高級(jí)法學(xué)英語1-3

高校碩士研究生專業(yè)英語精品教材高級(jí)法學(xué)英語中南財(cái)經(jīng)政法大學(xué)研究生部精品教材研究課題（2012—2014）編寫說明《高級(jí)法學(xué)英語》旨在培養(yǎng)學(xué)習(xí)者借助已有的基礎(chǔ)英語為工具學(xué)習(xí)法學(xué)知識(shí)，在法學(xué)知識(shí)的學(xué)習(xí)過程中，習(xí)得專業(yè)語言。編寫原則既遵循語言學(xué)習(xí)的內(nèi)在規(guī)律性，又充分體現(xiàn)法學(xué)知識(shí)的專業(yè)特點(diǎn)，重在提高法學(xué)碩士研究生的專業(yè)英語思辨能力。課文取材不再是一般法學(xué)知識(shí)的簡(jiǎn)要陳述，而是以問題研究為導(dǎo)向的深入探討。語料源于英美學(xué)者2012年以來發(fā)表的論文或出版的著作。全書共十個(gè)單元。單元課文閱讀量為5000英文單詞。每單元由課文、生詞、注解、練習(xí)和法律英語漢譯技巧組成。單元課文是由三篇各1500字左右的文章組成一個(gè)內(nèi)容完整、主題突出的統(tǒng)一體，以有利于學(xué)習(xí)者貫通知識(shí)，進(jìn)一步深入分析探討。課文內(nèi)容包括普通法系與大陸法系的比較、合同與準(zhǔn)合同、商人法與商法、歐洲統(tǒng)一銷售法、國(guó)際環(huán)境法、公平招聘法律問題、跨國(guó)離婚法律問題、有子女的父母犯罪量刑問題、英格蘭與蘇格蘭刑事拘留問題、美國(guó)法學(xué)教育與改革等專題。法學(xué)英語翻譯技巧包括基本翻譯技巧加注、增補(bǔ)、省略、轉(zhuǎn)換、切分、合并，以及句子翻譯技巧名詞從句的翻譯、狀語從句的翻譯、定語從句的翻譯和長(zhǎng)句的翻譯。單元練習(xí)包括閱讀理解問題、詞匯練習(xí)、短文翻譯和課文概要寫作。本教程設(shè)計(jì)閱讀總量為50000英文單詞，生詞概率為2%，適合大學(xué)英語四級(jí)水平以上且有相當(dāng)法學(xué)基礎(chǔ)的學(xué)習(xí)者使用。UNITONECONTRACTLAWSectionAUnderstandingofContract1Intheeyesoflawyerstheword“contract”isusedincommonspeech,simplytorefertoawritingcontainingtermsonwhichthepartieshaveagreed.“Contract”isoftenusedinamoretechnicalsensetomeanapromise,orasetofpromises,thatthelawwillenforceoratleastrecognizeinsomeway.Britishlawdefinescontractasanagreementarisingfromofferandacceptance.Onepartymakesanoffer,andanotherpartyacceptsthatoffer.Whenthishashappened(providedthatothernecessaryfactors,namely,considerationandintentiontocontract,arepresent)thereisacontract.2Inarguingthedefinitionofcontractsomejurisprudentsthinkneitherpromisenoragreementiscompletelysatisfactoryasabasisforthedefinition.TheyclaimthatthedefinitionoftheAmericanRestatementignoresthebargain—theexchangeofequivalentswhichistheessenceofacontract.Noindicationismadeinthedefinitionthatthetypicalcontractisatwo-sidedaffair,somethingbeingpromisedordoneononesideinreturnforsomethingbeingpromisedordoneontheotherside.Thustosaythatacontractcansimplybe“apromise”istooverlookthefactthatthereisgenerallysomeactorpromisegiveninreturnfortheotherpromisebeforethatpromisebecomesacontract.Eventosaythatacontractmayconsistof“asetofpromises”givesnoindicationthatsomeofthesepromisesareusuallygiveninreturnforsomeothers.Butitwouldbewrongtoassumethatallcontractsaregenuinebargainsinwhichsomethingisofferedononesideforsomethingelseofequivalentvalueontheother.3Everypromiseisanagreementandeverysetofpromisesformingtheconsiderationforeachotherisalsoanagreement.Agreementimpliestwoormorepersonswhoagreeuponthesamethinginthesamesense.Itmaycreatelegalobligationoritmaynotcreatelegalobligationandinthissensenoteveryagreementcanbecomeenforceableatlaw.4Thesescholarsalsoarguethatallthedefinitionsintermsofpromisesoragreementspresupposethatpeopleonlyenterintocontractualrelationsaftertheyhavemadesomeagreementorpromise.Infact,thisisnotalwaysthecase.Peoplesometimessimplyenterintotransactionsorrelationswhicharenotreallybasedonprioragreementsorpromises.Oneobviousexampleisthatofthesimultaneousexchange,orsale.Apersonwhobuysgoodsinasupermarketandpayscashforthemisexchanginghismoneyforthegoodsthathebuys.5Thereisnodoubtatallthatthisisalegalcontract,butitisartificialtoregarditasacontractcreatedbyagreementorpromise.Toinsistthattheremustbeaprioragreementorasetofpromisesinsuchacaseistoimplythatthereisamomentoftime—beforethehandingoverofthegoodsandthemoney—inwhichthepartiesarelegallyboundtoperformtheiragreementorpromises.Butitseemsverydoubtfulwhetherthatisthecase.Stillitmustberecognizedthatitmightbeverywellarguedthat“incontemplationoflaw”thereisanimpliedagreementbeforetheactualexchangeofgoodsformoney.6Promisesandagreementsundoubtedlylieclosetothecenteroftheconceptofcontract,butthereareatleasttwootherideaswhichalsolieveryclosetothatcenter.Oneisthatapersonwhoinducesanothertorelyuponhimandchangehisposition,oughtnottoletthatpersondown,andtheotheristhatapersonwhodoesaservicetoanotherorrendershimsomebenefit,oughtgenerallytoberecompensedforhistrouble.Contractualobligationsareoftenimposedforoneorotherofthesereasonsonpersonswhohavenotreallypromisedoragreedtobearthem.Inordertoreconcilethisresultwithtraditionaldefinitionsofcontract,twodevicesareoftenemployed.Oneistorelyontheconceptofan“impliedagreement”or“impliedpromise”；theotheristoarguethattheliabilitybeingimposedisnot“truly”contractualbutisinfactalegalliabilityofadifferentkind，forinstance，aliabilityintort.7Inpractice,peoplecangathersomeideaofwhattheword“contract”meansfromthecasesinBolinFarmsv.AmericanCottonShippersAss’n(1973).ThatyearsawaspectacularriseinthepriceofcottonontheAmericanmarket.ThecausesweresaidtoincludelargeshipmentstoChina,highwaterandfloodconditionsinthecottonbelt,lateplantingsforcedbyheavyrains,andthedevaluationofthedollar.Intheearlymonthsoftheyear,beforeplanting,acottonfarmerwillmakea“forward”salecontractfordeliverytothebuyerofallcottontoberaisedandharvestedonaspecifiedtractatafixedpriceperpound,withoutguaranteeofquantityorquality.Thefarmercanthenusethiscontracttofinancetheraisingofhiscrop.8Earlyin1973,cottonfarmersmadesuchcontractstosellatapriceroughlyequaltothepriceonthemarketatthattime,some30centsapound.Bythetimethecottonhadbeenraisedandwasreadyfordelivery,however,themarketpricehadrisentoabout80centsapound.Manyrefusedtoperformthe“forward”contractsthattheyhadmadeatthelowerprice,andscoresoflawsuitsresultedthroughoutthecottonbelt.Notonlywerethefarmersuniversallyunsuccessful,butthedecisionsevokedlittleattention.9Whatpromiseswillthelawenforce?Whatremedieswereavailabletothedisappointedcottonbuyersonthefarmers’enforceablepromises?Thecaseshereexposethreefundamentalassumptionsmadebycourtsinenforcingpromises.Oneoftheseisthat“l(fā)awisconcernedmainlywithreliefofpromiseestoredressbreachandnotwithpunishmentofpromisorstocompelperformance.”Asecondassumptionisthatthereliefgrantedtotheaggrievedpromiseeshouldgenerallyprotectthepromisee’sexpectationbyattemptingtoputthepromiseeinthepositioninwhichitwouldhavebeenhadthepromisebeenperformed.Athirdassumptionisthattheappropriateformofreliefissubstitutional,intheformofajudgmentawardingmoneydamagestobepaidtotheaggrievedpromisee,ratherthanspecific,intheformofacourtorderdirectingthepromisortoperformitspromise.10Aftertheabovediscussionwecometoknowthe“Contract”maybedefinedasanagreement,apromiseorasetofpromises,whichcreatelegalliabilitiesratherthanmoralobligations,enforceablebythelawbetweentwoormorepersonstodoorforebearfromdoingsomeactoracts；theirintentionsbeingtocreatelegalrelationsandnotmerelytoexchangemutualpromises,bothhavinggivensomething,orhavingpromisedtogivesomethingofvalueasconsiderationforanybenefitderivedfromtheagreementorthepromiseexceptatransactionagreementbydeed.Althoughtransactionsbydeedarelegallybindingtheyarenottruecontractsatall.Atransactionbydeedderivesitslegallybindingqualityfromthespecialwayinwhichitismaderatherthanfromtheoperationofthecontractlaw.11ThedefinitionofcontractintheChinesecontractlawstressesitsfunctions,sayingthatacontractisthemanifestationofintentiontoestablish,changeorterminatethecivilrelationshipbetweentwoormoreparties.Lawfullyestablishedcontractshallbeprotectedbylaw.Accordingtothisdefinitionacontractisofthreefeatures：(1)Makingacontractisaciviljuristicactdonebybothsides.Atleasttwopartiesshallenter,andexpresstheirgenuineintention.Otherwiseacontractcannotbeestablished.(2)Thepurposetomakeacontractistobringoutacertainciviljuristiceffect,includingestablishing,changingorterminatingthecivilrelationshipbetweenthetwoparties.(3)Makingacontractisalegalactratherthanillegalact.Unlawfullyestablishedcontractsarenullorvoid.12Insomecontinentalcountries,forexample,inGermany,theBGBusesanabstractconceptofRechtegcsehaft,puttingcontractintoacategoryoflegalactwhichcoversintentionofthetwopartiesandsomeothercertainlawfulconducts.Thisintentionisviewedasanessentialrequirementtoformacontract,therefore,thetwopartiescannotestablishacontractiftheydonotmanifestittoeachother.IntheFrenchCivilCodethereisamorespecificconceptofConsensusthanthatoflegalact.Consensusheremeansthegenuineintentionofthetwoparties.Withoutmanifestationoftheintentionacontractcannotbeconcluded.(1488words)NewWordsandProperTermsoffern.邀約，發(fā)價(jià)acceptancen.接受，承諾devaluationn.貨幣貶值courtorder法庭判令consideration n. 對(duì)價(jià)，約因forbearance n. 克制，抑制constitute v. 構(gòu)成recompense vt.賠償；酬謝Rechtsgeschaefte（德語）法律行為，合法交易 consensus n. 合意equivalentvalue 對(duì)等的價(jià)值simultaneousexchange 同時(shí)發(fā)生的交易contemplationoflaw 法律意圖forwardcontract 期貨合同Notes1. lawisconcernedmainlywithreliefofpromisestoredressbreachandnotwithpunishmentofpromisorstocompelperformance.法律主要關(guān)注的是為了糾正允諾人違約的行為而對(duì)受允諾人所給予的司法救濟(jì)，而不是強(qiáng)制承諾人履約而實(shí)施的處罰。2.Contract與Agreement的區(qū)別

合同的成立必須具備幾個(gè)主要因素。它們（要約和承諾構(gòu)成的）協(xié)議、約因、設(shè)立法律關(guān)系的愿望和締約能力四大部分組成。但“協(xié)議”這一術(shù)語含義更廣，例如協(xié)議可能缺乏合同的必備條款（essentialclauses/provisions）。

