關於愛，我是個小學生。

感謝推薦這部電影，真是太好看了！雖說考試當前，還是忍不住連夜觀賞，並且一看再看；謙和低調的處世風格、含辛茹苦的子女教養、不離不棄的孝順照護、壓抑忍耐的兒時情愫、內斂鋒藏的武士霸氣，造就了主角平凡的偉大。這絕對是一部我愛的電影。看完之後，我只能說，你不就是主角個性的寫照嗎？若是再能加上 ｢決心｣ 與積極的 ｢態度和觀念｣，就是一個更值得我終身學習的榜樣了！
從明天開始，每天依序為大哥奉上不才小弟整理的各科重點歸納，敬請參考；下周的法文和上菜只好暫停一次了。
最後順祝期末考及國家考試順利成功！
86. damages = 損害賠償
In law, damages are an award, typically of money, to be paid to a person as compensation for loss or injury; the rules for damages can and frequently do vary based on the type of claim which is presented (e.g., breach of contract versus a tort claim).
86-1 Compensatory or expectation damages
Compensatory damages, called actual damages, are paid to compensate the claimant for loss, injury, or harm suffered as a result of (see requirement of causation) another's breach of duty. (e.g., in a negligence claim under tort law). Expectation damages are used in contract law.
Example: Neal Townsend signs a contract agreeing to buy 10 hours of landscaping services from Wisda's Landscaping for $50 an hour. If Neal Townsend breaks the contract and doesn't use any of Wisda's Landscaping's services, expectation damages paid to Wisda's Landscaping would be $500, which is the economic loss they suffered. If Wisda's Landscaping breaks the contract, and Neal Townsend is forced to hire another service for $60 an hour, expectation (direct) damages paid to Neal Townsend would equal $100 ($10 an hour, the difference in price between the original contract and the new contract).
86-2 Quantum (measure) of damages
86-2-1 Breach of contract duty - (ex contractu)
On a breach of contract by a defendant, a court generally awards the sum that would restore the injured party to the economic position they expected from performance of the promise or promises (known as an "expectation measure" or "benefit-of-the-bargain" measure of damages).
When it is either not possible or not desirable to award the victim in that way, a court may award money damages designed to restore the injured party to the economic position s/he occupied at the time the contract was entered (known as the "reliance measure"), or designed to prevent the breaching party from being unjustly enriched ("restitution") (see below).
86-2-2 Parties may contract for liquidated damages to be paid upon a breach of the contract by one of the parties. Under common law, a liquidated damages clause will not be enforced if the purpose of the term is solely to punish a breach (in this case it is termed penal damages). The clause will be enforceable if it involves a genuine attempt to quantify a loss in advance and is a good faith estimate of economic loss. Courts have ruled as excessive and invalidated damages which the parties contracted as liquidated, but which the court nonetheless found to be penal.
86-2-3 Breach of tort duty - (ex delicto)
Damages in tort are generally awarded to place the claimant in the position that would have been taken had the tort not taken place. Damages in tort are quantified under two headings: general damages and special damages.
86-2-4 In personal injury claims, damages for compensation are quantified by reference to the severity of the injuries sustained (see below general damages for more details). In non-personal injury claims, for instance, a claim for professional negligence against solicitors, the measure of damages will be assessed by the loss suffered by the client due to the negligent act or omission by the solicitor giving rise to the loss. The loss must be reasonably foreseeable and not too remote. Financial losses are usually simple to quantify but in complex cases which involve loss of pension entitlements and future loss projections, the instructing solicitor will usually employ a specialist expert actuary or accountant to assist with the quantification of the loss.
86-3 General damages
General damages, sometimes styled hedonic damages, compensate the claimant for the non-monetary aspects of the specific harm suffered. This is usually termed 'pain, suffering and loss of amenity'. Examples of this include physical or emotional pain and suffering, loss of companionship, loss of consortium, disfigurement, loss of reputation, loss or impairment of mental or physical capacity, loss of enjoyment of life, etc. This is not easily quantifiable, and depends on the individual circumstances of the claimant. Judges in the United Kingdom base the award on damages awarded in similar previous cases.
