1. Assignment:
Read the following extract concerning damages. Then from the table below choose the best word to fill each gap. An example has been given.
Write the letters (A, B, C or D) on your answer sheet.
Liquidated Damages
Liquidated damages are when the parties agree in [. . .](0) of a breach upon the amount of money that will adequately compensate an [. . .](1) party for a breach. A valid liquidated damages provision [. . .](2) the injured party to collect the [. . .](3) amount from the breaching party without further [. . .](4) of loss. In order to receive liquidated damages, the non-breaching party must show that at the time of formation of the agreement, (a) the damages to be [. . .](5) upon the breach of the agreement were either uncertain, or difficult to quantify, and (b) the amount of money agreed upon by the parties was a reasonable [. . .](6) of the losses to be expected from a breach of that agreement.
2. Assignment:
Read the following extract concerning covenants in restraint of trade. Choose the best word to fill each gap. For each gap write one letter on your answer sheet.
A covenant (0) in restraint of trade is a contract in which one party agrees to restrict his freedom to trade with other persons or his freedom to conduct his [. . .](7) or business. A contract which is in restraint of trade is void and unenforceable [. . .](8) it can be shown to be reasonable or is consistent with the interests of the public. This doctrine is based upon considerations of public [. . .](9) although every contract contains a certain element of restraint of trade. Let us suppose that I enter into a contract to provide English lessons over a two-year [. . .](10). The contract restricts my freedom to ‘trade’ during the hours in which I have [. . .](11) to give the lessons. But such a contract would not [. . .](12) under the restraint of trade doctrine.
3. Assignment:
Read the following extract. Then choose a suitable word to fill each gap. Use only one word in each gap. There is an example at the beginning. Example: 0 = in
In the leading case [. . .] (0) England on silence, Felthouse vs Bindley [1862], the plaintiff and his nephew were negotiating the sale of a horse. The plaintiff stated that [. . .](13) he heard nothing further [. . .](14) his nephew he would consider that the horse had been sold [. . .](15) the price of some £30. The nephew [. . .](16) to respond to this offer but he decided to accept it and told an auctioneer not to sell the horse because it had [. . .](17) been sold. In the event, however, the auctioneer mistakenly sold the horse and the plaintiff’s uncle brought legal proceedings [. . .](18) him. The auctioneer argued that the [. . .](19) had no title to sue because his offer to buy the horse had not been properly accepted by the nephew. This argument was accepted by the court [. . .](20) the grounds that the nephew’s silence did not amount to an acceptance of the offer. The application of the general [. . .](21) to the Felthouse case has been the subject of criticism in [. . .](22) the uncle had waived the need for a communication of acceptance and the nephew had demonstrated his acceptance [. . .](23) informing the auctioneer that the horse had been [. . .](24).
4. Assignment:
Read the following extract. Then use the words in the column on the right to form one new word to fit in the same numbered gap. There is an example at the beginning.
0. A C C E P T A N C E
It is a general rule that [. . .](0) of an offer will not be [. . .](25) by silence on the part of the offeree. An offeror cannot impose a [. . .](26) obligation upon the offeree by stating that, unless the latter [. . .](27) rejects the offer, he will be held to have accepted it. The reasoning behind this rule is that it is considered [. . .](28) to put an offeree to the time and expense of avoiding the imposition of unwanted business arrangements. Nevertheless, this rule on silence is not absolute and there are, to a certain [. . .](29), [. . .](30). For example, a series of transactions between trading parties may give rise to the inference that silence amounts to acceptance. 0. ACCEPT
25. INFER
26. CONTRACT
27. EXPRESS
28. FAIR
29. EXTEND
30. EXCEPT
5. Assignment:
Questions 31–34 Read the following excerpt from the Harvard Law Review about the judicial review of targeted killings. Then choose the best statement from the four options.
Since 9/11, the CIA and Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) have used armed drones to kill thousands of people in places far removed from conventional battlefields. Legislators, legal scholars, and human rights advocates have raised concerns about civilian casualties, the legal basis for the strikes, the process by which the executive selects its targets and the actual, or contemplated, deployment of armed drones in additional countries. Some have proposed that Congress establish a court to approve (or disapprove) strikes before the government carries them out.
While judicial engagement with the targeted killing programme is long overdue, those aiming to bring the programme in line with our legal traditions and moral intuitions should think carefully before embracing this proposal. Creating a new court to issue death warrants is more likely to normalise the targeted killing programme than to restrain it.