上述解釋說明，contract(合同)和agreement(協(xié)議)的概念雖然接近，但使用范圍不同，不能互換使用。合同是協(xié)議的重要組成部分，所有合同一定是協(xié)議，而協(xié)議不一定都是合同?？梢哉f具備合同成立要求的具有強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行力的協(xié)議才是合同。

3.BGB是BurgerlichesGeselzbuch《德國(guó)民法典》的簡(jiǎn)稱?！兜聡?guó)民法典》是德意志帝國(guó)1896年8月18日公布并自1900年1月1日施行的一部民法典，它是繼1804年《法國(guó)民法典》（《拿破侖法典》）之后，資本主義國(guó)家又一部重要的民法典。這部法典公布至今已有一百余年，已經(jīng)過多次修訂，有時(shí)甚至是重大的修訂，包括條文的廢止和增添，但它的基本結(jié)構(gòu)、基本內(nèi)容和條文順序的編排都沒有發(fā)生改變。至今它仍是德國(guó)民法最重要的基礎(chǔ)和最重要的淵源。4.BolinFarmsv.AmericanCottonShippersAss’n(1973).柏林農(nóng)場(chǎng)訴美國(guó)棉花運(yùn)輸聯(lián)盟案。Association的縮寫形式可為assn.,ass'n.,Assn.Exercises=1\*ROMANI.Questionsfordiscussion:1.Canapromiseoranagreementconstituteacontract?2. “Neitheragreementnorpromiseiscompletelysatisfactoryasabasisforthedefinitionofcontract.”Doyouagreewithit?3.Whatelementsdoescontractpossess?4.Explain“everycontractisanagreementbuteveryagreementisnotacontract”.5.WhatistheBGB?=2\*ROMANII.Choosethebestanswerforeachofthefollowingaccordingtothetext:1．Alegalcontractmaybedefinedas___________.A.anagreementB.apromiseC.asetofpromisesD.theconsent2.InthecaseofBolinFarmsv.AmericanCottonShippersAss’n(1973),thecourtdecisionofenforcementwasbasedon_____fundamentalassumptionsA.oneB.twoC.threeD.four3.IntheFrenchCivilCode,theConsensusmeansthegenuineintentionofthe_____parties.A.oneB.twoC.threeD.four4.Apersonwhobuysgoodsinasupermarketandpayscashforthemisexchanginghismoneyforthegoodsthathebuys,whichistakenasalegal________.A.contractB.agreementC.promiseD.action5.TheBGBisof________legalsystem.A.commonlawB.continentallawC.civillawD.caselaw=3\*ROMANIII.Fillinthefollowingblankswiththegivenwords:Indivisiblecontract,divisiblecontract,competentparty,consideration,delayedpayment,expresscontract,formalcontract,oralcontract,writtencontract,illegalcontract,impliedcontract,legalityofpurpose,mutualagreement.1.Apersonwhoisoflegalageandnormalmentalityis________.2.Therightsandobligationsofthepartiestoacontractshouldbe________.3.Acontractthatiscreatedentirelythroughconversationofthepartiesinvolvedis_____.4.Thepromisesexchangedbypartiestoacontractis_______.5.Acontractthatisunderstoodfromtheactsorconductofthepartyis__________.6.Acontractwhosemeaningisnotdeterminedbytheconductofthepartiesis_____.7.Awrittencontractthatbearsasealis_________.8.A___________withseveralunrelatedparts,andeachofthemcanstandalone.9.The_________isthatacontractcannotviolatethelaw.10.The_________isthattherelatedpartsdependononeanotherforsatisfactoryperformance.