下载掌阅APP，畅读海量书库
立即打开
提示：本试卷为阅读、翻译、写作题。请将各题答案书写在答题纸的对应位置上，勿在卷面上直接作答。
Read the case carefully and answer the questions followed briefly：
RUTH GARRATT，Respondent，
v．
BRIAN DAILEY，a Minor，by George S．Dailey，his Guardian ad Litem，Appellant．
No.33663．
The Supreme Court of Washington，
ROSELLINI，J．
This is an action for damages resulting from an alleged battery perpetrated upon the plaintiff by the defendant，who was five years and nine months of age at the time of the occurrence．The judgment of the superior court of Pierce county in favor of the defendant，was reviewed by this court in Garratt v．Dailey，46 Wn.2d 197，279 P.2d 1091．Reference is hereby made to that opinion for the material facts found by the trial court and the applicable law，as enunciated by this court．
Upon remand for clarification on the issue of the defendant’s knowledge，the superior court reviewed the evidence，listened to additional arguments and studied briefs of counsel，and entered a finding to the effect that the defendant knew，with substantial certainty，at the time he removed the chair，that the plaintiff would attempt to sit down where the chair had been，since she was in the act of seating herself when he removed the chair．Judgment was entered for the plaintiff in the amount of eleven thousand dollars，plus costs，and the defendant has appealed．
Seven of the defendant’s assignments of error raise a single question，whether the superior court acted contrary to the mandate of this court when it made a finding that the plaintiff was in the act of sitting down when the chair was removed．It is the contention of the defendant that this finding contradicts the findings originally entered，which were approved by this court．
This question was previously argued in a motion to recall the remittitur．The motion，which was argued before this court in cause No.32841，was decided adversely to the defendant’s contention on March 16，1956．
If the superior court proceeds contrary to the mandate of this court，it interferes with this court’s jurisdiction．The proper procedure for the aggrieved party to pursue is to apply to this court for an appropriate writ requiring the superior court to conform to the mandate．Tucker v．Brown，20 Wn.2d 740，150 P.2d 604；Frye v．King County，157 Wn.291，289 Pac.18．Having failed to take appropriate action，the appellant is foreclosed from objecting to the judgment on this ground．
The substance of the remaining assignments is that the evidence does not support the additional finding．The record was carefully reviewed by this court in Garratt v．Dailey，supra．Had there been no evidence to support a finding of knowledge on the part of the defendant，the remanding of the case for clarification on that issue would have been a futile gesture on the part of the court．As we stated in that opinion，the testimony of the two witnesses to the occurrence was in direct conflict．We assumed，since the trial court made a specific finding that the defendant did not intend to harm the plaintiff，that the court had accepted the testimony of the defendant and rejected that of the plaintiff’s witness．However，on remand，the judge who heard the case stated that his findings had been made in the light of his understanding of the law，i．e．，that the doctrine of constructive intent does not apply to infants，who are not chargeable with knowledge of the normal consequences of their acts．
In order to determine whether the defendant knew that the plaintiff would sit in the place where the chair had been，it was necessary for him to consider carefully the time sequence，as he had not done before；and this resulted in his finding that the arthritic woman had begun the slow process of being seated when the defendant quickly removed the chair and seated himself upon it，and that he knew，with substantial certainty，at that time that she would attempt to sit in the place where the chair had been．Such a conclusion，he stated，was the only reasonable one possible．It finds ample support in the record．Such knowledge，we said in Garratt v．Dailey，supra，is sufficient to charge the defendant with intent to commit a battery．
The judgment is affirmed．
DONWORTH，C．J．，HILL，FINLEY，and FOSTER，JJ．，concur．
Questions to be answered：
1．Brian Dailey，the appellant here，has made two appeals to the Supreme Court of ashington．In this second appeal before the Supreme Court，Dailey raises two issues here．What is the first issue raised under this second appeal？
2．What did the Supreme Court decide upon this issue？
3．What is the second issue raised under this appeal？
4．What is the court’s ruling on this second issue？
5．What is the significance of the Superior Court judge’s understanding of the law，i．e．，that the doctrine of constructive intent does not apply to infants，who are not chargeable with knowledge of the normal consequences of their acts？
1）Please translate the following paragraphs into Chinese：
The Law of Property
The old common law was preeminently the law of real property；and the distinction between “real property”and “personal property”was a crucial one．Generally speaking，real property means real estate — 1and and buildings — but it also includes such things as growing crops．Everything else — money，stocks and bonds，jewelry，cars，carloads of lumber，IOUs，bank deposits — is personal property．We all have a stake in real estate，since we all live somewhere；and we work，study，and travel somewhere，too．Everyone is a renter or an owner，or lives with renters or owners．But for most of us，that as far as the law is concerned the word property means primarily real property；personal property is of minor importance．
Property law is still one of the fundamental branches of law，and real estate is a significant branch of law practice．Yet property law is a mere shadow of its former self，legal speaking．In fact — one of the major developments in our system，if you take the long view，is the relative decline of real property law．In medieval England，it would have only been a slight exaggeration to say that land law was the law of the land．When Blackstone published his “Commentaries”midway through the eighteenth century，one whole volume was devoted to land law．A modern Blackstone would shrink the topic to a fraction of this bulk — 5 or 10 percent，at most，of the total law．
