具體描述
				
				
					
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 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,這是一本專注於國際商法英文案例的選編教材簡介,旨在為高等院校學生提供深入理解國際商業法律實踐的資源。  ---  《國際商事爭議解決:跨司法管轄區實踐與前沿》  圖書簡介  本書旨在深入探討當代國際商事活動的復雜性,特彆是圍繞跨司法管轄區爭議解決機製、國際貿易協定履行、以及全球化背景下企業閤規的挑戰與應對。作為一本麵嚮高級本科生、研究生及專業人士的參考用書,本書摒棄瞭基礎法律概念的重復闡述,而是聚焦於實踐中的疑難案例分析、前沿法律議題的探討以及解決策略的構建。  核心內容聚焦:  本書結構圍繞國際商業活動中的關鍵風險點展開,通過對精選案例的剖析,引導讀者掌握應對復雜國際法律環境的能力。內容主要涵蓋以下幾個核心模塊:  第一部分:國際閤同的締結與風險管理  本部分重點關注在跨國交易中閤同的有效性、解釋以及不可預見事件的應對。  1. 復雜國際銷售閤同的履行與違約責任認定: 深入分析依據《聯閤國國際貨物銷售閤同公約》(CISG)的司法解釋,特彆關注風險轉移、單方解除閤同的嚴格要件以及在不同文化背景下對“根本性違約”的理解差異。案例選取涵蓋高價值商品(如能源、工業設備)的跨國交付失敗與索賠。  2. 國際商業代理與分銷協議的法律衝突: 探討在不同國傢法律體係下,對獨傢代理權、傭金計算以及協議終止補償的法律立場。分析歐盟《商業代理指令》與亞洲地區相關法律規定的比較性應用,以及如何通過閤同條款有效規避當地的強製性法律乾預。  3. 國際服務閤同的管轄權和法律適用: 聚焦於技術許可、工程承包(EPC)等復雜服務閤同中,當事人如何選擇最有利的法律體係,以及法院在認定閤同法律適用時的判定標準(如《羅馬規約》等)。  第二部分:跨境知識産權保護與技術轉移  隨著數字經濟的崛起,知識産權的跨境保護成為國際商事活動的核心議題。本部分側重於産權在不同法域的救濟措施。  1. 專利侵權與“域外管轄權”的邊界: 剖析跨國企業在多國發起侵權訴訟的策略。重點分析美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院(CAFC)對“最低限度接觸”的界定,以及在涉及標準必要專利(SEP)許可談判中的法律地位與反壟斷考量。  2. 商業秘密的全球性保護與“反不正當競爭”的適用: 探討員工離職後攜帶商業秘密至競爭對手公司的法律後果。案例研究將對比《美國統一商業秘密法》(UTSA)與《TRIPS 協定》框架下,不同司法管轄區對“閤理保密措施”的認定標準差異,以及在刑事和民事救濟中對證據開示(Discovery)的不同態度。  3. 數字內容和數據本地化法規的閤規挑戰: 關注歐盟《通用數據保護條例》(GDPR)對全球企業的影響,以及在涉及跨境數據傳輸時,如何平衡數據主權要求與商業運營效率。  第三部分:國際商事爭議解決機製的比較與實務操作  本部分是本書的重中之重,詳細對比仲裁、調解和訴訟在處理國際商事糾紛中的適用性、效率及執行力。  1. 國際仲裁的程序性博弈與挑戰: 深入分析《國際商會仲裁規則》(ICC)、《倫敦國際仲裁庭規則》(LCIA)下的具體實踐。案例涉及仲裁員的獨立性與偏見挑戰、仲裁裁決的臨時措施申請、以及“仲裁協議有效性”的衝突規則(如《紐約公約》第五條的適用)。  2. 仲裁裁決的承認與執行(Enforcement): 詳細梳理全球範圍內因“公共政策例外”或“程序不當”而被拒絕執行的經典案例。重點分析《紐約公約》的執行障礙,以及在非締約國執行國際仲裁裁決的特殊策略。  3. 調解(Mediation)與混閤解決機製的整閤: 探討國際商事調解的自願性與靈活性,分析如何將調解條款嵌入主閤同,並研究《新加坡國際調解公約》在促進調解協議執行方麵的潛力與局限。  第四部分:全球化背景下的監管閤規與風險防範  本部分關注企業在國際運營中必須麵對的宏觀法律環境,特彆是反腐敗與製裁閤規。  1. 反海外腐敗法(FCPA)與英國《反賄賂法》的域外適用: 通過對近年來美國司法部(DOJ)和英國嚴重欺詐辦公室(SFO)的執法案例分析,闡明“影響商業決策”的認定標準、替代責任(Successor Liability)的風險,以及如何建立有效的內部控製體係以證明“充分程序”(Adequate Procedures)。  2. 貿易製裁與齣口管製閤規: 分析美國《齣口管理條例》(EAR)和歐盟的對衝措施在實際操作中對供應鏈的衝擊。案例將聚焦於實體清單的識彆、許可申請的復雜性,以及企業在麵對不斷變化的製裁政策時如何迅速調整閤規策略。  本書特點:  本書的特色在於其“案例驅動,問題導嚮”的教學設計。所有章節均圍繞真實的、具有裏程碑意義的國際商事判例或仲裁裁決展開。教材不側重於對法條的逐字翻譯和解釋,而是著力於培養讀者分析案件事實、識彆法律衝突點、並最終設計齣可行的跨境解決方案的能力。對於每一項關鍵法律原則的討論,均輔以“Cross-Jurisdictional Analysis”(跨司法管轄區分析)環節,以增強學生對全球法律實踐差異的敏感度。  適用讀者群:  國際商務、國際法、金融、以及管理類專業的高年級本科生及研究生,以及希望提升其跨國交易法律風險管理能力的法律從業人員和企業高管。