=4\*ROMANIV.TranslatethefollowingintoChinese:Makingacontractisaciviljuristicactdonebybothsides.Atleasttwopartiesshallenter,andexpresstheirgenuineintention.Otherwiseacontractcannotbeestablished.Thepurposetomakeacontractistobringoutacertainciviljuristiceffect,includingestablishing,changingorterminatingthecivilrelationshipbetweenthetwoparties.Makingacontractisalegalactratherthanillegalact.Unlawfullyestablishedcontractsarenullorvoid.Contractualobligationsareoftenimposedonallparties.Accordingtothedifferenceamongtheirappearance,itfallsintoprecontractualobligationaftercontractualobligationandthesubordinatedobligationincontractperforming.SectionBMistakeinContractLaw1Generally,avalidcontractmustbebasedonrealmutualassent.Avalidcontractmustbeanagreementreachedthroughconsultation.Acontractmaybevitiatedonthegroundofexistenceofmistake,misrepresentation,duressandundueinfluence.2Mistakereferstomisunderstandingofoneorbothpartiesastodeterminationofthesubjectmatter,itsexistence,itsquality,thenatureofacontract,theidentityofthecontractingparty,ortheterms,etc.Forexample,SdeliversanoffertotheT(Telegraph)CompanytotransmittoBwhichstates：“willsell800000lathsdeliveredatyouraddress,twotennetcash.”ThroughfaultoftheTCompany,themessageistransmittedasanoffertosellfor“twonetcash”Bacceptswithoutknowingandwithouthavingreasontoknowofthemistake.Ontherationale,theremaybenoenforceablecontractbetweenSandB.However,bythebetterview,Bhasanenforceablecontractat“twonetcash”.Thiscaseindicatesthattheofferorassumestheriskofamistake,havingchosenhismeansoftransmission.(SmayhaveacauseofactionfordamagesagainsttheTCompanydependinguponthecontractbetweenthosepartiesandapplicableregulatoryenactment.)3Mistakemustbeoffactandnotoflaw.Thisconcepthasatechnicalmeaninganddoesnotcovererrorsofjudgmentastovalue.ThusifAbuysanarticlethinkingitisworth￡100wheninfactitisworth￡50only,thecontractisgood.AndAmustbearlossiftherehasbeennomisrepresentationbytheseller.Thisiswhatismeantbythemaximcaveatemptor(letthebuyerbeware.)4AninterestingexampleofhowthejudiciarycaninterpretwhatsomemightthinktobemistakesoflawasmistakesoffactinprovidedbySollev.Butcher.InthatcaseButcherhadagreedtoleaseaflatinBeckenhamtoSolleatayearlyrentalof￡250,theleasetorunforsevenyears.Bothpartieshadactedontheassumptionthattheflat,whichhadbeensubstantiallyreconstructed,soastobevirtuallyanewflat,wasnolongercontrolledbytheRentRestrictionlegislationtheninforce.Ifitweresocontrolledthemaximumrentpayablewouldbe￡140perannum.NeverthelessButcherwouldhavebeenentitledtoincreasethatrentbycharging8%ofthecostofrepairsandimprovementswhichwouldbringthefigureuptoabout￡250perannum,therentactuallycharged,ifhehadservedastatutorynoticeonSollebeforethenewleasewasexecuted.Nosuchnoticewasinfactserved.Actuallytheybothforatimemistakenlythoughtthattheflatwasdecontrolledwhenthiswasnotthecase.Sollerealizedthemistakeaftersometwoyears,andsoughttorecovertherenthehadoverpaidandtocontinueforthebalanceofthesevenyearsasastatutorytenantat￡140perannum.Butchercounterclaimedforrescissionoftheleaseinequity.5Held:themistakewasoneoffactandnotoflaw.ThefactthattheflatwasnotwithintheprovisionsoftheRentActs,andthiswasabilateralmistakeastoqualitywhichwouldnotinvalidatethecontractatcommonlaw.However,onthecounterclaimforrescission,itwasheldthattheleasecouldberescinded.InordernottodispossessSolle,thecourtofferedhimthefollowingalternatives(a)tosurrendertheleaseentirely；or(b)toremainonpossessionasamerelicenseeuntilanewleasecouldbedrawnupafterButcherhadhadtimetoservethestatutorynoticewhichwouldallowhimtoaddasumforrepairstothe￡140whichwouldbringthelawfulrentupto￡250perannum.6Inpractice,suchmistakesmaycomeintothreecategories：mutual(ornon-identicalbilateral)mistake,common(orbilateralidentical)mistakeandunilateralmistake.7Mutual(ornon-identicalbilateral)mistakeoccurswhereXofferstosellcarAandYagreestobuy,thinkingXisB,inotherwords,whenconcludingacontractbothpartiesdonotintendthesamemeaning.Inthiscase,neithershouldbebound.InRafflesv.Wichelhaus(1864)SagreedtosellcottontoBtoarriveonthePeerless.TherehappenedtobetwoshipsnamedPeerless,onetosailinOctober,theothertosailinDecember.ThesellertenderedthecottonfromtheDecemberPeerless.ThebuyerintendedtobuycottonfromtheOctoberPeerless.Thereforeitwasheldthatthereexistednocontractbetweentheparties.Atcommonlawthecontractmadeinsuchamistakeisnotnecessarilyvoidbecausethecourtwilltrytofindthesenseofpromise.Thisusuallyoccurswhere,althoughthepartiesareatcross-purposes,thecontractactuallyidentifiestheagreement.Ontheotherhand,equityalsotriestofindthesenseofthepromiseasidentifiedbythecontract,thusfollowingthelaw.However,equitableremediesarediscretionaryandevenwherethesenseofthepromiseasidentifiedbythecontractcanbeascertainedequitywillnotnecessarilygrantspecificperformanceifitwouldcausehardshiptothedefendant.8Common(orbilateralidentical)mistakeoccurswherebothpartiesaremistakenandeachmakesthesamemistake.Inpracticeonlycommonmistakeastotheexistenceofthesubjectmatterofthecontractorwherethesubjectmatterofthecontractalreadybelongstothebuyerwillmakethecontractvoidatcommonlaw.SandBhadconcludedapurchaseandsalecontractastoashiploadofmaize.Theyhadthoughtthatthemaizewasontheship.Butinfact,thecaptainhadexecutedhispowertoselloutthemaizebecausethemaizehadbeguntorotaway.Inthiscasebothpartieswerenotboundbecauseofnon-existenceofthemaize.ThiscanbealsoillustratedinGallowayv.Galloway(1914).Amanandwomanenteredintoaseparationdeed,believingthattheywerehusbandandwife.Thiswasnotso,becausethepriorspouseofthehusbandturnedouttobestillalive.Theseparationdeedwasheldtobevoid,becausethemarriage,whichwasthebasisofthedeed,didnotexist.9Unilateralmistake.Ifoneofthepartiesshouldnothaveknownordidnotknowofthequality,themainpartorthenatureofthecontractandtheotherpartyknew,thereisacontractaccordingtotheformer’smisunderstanding.Inthissituationtheformercannotrepudiatethecontractunlesshecanproveinevidencethathehasbeenintentionallydeceivedandinducedtoenterintothecontracthedidnotintendto.Considerthesituation：Ifanofferormisdirectshisoffertotheperson,thelattercannotaccepttheofferifheknowsorhasreasontoknowthathewasnottheintendedofferee.However,iftheoffereeneitherknowsnorhasreasontoknowofthemisdirectionoftheoffertheunintendedoffereemayacceptandcreateanenforceablecontract.10Thevalidityofacontractisusuallynotaffectedbymistakeunlessthemistakeisfundamentalandharmfultothecontract.Inpractice,thefollowingmistakesresultinavalidcontract.