關於愛，我是個小學生。

努力就可以一起上班！努力就可以救榮哥 ｢脫離苦海｣！
想到以後可以一起上班就很高興：我有你當祕書，你有榮哥當祕書 (當然他也是我的秘書)，我們三人一起去翔哥開的餐廳談業務，做好身為僕人該盡的本分；順便以近乎白吃白喝的優惠大快朵頤一番 (因為我們也是股東啊)，吃完談完接著四個人打場球，小賭一下決定晚餐誰請，再接著來我家喝杯紅酒、聽個音樂、公園絕對管。夜深了，互道晚安，期待明天 --- 又一個愉快的奇幻漂流之旅的開始。
喜歡這樣的生活內容嗎？感謝上帝賜給我們這樣的能力，我們方得盼望這樣的機會。一起努力吧！
291. characterization = 定性
Characterization or characterisation is the art of creating characters for a narrative, including the process of conveying information about them. It may be employed in dramatic works of art or everyday conversation. Characters may be presented by means of description, through their actions, speech, or thoughts.
292. remission and transmission = 反致與轉致
In conflict of laws, renvoi (from the French, meaning "send back" or "to return unopened") is a subset of the choice of law rules and it may be applied whenever a forum court is directed to consider the law of another state.
The procedure for conflict cases
The court must first decide whether it has the jurisdiction to hear the case (which will involve addressing the question of whether the plaintiff is attempting to manipulate the judicial system by forum shopping).
Characterisation. The court must analyse the case as pleaded and allocate each component to its appropriate legal classification, each of which will have one or more choice of law rules attached to it.
The court will then apply the choice of law rules. In a limited number of cases, usually involving Family Law issues, an incidental question may arise which will complicate this process.
Discussion
To limit the damage that would result from forum shopping, it is desirable that the same law be applied to achieve the same result no matter where the case is litigated. The system of renvoi is an attempt to achieve that end. If a forum court is directed to consult a foreign law, the first question it must address is whether this is a reference solely to the relevant substantive provisions, or to the state's system of law as a whole which would include its choice of law rules. Forums that do not have renvoi provisions refer only to the specific provisions of relevant law. In this way, the same outcome is achieved no matter where the case is litigated so long as the second state would also have applied its own laws.
But if that second country actually has choice of law rules requiring it to apply the forum law, a difference in outcome might arise depending on where the plaintiff invokes jurisdiction. Whether a difference actually emerges depends on whether the other state operates a Single Renvoi system. A single renvoi forum always refers to the other law's choice of law rules. If those rules would send the issue back to the forum court, the forum court will accept the first remission and applies its own laws. Thus, equality of outcome is always achieved so long as the competing laws operate different systems. Some early French authorities support this approach (e.g. Forgo's Case (1882) and Soulié's Case (1910)). Similarly, Article 27 of the Introductory Law of the German Civil Code (1900) adopts it. But if both sets of laws operate with either no renvoi system or single renvoi systems, forum shopping will be a potential problem.
Hence, there is another system called Double Renvoi or the Foreign Courts Doctrine which will also ensure parity of result so long as no other relevant law is using it. In this scenario, the forum court considers that it is sitting as the foreign court and will decide the matter as the foreign court would. In this system, there can never be more than two remissions, e.g. English forum refers to French law (a single renvoi system) so English law is applied (1st remission) and France accepts the remission (2nd and final). At present, only English law uses this approach.
Application of renvoi
Because the doctrine is considered difficult and its results are sometimes unpredictable, its application has generally been limited to:
the validity of wills and intestate succession (the validity of transfers of real property); and
retrospective legitimation by the marriage of the natural parents (validity of divorce decrees).
However, there are indications in some states that it might also apply to two issues in family law, namely the capacity to marry and the formal validity of marriage.
EU
In the European Union, application of renvoi is expressly excluded in contract cases under Article 15 EC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Rome 1980). It has also been rejected for contracts by most commonwealth countries.
Most states also exclude it in tort cases e.g. in the UK section 9(5) Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995. Since 11 January 2009, Regulation (EC) 864/2007 (Rome II-regulation) on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations has been in force, controlling in a uniform way the rules throughout the European Union.
