經濟法英文

⑴ 我的專業是經濟法用英文怎麼說

專業復 major
經濟法 economic law
表示「我制的專業是……」的兩種常用句型是：
1。 My major is……
2。 I major in ……
所以，「我的專業是經濟法」可以譯為：
1。My major is economic law。
2。I major in economic law。

⑵ 國際經濟法，英文，名詞解釋

International Economic Law
國際經濟法是指調整國家之間；國際組織之版間；國家與國際組織之間；國家與他國權私人之間；國際組織與私人之間以及不同國籍私人之間，相互經濟關系的法律規范的總稱。

⑶ 法學（經濟法方向） 英語怎麼說

Economic Law(經濟法)

the science of economic law(經濟法方向)即經濟法科學

Contract Law(合同法)

⑷ 我參加過注冊會計師考試（CPA）（經濟法，會計，審計）的培訓用英語怎麼說

I once attended the training of CPA(economic laws, accounting, audit)

⑸ 關於消費欺詐的，或者經濟法相關方面的英文文章！！！！

分也給太少了吧，不過還是幫幫你吧;D

幫你找了一些很不錯的網站哦!!!

http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=VS0b-nQvmVcC&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=consumer+right,+fraud&source=web&ots=C-dMc4gFJW&sig=O3jnKBsooHnMgir1QIxOEgAWo8M&hl=en

http://www.lectlaw.com/tcos.html

http://www.lectlaw.com/tcos.html

http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=fYPGn13tyI8C&pg=PA140&lpg=PA140&dq=consumer+right,+fraud&source=web&ots=kRkClmp6bb&sig=eWs3OCH6Ujeraewi96uvvQzKgBE&hl=en

http://www.nationwideconsumerrights.com/

⑹ 經濟法問題，英文版本的，急急急！！！

四
1. B
2. B
3. B
4. A
5. C
6. A
7. A
8. A
9. C
10. D

我也在學習中~

⑺ 會計學上下冊、財務管理、經濟法譯成英語

會計學上下冊 accounting
財務管理 financial management
經濟法 economic law

⑻ 求英文版的 中國擔保法和會計法 以及 經濟法總則

中國擔保法：http://www.fane.cn/forum_view.asp?view_id=2613

會計法：http://www.economiclaws.net/jiaoliu/list.asp?id=7

中國勞動法：http://www.laborhr.com/article.aspx?articleid=6193

審計法：http://www.joy-learn.com/study/ShowArticle.asp?ArticleID=21309&Page=2

由於字數有限，我不能發譯文，請諒解。希望我的答案能令您滿意！

⑼ 經濟法概論用英語怎麼說

introction of economic law
economic law outline

⑽ 國際經濟法英文案例及翻譯 跪求

案例一：

TSAKIROGLOU & CO. LTD. V NOBLEE THORL G. m. b. H.House of Lords
[1962] A. C. 93

事實：
THE FACTS:
By a contract dated Hamburg, October 4, 1956 between Tsakiroglou & Co. Ltd, of Khartoum as sellers, and the respondents, Noblee Thorl G. m. b. H. of Hamburg/Hargurg as buyers, through agents, the sellers agreed to sell and the buyers to buy about 300 tons of Sudanese groundnuts in the shell basis 3 percent, admixture new crop 1956/1957 at $50 per 1,000 kilos including bags c.i.f. Hamburg. Shipment November/December, 1956, with payment cash against documents on first presentation for 95 percent of the amount of provisional invoice, balance to be paid after the analysis on final invoice. The contract form was to be the incorporated Oil Seed Association Contract No.38(hereinafter called 「I.O.S.A Contract No. 38」) with arbitration in London. Clause 1 of I.O.S.A Contract No. 38 provided for 「shipment from an East African port…by steamers(tankers excluded) direct or indirect with or without transshipment.」
Both parties contracted on the basis that the goods would be shipped from Port Sudan. Clause 6 of the contract provided: 「in case of prohibition of import or export, blockade or war, and in all cases of force majeure preventing the shipment within the time fixed, or the delivery, the period allowed by not exceeding two months. After that, if the case of force majeure be still operating, the contract shall be cancled.」
At the date when the contract was made, both partied contemplated that shipment would be made via the Suez Canal. On October 29, 1956, the Israelis invaded Egypt, on November 1 Britain and France commenced military operations, and on November 2 the Suez Canal was blocked to shipping. At the date when the contract entered into, the usual and normal routes for the shipment of Sudanese groundnuts from Port Sudan to Hamburg was via the Suez Canal. However, the closure of the Suez Canal prevented transport from Port Sudan to Hamburg via the Canal and the impossibility by that route continued until April 1957. The distance via the Suez Canal is approximately 4,386 miles and the distance via the Cape of Good Hope is approximately 11,137 miles. From November 10, 1956, after the closure of the Canal, a 25% freight surcharge was placed on goods shipped on vessels proceeding via the Cape of Good Hope and this was increased to 100% on December 13, 1956.
The seller』s claim that the contract was frustrated and was at an end because of the closure of the Suez Canal was not accepted by the buyers.