The argument for some form of judicial review is compelling, not least because such a review would clarify the scope of the government’s authority to use lethal force. The targeted killing programme is predicated on sweeping constructions of the 2001 ‘Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)’ and the President’s authority to use military force in national self-defence. The government contends, for example, that the AUMF authorises it to use lethal force against groups that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and that did not even exist when those attacks were carried out. It contends that the AUMF gives it authority to use lethal force against individuals located far from conventional battlefields. As made clear in the Justice Department’s recently leaked white paper, the government also contends that the President has authority to use lethal force against those deemed to present “continuing” rather than truly imminent threats.
These claims are controversial. They have been rejected or questioned by human rights groups, legal scholars, federal judges, and U.N. special rapporteurs. Even enthusiasts of the drone programme have become anxious about its legal soundness. (“People in Washington need to wake up and realise that legal foundations are crumbling by the day,” Professor Bobby Chesney, a supporter of the programme, recently said.) Judicial review could clarify the limits of the government’s legal authority and supply a degree of legitimacy to actions taken within those limits.
31. Which of the following statements is correct?
a) Targeted killings are widely accepted as a necessary means to defend a country.
b) Congress wants to establish a court to approve, or disapprove, strikes.
c) Drones are armed to kill far-removed people.
d) Legislators and scholars question the legitimacy of targeted killings.
32. The author argues that
a) the law should urgently get involved in the subject of targeted killing programmes.
b) the targeted killing programme aims to be aligned with the legal traditions.
c) issuing death warrants will restrain the targeted killing programme.
d) the creation of a new court is necessary to target the killing programme.
33. According to the US government
a) military force is a form of self-defence.
b) the AUMF authorised groups that were involved in the 9/11 attacks.
c) the President of the United States may attack those who pose an ongoing threat for the USA.
d) the Justice Department argued for the clarity of the leaked papers.
34. According to the article
a) the sound of the drones is a serious issue.
b) there is an anxiety about the drone programme among the enthusiasts.
c) judicial review could elucidate the scope of the US government’s legal power.
d) judicial review could authorise the government's actions.
<Pkt.>/12 pts.
6. Assignment:
Jumbled Collocations (fixed expressions)
Match the word/phrases on the left with the correct word/phrases on the right to form collocations from the field of legal English. Then, using your own words, provide a sentence to show the meaning of each collocation. (35–42)
An example has been given (O).
The client brought a claim against his insurance company.
(0) bring doing something
35 look forward to lien
36 negotiable instruments
37 consensual damages
38 tenancy remedy
39 liquidated (0) a claim
40 contract property
41 intellectual agreement
42 trade secret
Write your sentences here.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
Writing
7. Assignment:
Discrimination – Memorandum
You work in the legal department of “Lambers & Crosbie”, a large department store chain. Recently there have been repeated reports of alleged discriminatory behaviour against the sales staff in one of the three Toronto branches. Write a memo to all the staff. Write in the appropriate style using your own words.
150–200 words
Notes
Protected characteristics e.g. gender, race, sexual orientation, age, disablity.
Rumours of discrimatory behaviour towards staff = harassment
Equality Act of 2010: unlawful to discriminate against a person for gender, age etc.
Reputation of L&S at stake
snide remarks in front of clients
Training needed?
Security guards: insulting behaviour towards homosexuals
Want to make a statement? Contact Ms Jefferson – HR
Victimisation of female staff. comments on physical appearance etc. Many complaints.
8. Assignment:
Letter
You are a lawyer representing a group of organic farmers. You have recently had a meeting with Mr Gibson, the managing director of a supermarket chain, to discuss their policy of labelling certain food imports as “organic”. You have now received this letter from Mr Gibson. Read the letter, on which you have made some notes. Then, using all the information in the notes, write a letter to Mr Gibson on behalf of the farmers.
Write the letter in the appropriate style and register. Do not write the address or date.
Use your own words. (150–200 words)
Dear Mr Stubbs
Labelling of products
I refer to our meeting of 10 August 2XXX and the points raised there.
I have since discussed these matters with the Purchasing Department who agree with the points I mentioned at the meeting i.e. that it is company policy to provide our customers with a maximum choice at the most reasonable prices possible.
It is true that our ‘farmhouse products’ are not labelled according to their country of origin. However, there is no legal requirement to do this.
Let me at this point mention that we have a system whereby we inspect the farms from which we obtain our ‘farmhouse products’ and that any imported foodstuffs which we sell are subject to stringent laboratory testing before they are made available to the public.
In short, we do not feel that it is necessary to change our labelling policy for our product range.
Yours sincerely
Simon Gibson
Simon Gibson
Managing Director
Cornershop Supermarkets
Notes
marketing honest, not misleading
government guidelines for organic foodstuffs: domestic products must be given preference
not all testing should apply to all products
further meeting required
matter not resolved – go to press
3.50
3.50
;)
Bewertungen