Article 24 of this regulation provides: "The application of the law of any country specified by this Regulation means the application of the rules of law in force in that country other than its rules of private international law." hence excluding the possibility of renvoi throughout the EU in tort cases.
Australia
In Australia, the doctrine of renvoi was revived by the decision of the High Court in Neilson v Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria Ltd [2005] HCA 54 (29 September 2005). In this decision the High Court considered the situation of Mrs Neilson, who had injured herself falling down the stairs in her apartment in Wuhan, China. Her apartment had been provided by her husband's employer, Overseas Projects Corporation, and Mrs Neilson sued her husband's employer in negligence in the Supreme Court of Western Australia in June 1997, six years after the accident had occurred. Under Australian choice of law rules, the law of the place of the incident or lex loci delicti governs tort situations (following the decision of that court in 2002: Regie Nationale des Usines Renault SA v Zhang). This meant that the law relevant to the resolution of the dispute was that of the People's Republic of China. However under Chinese law, the claim would have been statute barred for exceeding the limitations period (Article 136 of the General Principles of Civil Law of the People's Republic of China). However Mrs Neilson raised Article 146 of the General Principles in her defence, arguing that the provision of that article should apply making the relevant law for the dispute Australian law. Article 146 provided that:
"With regard to compensation for damages resulting from an infringement of rights, the law of the place in which the infringement occurred shall be applied. If both parties are nationals of the same country or domiciled in the same country, the law of their own country or of their place of domicile may also be applied".
As a consequence, the Supreme Court trial judge concluded that Art 146 "gives me a right to choose to apply the law of Australia because both parties are nationals of Australia." This decision was reversed by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
On appeal to the High Court, Neilson succeeded. In six separate judgments, the majority of the High Court found in favour of Neilson on the basis that the Australian choice of law rule referred to the whole of the law of the place of the wrong. Secondly, that this meant that the applicable law was referred back to Australia and the Australian limitations statute applied, meaning that Neilson's claim was no longer statute barred.
This decision has received strident criticism by Martin Davies, and both the High Court and Full Court decisions have received very close attention by leading contemporary conflicts scholars including Andrew Lu and Lee Carroll, Elizabeth Crawford, and Mary Keyes.
It has been suggested that this messy interpretation of the Australian Court could have been avoided, had the Court followed the general practice that procedural rules always go with the forum and substantive law depends on the "forum most interested" analysis. However, since John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson (2000) 203 CLR 503, statutes of limitations are considered substantive law. Because of this, the applicability of limitation laws no longer go with the local forum; rather, they too follow the lex loci delicti.
US
In the United States most courts try to solve conflict of laws questions without invoking renvoi. In Re Schneider's Estate, 96 N.Y.S.2d 652 (1950), is an example where renvoi is recognized as an option, in which the local court chose to apply the foreign country's laws to decide the dispute in the local court. This is most likely to happen in cases involving immovable property or domestic relationships.
The main difficulties
There are three main difficulties in cases where renvoi may be an issue:
It gives undue weight to the evidence of the experts on foreign laws.
The reference to the conflicts system used in other laws may reveal differences that would have arisen in characterisation or in the choice of law rules to be applied. If these differences would lead to onward transmissions, the forum court will follow the references into third (or further) legal systems. This is unpopular because it requires the parties and the court to consider evidence of multiple legal systems.
There may be an "inextricable circle" between sets of laws using either single or double renvoi systems which do not have adequate safeguards built in to guarantee when to stop accepting remissions.
293. applicable law = 準據法 + choice of law clause =  準據法約定
A choice of law clause or proper law clause is a term of a contract in which the parties specify that any dispute arising under the contract shall be determined in accordance with the law of a particular jurisdiction.