(a)Amistakeinintentionmadebyoneparty,forexample,amistakemadeincalculationofprice.(b)Amistakeinjudgment,forexample,amistakeinestimateofone’sabilitytoperformacontract.(c)Amistakeinunderstandingthemeaningofadescriptionofcertainproductsinsaleofthem.11Inthelightofcivillawtherearetwokindsofmistakesshallvitiateacontract.(a)Amistakeinthequalityofasubjectmatter(thisqualityseenasasubstantialonewithoutwhichthebuyerwouldnothavebought).(b)Amistakeinidentityoftheothercounter-partywhichisvitaltotheconclusionofacontract.12ItisheldintheGBGthatacontractshallberescindedby(a)amistakeinmanifestationoftheintentionand(b)amistakeinformofmanifestationoftheintention.(1373words)NewWordsandProperTermscaveatemptor n.買方自慎;貨物售出，概不退還Peerless n. 無敵號(hào)貨輪inevidence 舉證arbitrationagency 仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)reality n.真實(shí)性consultation n.協(xié)商identity n.身份annum n.一年decontrol v.解除對(duì)……管制vitiate v.使……無效dispossessv.剝奪Notes1.Mistakemustbeoffactandnotoflaw.錯(cuò)誤可以是事實(shí)錯(cuò)誤（mistakeoffacts），即與交易的實(shí)際情況不相符合的錯(cuò)誤；也可以是法律錯(cuò)誤（mistakeoflaw），即合同適用法律方面的錯(cuò)誤。單方錯(cuò)誤與雙方錯(cuò)誤。MistakeofLaw:"Ignoranceofthelawisnoexcuse"isacommonsaying.Ifapersondoesnotknowthatthelegislaturehaspassedalawcriminalizingsomethingorthatapersondoesknowwhatisagainstthelaw,i.e.,doesnotknowwhatthelawforbids,thatthisignorancedoesnotoperatetorelievethepersonofcriminalresponsibilityforthecommissionofthecrime.Atcommonlaw,mistakeoflawor"ignoranceofthelaw"wasnodefense.MistakeofFact:There,itisrequiredthatthedefendantmusthaveactedoromittedtohaveactedunderanactualandreasonablebeliefintheexistenceofthefacts.Thosefactsorcircumstances,iftrue,musthavemadethedefendant'sconductlawful.Thedefendant'sbeliefmustnotonlybeactual(honest)butalsoareasonablebelief.Exercises=1\*ROMANI.WriteT(true)orF(false)foreachstatementofthefollowingaccordingtowhatyouhavelearntfromthetext:1.Acontractmustbeanagreementreachedthroughconsultation.2.Mistakemustbeoffactandnotoflaw.3.Mistakesmaybeinthreecategories：mutualmistake,commonmistakeandunilateralmistake.4.Acontractshallberescindedbyamistakeinmanifestationoftheintentionandamistakeinformofmanifestationoftheintention.5.Thevalidityofacontractisusuallyaffectedbymistakeunlessthemistakeisfundamentalandharmfultothecontract.6.Bilateralidenticalmistakeoccurswherebothpartiesaremistakenandeachmakesthesamemistake.7.Non-identicalbilateralmistakeoccurswhereXofferstosellcarAandYagreestobuy,thinkingAisB.8.IfAbuysanarticlethinkingitisworth￡100wheninfactitisworth￡50only,thecontractisillegal9.Incommonlawthecontractmadeinsuchamistakeisnotnecessarilyvoidbecausethecourtwilltrytofindthesenseofagreement.10.Inthelightofcivillawtherearemanykindsofmistakesshallvitiateacontract.