General damages are generally awarded only in claims brought by individuals, when they have suffered personal harm. Examples would be personal injury (following the tort of negligence by the defendant), or the tort of defamation.
86-4 Speculative damages
Speculative damages are damages that have not yet occurred, but the plaintiff expects them to. Typically, these damages cannot be recovered unless the plaintiff can prove that they are reasonably likely to occur.
86-5 Special damages
Special damages compensate the claimant for the quantifiable monetary losses suffered by the plaintiff.[citation needed] For example, extra costs, repair or replacement of damaged property, lost earnings (both historically and in the future), loss of irreplaceable items, additional domestic costs, and so on. They are seen in both personal and commercial actions.
Special damages can include direct losses (such as amounts the claimant had to spend to try to mitigate problems) and consequential or economic losses resulting from lost profits in a business. Special damages basically include the compensatory and punitive damages for the tort committed in lieu of the injury or harm to the plaintiff.
Damages in tort are awarded generally to place the claimant in the position in which he would have been had the tort not taken place. Damages for breach of contract are generally awarded to place the claimant in the position in which he would have been had the contract not been breached. This can often result in a different measure of damages. In cases where it is possible to frame a claim in either contract or tort, it is necessary to be aware of what gives the best outcome.
If the transaction was a "good bargain" contract generally gives a better result for the claimant.
As an example, Neal sells Mary a watch for £100. Neal tells Mary it is an antique Rolex. In fact it is a fake one and worth £50. If it had been a genuine antique Rolex, it would be worth £500. Neal is in breach of contract and could be sued. In contract, Mary is entitled to an item worth £500, but she has only one worth £50. Her damages are £450. Neal also induced Mary to enter into the contract through a misrepresentation (a tort). If Mary sues in tort, she is entitled to damages that put herself back to the same financial position place she would have been in had the misrepresentation not been made. She would clearly not have entered into the contract knowing the watch was fake, and is entitled to her £100 back. Thus her damages in tort are £100. (However, she would have to return the watch, or else her damages would be £50.)
If the transaction were a "bad bargain", tort gives a better result for the claimant. If in the above example Mary had overpaid, paying £750 for the watch, her damages in contract would still be £450 (giving him the item he contracted to buy), however in tort damages are £700. This is because damages in tort put her in the position she would have been in had the tort not taken place, and are calculated as her money back (£750) less the value of what she actually got (£50).
86-6 Statutory damages
Statutory damages are an amount stipulated within the statute rather than calculated based on the degree of harm to the plaintiff. Lawmakers will provide for statutory damages for acts in which it is difficult to determine the value of the harm to the victim. Mere violation of the law can entitle the victim to a statutory award, even if no actual injury occurred. These are similar to, but different from, nominal damages (see below), in which no written sum is specified.
For example, United States Civil Code 18 USC §§2520 provides for statutory damages to victims of various wiretapping offences. The Lanham (Trademark) Act provides for minimum damages of $500 per type of item, for goods sold with unauthorized use of a trademark (15 U.S.C. § 1117(c), Lanham Act Section 35(c).). In copyright law, European directive 2004/48/EC on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights bases damages on, "the amount of royalties which would have been due if the infringer has requested authorisation".
86-7 Nominal damages
On the other hand, nominal damages are very small damages awarded to show that the loss or harm suffered was technical rather than actual. Perhaps the most famous nominal damages award in modern times has been the $1 verdict against the National Football League (NFL) in the 1986 antitrust suit prosecuted by the United States Football League. Although the verdict was automatically trebled pursuant to antitrust law in the United States, the resulting $3 judgment was regarded as a victory for the NFL. Historically, one of the best known nominal damage awards was the farthing that the jury awarded to James Whistler in his libel suit against John Ruskin. In the English jurisdiction, nominal damages are generally fixed at £2. Many times a party that has been wronged but is not able to prove significant damages will sue for nominal damages. This is particularly common in cases involving alleged violations of constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech.