Explanation
If all the parties and the relevant factual elements affecting formation, validity, and performance are geographically located in the same state, it will be obvious that, if the contract is silent on the point, the local municipal law (usually called the lex loci contractus, i.e. the law of the place where the contract was made) will be applied as the law governing substantive issues. The lex fori, i.e. the law of the local forum court, will be applied to procedural matters (such as evidentiary rules). But, as people and transactions now more frequently cross state lines both physically and electronically, it becomes necessary to consider which law will be applied in the event of a dispute. Should the laws be the same, the question will be academic. But, if the laws are sufficiently different that the judgment will change depending on which law the court applies, the issue of choice of law becomes highly significant.
As an application of the public policy of freedom of contract, the parties have autonomy to make whatever bargain they want. Thus, in principle, the parties are free to nominate any law as the proper law of their contract even though there may be no other connection between the substance of the obligations and the law selected. However, such clauses could be used as a device to evade the application of a mandatory provision of law within a relevant legal system. Consequently, most states will not honour choice of law clauses unless they are seen to have been included on a bona fide basis. If the clause is recognised as a good faith term, the 'forum state' must apply the nominated proper law to resolve the dispute.
Problems
This may lead to problems as the courts of the forum state will not usually be familiar with the detail of the proper law and, even after hearing expert evidence, may apply the relevant statutes and/or case law incorrectly. Furthermore, characterisation problems can arise when the substance of the lawsuit overlaps with a tort such as fraud or breach of fiduciary duty, instead of a simple breach of the contract itself. The choice of law provisions for tort or trust issues may lead to the application of different laws as the lex causae (the law of the issue).
Legal scholars have criticised many forum state judges for their parochialism in finding ways to apply the lex fori instead of the foreign law nominated in the contract. While judges are always more proficient when applying their own law, such an advantage does not outweigh the policy breach in failing to give effect to the reasonable expectation of the parties. A number of legal devices purportedly allow judges to rely on their own sense of a fair outcome based on the facts of the case at hand, rather than strictly interpreting the terms of the contract. While the exercise of some judicial discretion might lead to some fairer outcomes, the actions of individual judges can undermine the general certainty and predictability of the local legal system: a result that also breaches a major public policy.
The avoidance strategies adopted by judges
The arguments adopted by judges to apply the lex fori include:
(1) Public policy
States will not apply a 'foreign' law that violates the deeply-held convictions of the forum state's legal system, but classifying commercial policies in contractual disputes as sufficiently mandatory will often be seen to be unrealistic. Further, elevating policy concerns at a local level may actually breach a more significant policy which is that judges should not damage the friendly relations between states. Self-evidently, if a judge is seen to be manipulating the policies to make the law of another state seem unjust in some material way, this might be damaging to international relations. In a federal system such as the United States, however, judges have been less constrained and feel more free to circumvent another US state's laws (see Conflict of laws in the United States).
(2) Renvoi
In most legal systems, renvoi does not apply in commercial disputes but, in the U.S., some courts have looked for a provision in the proper law that permits the court to use the lex fori; most states frown upon this practice, insisting that the only law to be looked at is the substantive law of contract, and not the provisions governing choice of law. This problem can be avoided by fine-tuning the choice of law provision in the lex fori to expressly exclude the power to apply the proper law's choice of law provisions.
(3) Procedure as law
Characterising laws as procedural rules of the court rather than substantive laws of the state allows a court to use the lex fori. In some cases, this makes sense: after all, if the forum state requires legal documents to be printed in a twelve-point font, and the choice of law state requires the same documents to be printed in a fourteen-point font, it makes little sense to require the court to determine which font size should be used in a choice of law dispute. However, many contentious cases have centred on findings that issues such as burdens of proof, admissibility of evidence, and statutes of limitations are procedural rather than substantive because these provisions can change the outcome of a case.
294. center of gravity = 契約重心理論
The principle 'center of gravity' is the dicision of applicable law by the judge in regardness of the 'most important data' of a contracts such as  contractors, their domiciles, and other fatal arguementary evidence and info.
295. immediately applicable law = 即刻適用法
The immediate adoption of a foreign law as applicable domestically that is passed by the legislators in Congress in terms of emergent situations in the country where the problems would be better fixed as the said foreign law were to be immediately regulated and taken measures with.

待續