法院程序：
PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT
In arbitration proceedings, the umpire, by an award dated February 20, 1957, awarded that the sellers were in default and should pay to the buyers as the damages the sum of $5,625 together with $79 15s. costs of the award. The sellers were dissatisfied with the award, and a board of appeal appointed to hear the appeal on January 28, 1958, dismissed the appeal and upheld the umpire』s award.

判決：
JURISDICTION
The board of appeal』s award was in following term: 「so far as it is a question of fact we find and as far as it is a question of law we hold:
(i) These were hostilities but not war in Egypt at the material time.
(ii) Neither war nor force majeur prevented the shipment of the contract goods in the contract period to the contract destination, since shipment via the cape was not so prevented when the shipment via the Suez Canal was prevented by reason of force majeur.
(iii) It was not an implied term of the contract that shipment or transportation should be made via the Suez Canal and shipping the goods on a vessel via the Cape of Good Hope was not commercially and fundamentally different from shipping the goods on a vessel via the Suez Canal. So, the contract was not frustrated by the closure of Suez Canal.」

分析問題：
MERITS: Is there an implied term that the goods shall be carried by a particular rout? Is the contract frustrated?
(a) usual and customary route
The contention that the shipment of goods must be via Suez can only prevail if a term is implied, for the contract dose not say so. For the general proposition that in a c.i.f. contract the obligation, in the absence of express terms, is to follow the usual or customary route. It is not the date of the contract but the time of performance that determines what is customary. As the section 32(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, provides that: 「unless otherwise authorized by the buyer, the seller must make such contract with the carrier on behalf of the buyer as may be reasonable having regarded to the nature of the goods and the other circumstances of the case.」 Therefore, if there is no customary route, that route must be chosen which is reasonable. If there is only one route, that must be taken if it is practicable. At the date when the performance was called for, there was no usual or customary route because the Suez Canal was closed and the only practicable route was via the Cape of Good Hope. The sellers could have fulfilled their obligation by a bill of lading via the Cape.
(b) whether the contract was frustrated by the closure of Suez？
The board should consider whether the imposition upon the sellers the obligation to ship by an emergence route via the Cape would be to impose upon them a fundamentally different obligation which neither party could at the time when the contract was performed have dreamed that the sellers would be required to perform. The board found no justification for the positive answer. A c.i.f. contract is for the sale of goods, not a contract of affreightment. The primary ty on the part of sellers was to dispatch the groundnuts by sea from one port to destination of the other. There was no evidence that the buyers attached any importance to the route. They were content that the nuts should be shipped at any date in November or December. There was no stipulated date for arrival at Hamburg. There was no evidence either, that the nuts would deteriorate or the transportation would involve special packing or stowing as a result of a longer voyage, nor any evidence that the market was seasonable. In a word, there was no evidence that the buyers cared by what route, or within seasonable limits, when the nuts arrived.
What, then, of the sellers? Clearly the contract of affreightment will be different and so may be the terms of insurance. In both these respects the sellers may be put to greater cost: their profit may be reced or even disappear. But an increase of expense is not a ground of frustration, the doctrine of frustration must be applied within very narrow limits, and this case falls far short of satisfying the necessary conditions. With all these facts before them, the board of appeal made their finding that performance by shipping on the Cape route was not commercially or fundamentally different from shipping via the Suez Canal, and the appeal should be dismissed.

TSAKIROGLOU和股份有限公司。有限公司。V . NOBLEE THORL m . b。H。上議院

亞特蘭大93][1962年

事實:

事實:

日期由一個合同,1956年10月4日漢堡,Tsakiroglou &公司之間。有限公司是作為賣方,和對喀土穆的受訪者,Noblee Thorl g . m . b。h .漢堡/ Hargurg通過代理人進行的,因為買方,賣方同意出售,買方購買約300噸花生殼的基礎上在蘇丹3%,新作物1956/1957摻合料在50美元每1000公斤包括塑料袋的cif價格。漢堡。1956年11、12、裝運,以付款交單方式付款先介紹為95%的數量的臨時發票後再付款,平衡分析最終的發票。合同的形式也要被合並的石油合同出版社,種子協會(以下簡稱「三八」號合同,我們已將I.O.S.A)與仲裁在倫敦。合同第一條規定的I.O.S.A 38號規定的「裝運港…從一個非洲東部由輪船(加油機除外)直接或間接的或有或無轉船。」

