1-2 Filanto, S.p.A, v Clnlewich International Corp
Section Two Obligations of the Buyer and the Seller
Case 3-2-1 Welding Machine Case
Case 3-2-2 Fryer Holdings v Liaoning MEC Group
Section Three Remedies for Breach of CISG Contract
Case 3-3-1 Delchi v Rotorex
Case 3-3-2 Diesel Generator Case
Chapter 4 Law of Agency
Section One Agency Relationship
Case 4-1-1 Yeiverton v. Lamm
Case 4-1-2 Thayer v PacificElec. Ry. Co
Section Two Internal Matters: Rights and Duties between Agent and Principal
Case 4-2-1 Kingsley Associates v Moll PlastiCrafters, Inc,
Case 4-2-2 Jeffrey Allen Industries, Inc. v Sheldon F. Good & Co
Section Three External Matters: Rights of Third Parties
Case 4-3-1 Husky Industries v Craig Industries
Case 4-3-2 Watteau v Fenwick
Chapter 5 Negotiable Instrument Law
Section One What Is a Negotiable Instrument?
Case 5-1-1 Frank iv: Hershey NationaI Bank
Section Two Transfer of Negotiable Instruments
Case 5-2-1 Mott Grain Co. v First NationaI Bank& Trust Co.
Case 5-2-2 C&N; Contractors, Inc. v Community Bancshares, Inc.
Section Three Rights of Holders
Case 5-3-1 Money Mart Check Cashing CenteL Inc, v Epicycle Corp
Section Four Letter of Credit (L/C)
Case 5-4-1 Equitable Trust Co, of New York v Dawson Partners Ltd,
Case 5-4-2 Sztejn v Henry Schroeder Banking Corp.
Chapter 6 WTO Laws
Section One Anti-dumping Agreement
Case 6-1-1 Lighter Producers Win EU Anti-dumping Suit
Case 6-1-2 Australian Customs Dumping Notice -1998/20
Section Two Anti-subsidy Agreement
Case 6-2-1 Canadian Wheat Board v United States
Chapter 7 Competition Law
Chapter 8 Electronic Commerce Law
参考书目 精彩书摘
《最新国际商法英文案例选编/全国高等院校双语案例教程系列教材》:
To allow a corporate riduciary to take advantage of a business opportunity when the fiduciary deternunes the corporation to be unable to availitself of it would create the worst sort of temptation for the fiduciary to rationalize an inaccurate and self-serving assessment of the corporation's financial ability and thereby compromise the duty of loyalty to the corporation. If a corporate riduciary's duty of loyalty conflicts with his personalinterest, the latter must give way. Unless a corporation is technically or de facto insolvent, a determination whether a business opportunity is corporate or personal does not depend on the corporation's relative rinancial ability to undertake the opportunity. To avoid liability for usurping a corporate opportunity on the basis that the corporation was insolvent, the fiduciary must prove insolvency.
The appropriate method to determine whether or not a corporate opportunity exists is to let the corporation decide at the time the opportunity is presented. If a fiduciary is uncertain whether a given opportunity is corporate or not, or whether the corporation has the frnancial ability to pursue it, he needs merely to disclose the existence of the opportunity to the directors and let them decide, Disclosure is a fundamental fiduciary duty. It cannot be burdensome, and it resolves the issue for all parties concerned and eliminates the necessity for a judicial determination after the fact.
In the present case, defendants do not contend that Berlinair was technically or defactoinsolvent. Although the company has run a deficit since commencing operations in 1977 and periodic infusions of capital have been required, that state of affairs does not constitute technical or de facto insolvency unless there is an imminent threat to the business' continued vitality Plaintiff offered expert testimony that Berlinair could have obtained adequate financing to secure the BFR contract. Defendants' expert witness, Beyer, an airline management expert, expressed the opposite opinion. However, there is nothing in his testimony or otherwise in the record to suggest that Berlinair was insolvent or was no longer a viable corporate entity. We conclude that ABC usurped a corporate opportunity belonging to Berlinair when, acting through Lundgren, the BFR contract was diverted. Accordingly, the constructive trust, injunction, duty to account and other relief granted by the trial court are appropriate remedies.