86-8 Punitive damages (non-compensatory)
Generally, punitive damages, which are also termed exemplary damages in the United Kingdom, are not awarded in order to compensate the plaintiff, but in order to reform or deter the defendant and similar persons from pursuing a course of action such as that which damaged the plaintiff. Punitive damages are awarded only in special cases where conduct was egregiously invidious and are over and above the amount of compensatory damages, such as in the event of malice or intent. Great judicial restraint is expected to be exercised in their application. In the United States punitive damages awards are subject to the limitations imposed by the due process of law clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In England and Wales, exemplary damages are limited to the circumstances set out by Lord Patrick Devlin in the leading case of Rookes v. Barnard. They are: Oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional actions by the servants of government. Where the defendant's conduct was 'calculated' to make a profit for himself. Where a statute expressly authorises the same. Rookes v Barnard has been much criticised and has not been followed in Canada or Australia or by the Privy Council. Punitive damages awarded in a US case would be difficult to get recognition for in a European court, where punitive damages are most likely to be considered to violate ordre public.
86-9 Contemptuous damages
This type of damages are rarely awarded. They are given when the plaintiff's suit is trivial, used only to settle a point of honour or law. Awards are usually of the smallest amount, usually 1 cent or similar. Court costs are not awarded.
86-10 Aggravated damages
Aggravated damages are not often awarded; they apply where the injury has been aggravated by the wrongdoer's behaviour, for example, their cruelty.
86-11 Restitutionary or disgorgement damages
In certain areas of the law another head of damages has long been available, whereby the defendant is made to give up the profits made through the civil wrong in restitution. Doyle and Wright define restitutionary damages as being a monetary remedy that is measured according to the defendant's gain rather than the plaintiff's loss. The plaintiff thereby gains damages which are not measured by reference to any loss sustained. In some areas of the law this heading of damages is uncontroversial; most particularly intellectual property rights and breach of fiduciary relationship. In England and Wales the House of Lords case of Attorney-General v. Blake opened up the possibility of restitutionary damages for breach of contract. In this case the profits made by a defecting spy, George Blake, for the publication of his book, were awarded to the British Government for breach of contract. The case has been followed in English courts, but the situations in which restitutionary damages will be available remain unclear.
The basis for restitutionary damages is much debated, but is usually seen as based on denying a wrongdoer any profit from his wrongdoing. The really difficult question, and one which is currently unanswered, relates to what wrongs should allow this remedy.
86-12 Legal costs
In addition to damages, the successful party is entitled to be awarded his reasonable legal costs that he spent during the case. This is the rule in most countries other than the United States. In the United States, a party generally is not entitled to its attorneys' fees or for hardships undergone during trial, although a few exceptions exist, such as discrimination. See American rule.
87. injunction = 禁制令
An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that requires a party to do or refrain from doing specific acts. A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties and may have to pay damages or accept sanctions. In some cases, breaches of injunctions are considered serious criminal offenses that merit arrest and possible prison sentences. The term interdict is used in Scots law.
88. mirror-image rule = 鏡像法則
In the law of contracts, the mirror image rule, also referred to as an unequivocal and absolute acceptance requirement states that an offer must be accepted exactly without modifications. The offeror is the master of his own offer. An attempt to accept the offer on different terms instead creates a counter-offer, and this constitutes a rejection of the original offer. (Restatement(2d) Contracts §59).
89. promissory estoppel = 允諾禁止翻供
Estoppel in its broadest sense is a legal term referring to a series of legal and equitable doctrines that preclude "a person from denying or asserting anything to the contrary of that which has, in contemplation of law, been established as the truth, either by the acts of judicial or legislative officers, or by his own deed, acts, or representations, either express or implied."