雙方的合同的基礎上從港口裝運的貨物將蘇丹。第6條合同提供的:"如果發生禁止進出口,封鎖或戰爭,在任何情況下都不可抗力防止固定的時間內裝船,或交貨、時期所允許不超過兩個月。在這之後,如果不可抗力的情況下還是操作,本合同應取消了。」

當合同之日起,兩partied沉思,貨物會經蘇伊士運河。1956年10月29日,以色列入侵埃及,11月1日,英國和法國開始軍事行動,並將於11月2日蘇伊士運河航運堵住了。當合同之日起進入,常規的和正常的路線的裝運港蘇丹從蘇丹落花生去漢堡是經過蘇伊士運河。然而,關閉蘇伊士運河運輸從港口阻止蘇丹運往漢堡,通過運河與不可能通過這條路線一直持續到四月1957年。通過蘇伊士運河的距離大約是通過4,386英里的路程,距離好望角是大約11,137英里。從11月10日,1956年關閉後,運河裡,有25%的貨運附加費是放在通過血管進行貨物的好望角和這是增加到100% 1956年12月13日。

賣方的要求正當,宣布該合同不灰心、到了末日,因為蘇伊士運河的關閉由買方不被接受。

法院程序:

程序之前,法庭

在仲裁程序中,裁判裁決日期,2月20日,1957年,授予,賣方違約,應在買方支付美元的損害5,625的總和15s.連同79美元的成本獎。賣方不滿的獎勵,聽到中的上訴委員會任命上訴1月28日,1958年,解散了上訴,維持裁判員的裁決。

判決:

管轄權

中的上訴委員會的裁決是在以下條件:「到目前為止,因為它是一個事實問題,我們發現,只要是一個問題的法律,我們持有:

(我)這些人都是在埃及敵對行動而不是戰爭在材料的時候。

(二)並且戰爭還是不可抗力阻止了一批合同貨物與合同的合同期限裝運目的地,因為通過好望角時也不那麼預防經蘇伊士運河裝運的原因是預防不可抗力。

(3)這不是一項默示合同期內的那批貨的裝運或交通應經蘇伊士運河和運輸貨物的船隻通過好望角不是商業和根本不同的船隻裝運此貨通過蘇伊士運河。所以,合同都沒有挫傷的關閉蘇伊士運河。」

分析問題:

優點:有一項默示的術語,它的貨物,應當由被某個特定的潰敗嗎?是合同煩躁嗎?

(一)常規和習慣航線

爭論貨物的裝船必須經蘇伊士運河只能流行如果一個學期的合同是暗示的,不這么說。在為廣大主張合同義務的到岸價格,在缺乏明示條款,是遵循通常和習慣的路線。它不是合同簽訂之日起,不過時間的表現,決定什麼是慣例。作為部分32(2)的商品銷售的行為,1893年,規定:「除非其他授權由買方、賣方必須做出這樣的合同與載體代表買方合理有認為商品的性質和其他情況下的案子。」因此,如果沒有習慣航線,這條路線的一定要選哪是合理的。如果只有一位路線,必須採取措施,如果它是可行的。在約會當表現是呼籲,沒有普通或者習慣航線,因為蘇伊士運河被關閉和唯一可行的路線是經過好望角。賣方可以履行他們的義務由提單通過的斗篷。

(b)是否該合同是沮喪的封蘇伊士運河嗎?

董事會應該考慮是否在賣方的稅款的義務,由一個出現船通過好望角路線會強加在他們身上是一個從根本上完全不同的義務,任何一方可以在海上保險合同進行的想像中,賣方將被要求完成。董事會發現沒有理由積極的回答。合同是到岸價格銷售的商品,而不是一個運輸合同中的。對部分的基本義務的銷售商是派遣落花生海運從一港運至目的地。沒有證據表明買方的任何重要附路線。他們是內容應該被清理的堅果在任何日期在11月或12月。沒有規定的日期為到達漢堡。不是的,是沒有證據的堅果會退化或交通將涉及到特殊包裝或害羞,結果較長的旅程,也沒有任何證據顯示市場得到了及時。總之,沒有證據表明買方關心哪條路線,或在被限制,當螺母及時到達。

那麼,什麼賣方索賠嗎?運輸合同中的清楚的將是不同的,因此可能是整個的保險待遇。在這兩個方面的賣方可能把利潤更大的成本:他們可能會減少甚至消失。但增加的費用支出不是地沮喪,沮喪的教義必須應用在非常狹窄的范圍,而本案異常不夠滿足的必要條件。他們與所有這些事實之前,董事會的求援:他們發現,在開普敦性能由船公司沒有商業路線或從根本上不同於船舶經蘇伊士運河,上訴應該被開除。