2010 год, 8 листов
Выбрать один из вариантов. Необходимо выполнить 4 задания:
• Чтение и письменный перевод на русский язык текста по специальности со словарем, (текст №1).
• Чтение и краткое изложение на иностранном языке содержание текста,(12-15 предложений) (текст №2).
• Письменный перевод на иностранный язык делового письма, ( текст №3).
• Изложение в письменном виде на иностранном языке о своей специальности и работе (не менее15 предложений).
Внимание! Тексты распечатывать и приложить к контрольной работе!
Вся работа выполняется на экз. листах, черной ручкой, письменно от руки .
Данное указание распечатывать не надо.
The Need for Legal strategy
(1) Whether in a personal or a business context, almost all of us will have at least one encounter with the legal system during our lives. That encounter may be as simple as a traffic ticket or as complex as a Sherman antitrust violation suit seeking treble damages. The likelihood of a business encountering a legal difficulty seems to be increasing at an exponential rate. Business firms have expressed concern about their ability to survive in today’s increasingly litigious environment, and they are right to worry. The idea of doing business with a handshake or relying on goodwill has long since been replaced by a focus on legal suit and recovery. Most businesses, however, continue to do «business as usual», using methods and strategies that afford very little legal protection and may even make litigation more likely.
(2) Many businesses have at least superficially acknowledged the importance of legal affairs by establishing a vice-presidential position for the in-house counsel. They seldom fully utilize the skills within their legal departments, however. They do not really recognize legal affairs as an area of business life just as important as marketing, production, finance and personnel. Except in highly regulated industries, company lawyers are seldom invited to strategic planning meetings. Usually they are treated merely as highly skilled technicians who should «slick to their knitting» and not concern themselves with the firm’s overall policies. As one president bluntly said, «I don’t want lawyers telling me what I can and cannot do. I just want them to keep me out of jail». With this attitude at the top, it was not surprising that his company was embroiled in a number of legal actions.
(3) Today, companies that ignore the importance of legal affairs are foolish, to say the least. The combined direct and indirect costs of legal aspects of business decisions can outweigh marketing, production, financial, and personnel costs. A number of companies, including Johns Manville, A. H. Robins, Film Recovery Systems, and Jartran, have been driven into bankruptcy partly or wholly because of legal expenses. Others, including Ford, Firestone, and Beech-Nut, have paid untold millions of dollars in legal expenses and lost market share because they did not fully consider the adverse impact litigation could have on their products or service.
(4) Legal affairs, like other corporate functions, should be incorporated into the SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) Analysis typically done for strategic decisions. Only when legal affairs department is given a status fully comparable with other business functions will legal costs be minimized, corporate and executive reputation preserved, and markets retained.
(5) Many of the suits brought against businesses are avoidable. They could be avoided by business becoming involved in the legislative and regulatory environments and providing input on the regulations that affect them. Suits can also be avoided by good preventive legal strategy, yet few companies follow such a strategy. When it comes to lawyers, lawsuits, and laws, most firms simply react. They hire a lawyer or use the in-house lawyer, hope for the best, and cover their eyes when the bill comes. The fact is that good legal strategy is part of good business. If lawyers are consulted only when litigation has arisen, they are consulted too late.
(6) Avoiding litigation (or using it when it can be beneficial) and limiting legal liability need to become an important part of any business’s strategic plans. A new product must not only survive market tests, it must also survive tests for product liability. A contract must not only provide the right price and terms, it must also provide for the handling of unexpected problems such as embargoes, wars, boycotts, and strikes. Customer relations offer not only goodwill, but also early warning signs about possible product liability suits. The effectiveness of a sales force must be measured not only by its sales figures but also by the accuracy of its product descriptions and its compliance with antitrust laws.
We have already examined intentional interferences and negligent conduct. In the area of liability without fault, neither party has intentionally interfered with another’s person or property, nor was either party’s conduct below the reasonable standard. Yet liability is imposed upon one of the parties. Why? The reason lies in a policy determination made by the court. In effect, the court asked: Between the two parties, who should bear the loss?
Common situations of liability without fault include injuries caused by abnormally dangerous instrumentalities or activities, and the application of the «Dram Shop» laws. The first situation includes injuries inflicted by animals. Liability is imposed on the owner of the animal because it is felt that he should be required to protect the community from any risks involved in keeping that animal. Most courts hold that damages to property caused by the trespass of animals such as horses, cattle, and wandering fowl impose strict liability on their owners. Some courts make an exception to this rule for cats and dogs since they cause minimal damage in their wanderings. On the other hand, statutes in many states expressly provide that owners are liable for damage done by all domestic animals.
Courts have consistently held that any injury inflicted by a «dangerous animal» subjects the owner of that animal to strict liability. Lions, tigers, bears, monkeys, and . similar species are classed as «dangerous». When other animals inflict injury, the law imposes liability only if the owner of the animal knew, or had reason to know, that the animal might be dangerous. This class includes cattle, sheep, horses, dogs, and cats. It is from this rule that the old phrase «every dog is entitled to one bite» received its validity. Presumable after the first bite, the owner should know that his dog has a propensity to become violent and attack someone. If at some later date the dog injures a third party, its owner may be held responsible for the damages.
Strict liability for damages is imposed on the owners of abnormally dangerous instrumentalities or the directors of dangerous activities. Under this theory, the owner of a ten ton tractor or steam roller is held liable for any injuries caused by these machines. Dynamite blasting is an example of an abnormally dangerous activity that can impose liability on the person in charge. Liability has been imposed in these situations partly because the owner of a potentially dangerous machine or the controller of a hazardous activity is seeking economic gain through its use. Therefore, he should pay for any injuries which occur as a consequence of his operations
Strict liability is also imposed in those situations involving the «Dram Shop» laws. Many states have statutes holding sellers of intoxicants responsible for any injuries to a third person resulting from the intoxication of a customer. For example, suppose Roger buys a large amount of liquor from Rush’s Tavern. As a consequence, Roger becomes extremely intoxicated and later incites a brawl in which he injures John. Under the «Dram Shop» taws, John could recover damages from Rush’s Tavern for the injuries he suffered as a result of Roger’s intoxication.
Сообщаем Вам, что, к сожалению, ваши условия нас не устраивают. Однако, если вы согласитесь пересмотреть цены и дать нам 2 % скидку, гарантировать немедленную постановку, продлить гарантийный срок, а также оплатить страховку, мы готовы рассмотреть Ваше предложение еще раз и разместить заказ у Вашей фирмы. Мы готовы даже увеличить его на несколько единиц товара, что будет зависеть от окончательной цены.
Мы ведем с Вами дела уже несколько лет и всегда были хорошими партнерами. Надеемся, что и на этот раз Вы сможете выполнить нашу просьбу и пойти на уступки.
С уважением …
I study at Moscow International Institute of Econometrics, Informatics, Finance and Law. There are many specialities at our Institute, namely crisis management, trading.....................................................................................
Я учусь в Московском Международном Институте Эконометрики, Информатики, Финансов и Права. В нашем Институте есть много специальностей, таких как антикризисное управление, коммерция......................................................................