=2\*ROMANII.TranslatethefollowingintoChinese:Thesystemofmistakeisanoldsystemofcivillaw,andtheexpressionofintentionmistakeisdifferentfromtheconceptofmistakeinAnglo-Americanlaw.Thevalidityofacontractisusuallynotaffectedbymistakeunlessthemistakeisfundamentalandharmfultothecontract.Inpractice,thefollowingmistakesresultinavalidcontract.(a)Amistakeinintentionmadebyoneparty,forexample,amistakemadeincalculationofprice.(b)Amistakeinjudgment,forexample,amistakeinestimateofone’sabilitytoperformacontract.(c)Amistakeinunderstandingthemeaningofadescriptionofcertainproductsinsaleofthem.Inthelightofcivillawtherearetwokindsofmistakesshallvitiateacontract.(a)Amistakeinthequalityofasubjectmatter.(b)Amistakeinidentityoftheothercounter-partywhichisvitaltotheconclusionofacontract.SectionCQuasi-Contract1Theterm‘quasi-contract’,onceusedtodescribetheareaoflawnowcalled‘restitution’or‘unjustenrichment’,isnowoutoffavour.‘Quasi-contract’saysonlythatthematterisnotcontract.Sofarasitsuggeststhatthereisasortofcontract,itdeceives,unintelligibly.Quasi-contractualliabilityshouldbeunderstoodnotaspartofunjustenrichment,butasadifferentbasisofliabilitythatcanhelpusseewhatliabilityforunjustenrichmentmightbe:liabilitygroundedinnotionsoffairness.2Thenotionofquasi-contractcanhelpusunderstandwhatisatstake.whethertoimposeliabilityincertaincircumstancesinwhichnocontracthasbeenmadebetweenthepartiesbutwhenwehavegoodreasontobelievethatsuchacontractwouldhavebeenmadeifthepartieshadhadtheopportunitytodoso.Thisanalysisismorefittingforthesecasesbecausebytryingtofindwhatthepartieswouldhavecontractedfor,itadoptsanexanteperspective.Interestingly,onceagainweseethatcommentatorswhorejectthequasi-contractualanalysisendupexplainingthesituationbyinvokingcontractualconcepts.Forexample,inexplainingwhyliabilityshouldbeimposedonlyonsuccessfulattempts,Burrowswrites:‘Areasonablemanwouldsurelypayforsomeonetotrytorescuehisdrowningdaughterortotrytosavehisburninghouse’.Burrowscomesclosetostatingthequasi-contractualrationaleforimposingliability:thereasonwhyliabilityshouldbeimposedinsuchcasesisbecausepeoplewouldhavebeenwillingtopayfortheservice(evenwithouttheguaranteeofsuccess),iftheyhadhadtheopportunitytodoso.3Withinaquasi-contractualanalysisitisnotdifficulttoexplainwhyliabilityneednotbelimitedtosuccessfulattempts.Inmanycontractsforservice,theserviceproviderdoesnotpromiseacertainresult,onlyacertaindegreeofeffort.Ifthepromisorfulfilshercontractualliabilitybyperformingtothatlevel,shedoesnotbreachhercontractualobligationeveniftheservicesheprovidesdoesnotmatchacertaindesiredoutcome.Bycontrast,inprinciple,ifthepromisorfailstoperformtothesamedegreerequiredbythecontract,shebreachesthecontractevenifthenon-contractedyetdesiredoutcomeisachieved.4Atrueemergencysituationthatshouldgiverisetoquasi-contractualliabilityexistsinthefollowingsituation:anuncontracted-forserviceisprovidedwhen(a)transactioncostsforthecontractareprohibitivelyhigh;(b)hadtheservicenotbeenprovided,therecipientoftheservicewouldhaves