☆☆☆☆☆




點擊這裡下載

類似圖書 點擊查看全場最低價

---

內容簡介

　　商務和法律教育的目標不僅要使學生係統掌握理論和規則，還應培養學生的思辨能力，使其能夠將特定的規則與相應的生活實踐聯係起來，並進而運用規則去解釋和處理現實生活和工作中的問題。因此，高等院校的專業教學應該以學生為中心，使教師的“教”和學生的“學”相結閤，調動學生的積極性，纔能較好地實現教學目的。案例教學側重於實踐教學，從素質教育和培養學生創造能力的角度，對激發學生專業學習興趣、培養學生專業素質、提高學生在實踐中探究學習方法的自覺性、有效地將理論知識轉化為專業技能等多方麵都能發揮重要作用。
　　《最新國際商法英文案例選編/全國高等院校雙語案例教程係列教材》適用於各高校的商學院、法學院以及其他學院的國際商務專業及商務英語專業的教學，主要為全英教學或雙語教學的商務類或法律類課程，提供具有參考價值的、國內外有影響力的國際商法案例。既可幫助學生加深對國際商法基本概念、實踐操作的理解，同時也為教師在教學中選擇案例、組織討論提供便利。
　　與其他同類案例教材相比，本書在編寫過程中貫徹瞭如下特點：
　　1.《最新國際商法英文案例選編/全國高等院校雙語案例教程係列教材》並非以某一本特定的商務或法律英文原版教材的編寫結構為順序來編寫案例，而是按一般商法教材的編寫結構，涉及國際商法的幾大領域，如公司法、閤同法、銷售法、代理法、票據法、WTO法、競爭法、電子商務法。這樣有助於各所高校選擇不同英文原版教材的教師在教學過程中按不同主題選擇案例。
　　2.《最新國際商法英文案例選編/全國高等院校雙語案例教程係列教材》在案例的選擇上經過仔細篩選，兼顧其影響力和時效性。案例多選擇美、英、中、澳等經濟大國的案例，多選擇具有重大影響力甚至是裏程碑意義的案例，並納入不少2000年後國內外的新近案例。
　　3.《最新國際商法英文案例選編/全國高等院校雙語案例教程係列教材》在編排結構上注重有針對性的引導學生思考，並非是英文案例的簡單堆積。
　　在每一章節開篇設置導讀部分“Introduction”，對本章節內容進行提綱挈領的介紹，以最基本的法理和知識要點為主，兼顧整體性，方便學生復習或預習該主題。

目錄

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

參考書目

精彩書摘

　　《最新國際商法英文案例選編/全國高等院校雙語案例教程係列教材》：
　　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 judgm 最新國際商法英文案例選編/全國高等院校雙語案例教程係列教材 [Selected Cases and Readings on International Business Law] 下載 mobi epub pdf txt 電子書

評分☆☆☆☆☆

評分☆☆☆☆☆

評分☆☆☆☆☆

評分☆☆☆☆☆

評分☆☆☆☆☆

評分☆☆☆☆☆

評分☆☆☆☆☆

評分☆☆☆☆☆

評分☆☆☆☆☆

類似圖書 點擊查看全場最低價

查看全網最低價