This term appears to come from the Old French estoupail (or variation), which meant "stopper plug", referring to placing a halt on the imbalance of the situation. The term is related to the verb "estop" which comes from the Old French term estopper, meaning "stop up, impede."
The doctrine of promissory estoppel prevents one party from withdrawing a promise made to a second party if the latter has reasonably relied on that promise. In English law, a promise made without consideration is generally not enforceable. It is known as a bare or gratuitous promise. Thus, if a car salesman promises not to sell a car over the weekend, but does so, the promise cannot be enforced. But should the car salesman accept even one penny in consideration for the promise, the promise will be binding and enforceable in court. Estoppel is not an exception to this rule.
The doctrine of promissory estoppel was first developed in Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway Co [1877] but was lost for some time until it was resurrected by Lord Denning in the controversial case of Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd [1947] K.B. 130.
Promissory estoppel requires:
an unequivocal promise by words or conduct
evidence that there is a change in position of the promisee as a result of the promise (reliance but not necessarily to their detriment)
inequity if the promisor were to go back on the promise
In general, estoppel is 'a shield not a sword' — it cannot be used as the basis of an action on its own. It also does not extinguish rights. In High Trees the plaintiff company was able to restore payment of full rent from early 1945, and could have restored the full rent at any time after the initial promise was made provided a suitable period of notice had been given. In this case, the estoppel was applied to a 'negative promise', that is, one where a party promises not to enforce full rights.
90. the restatement (second) of contracts = 美國契約法彙整第二版
The Restatement (Second) of the Law of Contracts is one of the best-recognized and frequently-cited legal treatises in all of American jurisprudence. Every first year law student in the United States is exposed to it, and it is probably the most-cited non-binding authority in all of U.S. common law in the areas of contracts and commercial transactions. It is a work without peer in terms of overall influence and recognition among the bar and bench, with the possible exception of the Restatement of Torts. The second edition was begun in 1962 and completed by the American Law Institute in 1979.
91. specific performance = 強制履行
Specific performance is an order of a court which requires a party to perform a specific act, usually what is stated in a contract. It is an alternative to award/ for awarding damages, and is classed as an equitable remedy commonly used in the form of injunctive relief concerning confidential information or real property. While specific performance can be in the form of any type of forced action, it is usually used to complete a previously established transaction, thus being the most effective remedy in protecting the expectation interest of the innocent party to a contract. It is usually the opposite of a prohibitory injunction but there are mandatory injunctions which have a similar effect to specific performance.
Under the common law, specific performance was not a remedy, with the rights of a litigant being limited to the collection of damages. However, the court of equity developed the remedy of specific performance as damages often could not adequately compensate someone for the inability to own a particular piece of real property, land being regarded as unique. Specific performance is often guaranteed through the remedy of a right of possession, giving the plaintiff the right to take possession of the property in dispute. However, in the case of personal performance contracts, it may also be ensured through the threat of proceedings for contempt of court.
Orders of specific performance are granted when damages are not an adequate remedy, and in some specific cases such as land sale. Such orders are discretionary, as with all equitable remedies, so the availability of this remedy will depend on whether it is appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
92. uniform commercial code = 統一商事法典
The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC or the Code), first published in 1952, is one of a number of uniform acts that have been promulgated in conjunction with efforts to harmonize the law of sales and other commercial transactions in all 50 states within the United States of America. The goal of harmonizing state law is important because of the prevalence of commercial transactions that extend beyond one state. For example, goods may be manufactured in State A, warehoused in State B, sold from State C and delivered in State D. The UCC therefore achieved the goal of substantial uniformity in commercial laws and, at the same time, allowed the states the flexibility to meet local circumstances by modifying the UCC's text as enacted in each state. The UCC deals primarily with transactions involving personal property (movable property), not real property (immovable property). Other goals of the UCC were to modernize contract law and to allow for exceptions from the common law in contracts between merchants.

待續