We turn now to plaintiff's cross-appeal. He brought a personal claim against Lundgren for breaches of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff sought actual and punitive damages. The actual damages issue was tried by the court. A jury was empanelled to try the punitive damages issue and found against Lundgren, but the court never made an award of actual damages.
The court granted the motion to dismiss and set aside the jury verdict for the reason that punitive damages are not available in equity. Pedah Company v Hunt, 265 Or 433,509 P2d 1197(1973), had held that a court of equity cannot award punitive damages incident to the granting of injunctive relief. The stated reason for the rule was that an award of punitive damages by a court sitting in equity without a jury was believed to compromise a court's ability to do justice between the litigants. However, in Rexnord, Inc. v Ferris, 294 Or 392,657 P2d 673(1983), after the trialin this case, the court held that a court may award both punitive damages and equitable relief in a single action if the plaintiff pleads and proves a claim which factually would permit an award of punitive damages.
We must rirst determine, therefore, whether plaintiff's individual action against Lundgren for breach of fiduciary duty is the sort of claim that permits an award of punitive damages. Noting that punitive damages are not favored in the law, we nevertheless conclude that a breach of fiduciary duty can be sufriciently reprehensible to justify submitting punitive damages to a jury. In the present case, suffice it to say, Lundgren's course of conduct in secretly diverting the BFR contract to his own company, ABC, was certainly sufriciently aggravated to create a jury question as to whether punitive damages should be awarded.
Plaintiff's indual claim against Lundgren sought both actual and punitive damages. Why the court made no award of actual damages does not appear in the record. In Oregon an award of punitive damages is not proper unless there is also an award of actual damages. Although we are not aware of any case that has ever explained the rationale for the rule, we are bound by it. Because punitive damages cannot be awarded when actual damages are not, the grant of defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claim for punitive damages against Lundgren was correct.
