法律英语案例.doc

.目录第一讲合同与其他债1案例1：合同之债与其他债-不当得利1第二讲意思表示和许诺的作出3案例2：诺言的存在-确定性3案例3：诺言的存在-担保与见解5第三讲合同的订立8案例4：合同的订立8第二节要约12案例5：要约与要约邀请12案例6：谁是要约的主人16案例7：要约的可撤销与不得自食其言20第四讲合同的效力23第一节对价23案例8：对价-原有的义务24案例9：过去的对价25案例10：效力-合法性28案例11：效力-合法性-分解合同31第三节可撤销的合同32案例12：效力-欺诈32案例13：效力-胁迫39案例14：效力-不正当影响42案例15：效力-缔约能力45案例16：效力-共同错误48案例17：效力-未成年人的撤销权51第五讲合同的容56案例18：合同的解释56Presentation要求：1、 每个人预计上台讲解时间为15-30分钟，根据案例的长短和人员的个数略有差异请合理安排时间2、 容包括案例分析和答复讨论题案例分析的格式教师在课堂上已经讲过，按照书后面的案例分析格式，中英文均可，只要有利于表达就好；答复讨论题也是中英文均可3、 讲解的辅助工具是PPT，案例分析需要，答复以下问题同样需要。

字体不能太小，以免同学看不见4、 仔细阅读案例，并重点研究教师划了颜色的文字，教师会不定时的针对案例的具体情形提问5、 除了自己负责的案例，其他同学讲解的案例也要提前预习教师也会提问其他同学，这样有利于大家知识的积累和系统化第一讲 合同与其他债【教学目的和要求】掌握合同的相关概念，区别合同之债与其他债券债务关系教学时数】 约2学时案例1：合同之债与其他债-不当得利Beley v. Ventura County Municipal Court Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, California.100 Cal. App. 3d 5December 17, 1979ASHBY, J.Real party in interest Gerry Harmsma (hereinafter Seller) is a building contractor who brought an action in the municipal court to recover for services performed and material furnished in remodeling the home of appellants John and Lorraine Beley (hereinafter Buyer)On June 10, 1977, the parties executed a contract, at the home of Buyer, for the remodeling of Buyer's home. The contract price was $11,689 and the work was to be completed by August 15. .… The work was not completed on time, and on November 10, 1977, Buyer gave written notice that the contract was canceled.Buyer moved for summary judgment, contending that the contract was a home solicitation contract (Civ. Code, § 1689.5) which did not contain the mandatory notice of Buyer's right to cancel within three days (§ 1689.7); that Buyer therefore had the right to cancel at any time prior to Seller's giving the required notice (§ 1689.7, subd. (e)); that Buyer canceled the contract on November 10, 1977 (§ 1689.6); and that Seller was entitled to no compensation for the services performed (§ 1689.11, subd. (c)). ( Weatherall Aluminum Products Co. v. Scott, 71 Cal.App.3d 245 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 329].) Buyer also sought the return of the $8,566 Buyer had paid to Seller.Although the home solicitation contract statute was enacted in 1971 primarily to protect residents from the high-pressure techniques of door-to-door salespersons, it was interpreted in Weatherall Aluminum Products Co. v. Scott, supra., 71 Cal.App.3d 245, 248 (decided shortly after the execution of the contract in the present case) to apply to contracts entered in the home, even where the buyer had telephoned the seller and invited him to come to the home. Thus, under Weatherall, the instant contract was a home solicitation contract. Because the instant contract did not contain the required notice giving the Buyer a right to cancel within three days, the statute technically extended indefinitely (until the Seller complied with the notice requirement) the Buyer's right to cancel (Civ. Code, § 1689.7, subd. (e).) Here Buyer exercised this statutory right to cancel, but only after Seller had apparently substantially completed the job. Buyer argues that the statute gives Buyer the right to retain all the substantial benefits conferred by Seller's performance without paying anything at all for them. We disagree..…Although Buyer's statutory cancellation gives Buyer a defense to Seller's first cause of action on the contract, Seller has also alleged in his second cause of action a quantum meruit quasi contractual theory for recovery of the reasonable value of the benefits conferred on Buyer by Seller's performance. (See 1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (8th ed. 1973) Contracts, §49, p. 60.) Although the statute gives Buyer a right to avoid the written contract, there was nothing illegal or immoral about the contract itself or the nature of the services and materials to be furnished under it. (See Trumbo v. Bank of Berkeley, 77 Cal.App.2d 704, 709-710 [ 176 P.2d 376].) Therefore, even though Seller could not recover on the express building contract, Seller is entitled to recovery on quantum meruit for the reasonable value of the improvements Buyer has received. ( Sims v. Petaluma Gas Light Co., 131 Cal. 656, 660 [ 63 P. 1011].)Nothing in Weatherall Aluminum Products Co. v. Scott, supra., 71 Cal.App.3d 245, precludes such equitable adjustment of the rights and duties of the parties. There is no indication in that opinion that the seller in that case raised an equitable quasi contractual theory for the reasonable value of benefits conferred, as distinguished from an action on the contract. Nor does Civil Code section 1689.11 preclude Seller's quasi contractual recovery. .…This case does not involve an attempt to evade the statute or to pressure the buyer by the performance of a small portion of the contract within the first three days.Here we have a large building contract which was substantially completed over a long period of time before Buyer exercised Buyer's t。