We are perplexed by the trial judge's sua sponte entry of a judgment not in favor of Lundgren on the punitive damages issue. We agree with plaintiff that entry of the judgment not in the absence of a motion by defendant is precluded by the plain language of ORCP 63. However, entry of the judgment now, based as it apparently was on the properly granted motion to dismiss, was harmless error.
Affirmed.
…… 前言/序言
好的,这是一本专注于国际商法英文案例的选编教材简介,旨在为高等院校学生提供深入理解国际商业法律实践的资源。 --- 《国际商事争议解决:跨司法管辖区实践与前沿》 图书简介 本书旨在深入探讨当代国际商事活动的复杂性,特别是围绕跨司法管辖区争议解决机制、国际贸易协定履行、以及全球化背景下企业合规的挑战与应对。作为一本面向高级本科生、研究生及专业人士的参考用书,本书摒弃了基础法律概念的重复阐述,而是聚焦于实践中的疑难案例分析、前沿法律议题的探讨以及解决策略的构建。 核心内容聚焦: 本书结构围绕国际商业活动中的关键风险点展开,通过对精选案例的剖析,引导读者掌握应对复杂国际法律环境的能力。内容主要涵盖以下几个核心模块: 第一部分:国际合同的缔结与风险管理 本部分重点关注在跨国交易中合同的有效性、解释以及不可预见事件的应对。 1. 复杂国际销售合同的履行与违约责任认定: 深入分析依据《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》(CISG)的司法解释,特别关注风险转移、单方解除合同的严格要件以及在不同文化背景下对“根本性违约”的理解差异。案例选取涵盖高价值商品(如能源、工业设备)的跨国交付失败与索赔。 2. 国际商业代理与分销协议的法律冲突: 探讨在不同国家法律体系下,对独家代理权、佣金计算以及协议终止补偿的法律立场。分析欧盟《商业代理指令》与亚洲地区相关法律规定的比较性应用,以及如何通过合同条款有效规避当地的强制性法律干预。 3. 国际服务合同的管辖权和法律适用: 聚焦于技术许可、工程承包(EPC)等复杂服务合同中,当事人如何选择最有利的法律体系,以及法院在认定合同法律适用时的判定标准(如《罗马规约》等)。 第二部分:跨境知识产权保护与技术转移 随着数字经济的崛起,知识产权的跨境保护成为国际商事活动的核心议题。本部分侧重于产权在不同法域的救济措施。 1. 专利侵权与“域外管辖权”的边界: 剖析跨国企业在多国发起侵权诉讼的策略。重点分析美国联邦巡回上诉法院(CAFC)对“最低限度接触”的界定,以及在涉及标准必要专利(SEP)许可谈判中的法律地位与反垄断考量。 2. 商业秘密的全球性保护与“反不正当竞争”的适用: 探讨员工离职后携带商业秘密至竞争对手公司的法律后果。案例研究将对比《美国统一商业秘密法》(UTSA)与《TRIPS 协定》框架下,不同司法管辖区对“合理保密措施”的认定标准差异,以及在刑事和民事救济中对证据开示(Discovery)的不同态度。 3. 数字内容和数据本地化法规的合规挑战: 关注欧盟《通用数据保护条例》(GDPR)对全球企业的影响,以及在涉及跨境数据传输时,如何平衡数据主权要求与商业运营效率。 第三部分:国际商事争议解决机制的比较与实务操作 本部分是本书的重中之重,详细对比仲裁、调解和诉讼在处理国际商事纠纷中的适用性、效率及执行力。 1. 国际仲裁的程序性博弈与挑战: 深入分析《国际商会仲裁规则》(ICC)、《伦敦国际仲裁庭规则》(LCIA)下的具体实践。案例涉及仲裁员的独立性与偏见挑战、仲裁裁决的临时措施申请、以及“仲裁协议有效性”的冲突规则(如《纽约公约》第五条的适用)。 2. 仲裁裁决的承认与执行(Enforcement): 详细梳理全球范围内因“公共政策例外”或“程序不当”而被拒绝执行的经典案例。重点分析《纽约公约》的执行障碍,以及在非缔约国执行国际仲裁裁决的特殊策略。 3. 调解(Mediation)与混合解决机制的整合: 探讨国际商事调解的自愿性与灵活性,分析如何将调解条款嵌入主合同,并研究《新加坡国际调解公约》在促进调解协议执行方面的潜力与局限。 第四部分:全球化背景下的监管合规与风险防范 本部分关注企业在国际运营中必须面对的宏观法律环境,特别是反腐败与制裁合规。 1. 反海外腐败法(FCPA)与英国《反贿赂法》的域外适用: 通过对近年来美国司法部(DOJ)和英国严重欺诈办公室(SFO)的执法案例分析,阐明“影响商业决策”的认定标准、替代责任(Successor Liability)的风险,以及如何建立有效的内部控制体系以证明“充分程序”(Adequate Procedures)。 2. 贸易制裁与出口管制合规: 分析美国《出口管理条例》(EAR)和欧盟的对冲措施在实际操作中对供应链的冲击。案例将聚焦于实体清单的识别、许可申请的复杂性,以及企业在面对不断变化的制裁政策时如何迅速调整合规策略。 本书特点: 本书的特色在于其“案例驱动,问题导向”的教学设计。所有章节均围绕真实的、具有里程碑意义的国际商事判例或仲裁裁决展开。教材不侧重于对法条的逐字翻译和解释,而是着力于培养读者分析案件事实、识别法律冲突点、并最终设计出可行的跨境解决方案的能力。对于每一项关键法律原则的讨论,均辅以“Cross-Jurisdictional Analysis”(跨司法管辖区分析)环节,以增强学生对全球法律实践差异的敏感度。 适用读者群: 国际商务、国际法、金融、以及管理类专业的高年级本科生及研究生,以及希望提升其跨国交易法律风险管理能力的法律从业人员和企业高管。