Medieval England lived under a feudal system．Power and jurisdiction — the cornerstones of wealth and position in society were based on land and land alone．The “lord”was a person who held an estate — a person with ownership，mastery，control over land．A person without land was a person with no real stake in affairs of state．The common law，as the royal law courts expounded it had little to say to men and women without land，who were the majority of the English population．In America，at one time，only persons who had interests in land were entitled to vote or hold office．The New York constitution of 1777，for example，restricted the right to vote for state senators to men who owned “freeholds”with $100 or more，free and clear of debt（Article X）all this，of course，has ended；land is only one form of wealth．A great and powerful family is one that controls mighty enterprises，rather than one that rules vast estates．
Property law still covers a rich and varied group of subject．To begin with，it asks．What does it mean to “own”land？How can I get title to land and how can I dispose of it legally？There are issues about deeds，joint ownership，and land records and registration；and problems of land finance，including rules about mortgages and foreclosures．There is the law of “nuisance”，which restricts me from using my land in such a way as to hurt my neighbors，pouring smoke or sending bad smells onto his land，for example．There are the law of “easements”and the exotic law of “covenants”（especially those that “run with the land”）：these deal with rights a person might have in his neighbor’s land — rights to drive a car up his driveway，to walk across his lawn，or to keep him from taking in boarders．These are not rights of ownership；rather they are “servitudes”— restrictions or exceptions to the owner’s rights，in favor of those another．
2）Please translate the following Chinese into English：
第六章：公司财务、会计
第174条：公司应当依照法律、行政法规和国务院财政主管部门的规定建立本公司的财务、会计制度。
第175条：公司应当在每一会计年度终了时制作财务会计报告，并依法经审查验证。
财务会计报告应当包括下列财务会计报表及附属明细表：
（1）资产负债表；
（2）损益表；
（3）财务状况变动表；
（4）财务情况说明书；
（5）利润分配表。
第176条：有限责任公司应当按照公司章程规定的期限将财务会计报告送交各股东。
股份有限公司的财务会计报告应当在召开股东大会年会的20日以前置备于本公司，供股东查阅。
以募集设立方式成立的股份有限公司必须公告其财务会计报告。
第177条：公司分配当年税后利润时，应当提取利润的10％列入公司法定公积金，并提取利润的5％—10％列入公司法定公益金。公司法定公积金累计额为公司注册资本的50％以上的，可不再提取。
公司的法定公积金不足以弥补上一年度公司亏损的，在依照前款规定提取法定公积金和法定公益金之前，应当先用当年利润弥补亏损。
公司在从税后利润中提取法定公积金后，经股东会决议，可以提取任意公积金。
公司弥补亏损和提取公积金、法定公益金后所余利润，有限责任公司按照股东的出资比例分配，股份有限公司按照股东持有的股份比例分配。
股东会或者董事会违反前款规定，在公司弥补亏损和提取法定公积金、法定公益金之前向股东分配利润的，必须将违反规定分配的利润退还公司。
节选自《中华人民共和国公司法》
You have just finished law school at Georgetown University earning a Juris Doctorate．You are now hired as an associate of the prestigious law firm of Dinkelspiel ＆ Dinkelspiel．The partner，Tom Smart，has asked you to review the Clients’ file and the following two Supreme Court cases．
There are some memos and various handwritten notes left by Tom Smart in the file．These documents provide us with the following information．
Mr．and Mrs．Stambosky，the clients，recently signed to purchase a residence located at One LaVeta Place，Nyack，New York for the purchase price of $682，500．Mr．Stambosky was relocated to this exclusive New York suburban community，as he will become the CEO of General Motors．The Stambosky’s have paid down a $32，500 deposit，and paid down an additional $ 650，000，and now have been conveyed title to the residence．After moving into the residence，they experienced unusual paranormal activity．The lights were turn on and off after 11 p．m．at nights；chairs and tables would be found the next morning relocated to different parts of the house；and voices of two little girls could often be heard at 2 a．m．in the mornings — neither the Stambosky’s or their neighbors have any children．Mrs．Stambosky later found in the famous magazine Readers’ Digest an article promoting the house as being haunted and was part of a haunted walking tour in the Readers’ Digest —all promoted by the seller of this residence．However，for whatever reasons，it appeared that the sellers stopped all promotions concerning ghosts and hauntings involving the mansion prior to selling it．The sellers did not disclose to the Stambosky’s these material facts．
Can the Stamboskys successfully rescind their purchase agreement and get their moneys back？Draft an office memorandum to your partner that responds to the following：
a）Identify the general rule of caveat emptor as relevant to a realty sales transaction．
b）What is the relevant rule applied by the Supreme Court in the leading cases， Shelley v．Thompson and Ward v．Salt？
c）If this matter proceeded to a trial，what would the New York trial court likely rule given the current law as applied to the facts of this matter？
d）If this matter proceeded to trial，can the Stamboskys successfully rescind their purchase agreement if Ms．Stambosky had read about and known prior to making payment of the purchase price that the sellers had promoted the house as being haunted and conducted haunted walking tours？
Suppose that the New York state had a statute that provides，“Sellers must disclose tragic events such as homicides，suicides，tragic events and hauntings relating to the subject property for sale．”Under this statute，would the Stamboskys be successful at seeking rescission of the sales agreement？Please explain and provide your reasons．
Shelley v．Thompson
Supreme Court of New York（1984）
The appellee，Thompson，sued to rescind an agreement for the purchase of a house．The appellee argues that the appellant，Shelley，deceived her because he was aware，but failed to disclose，that the house contained high levels of radon — odorless and colorless radioactive particles that can cause cancer．Ordinarily，the general rule of caveat emptor applies to the purchase of real estate — a buyer is required to thoroughly inspect the property before agreeing to its purchase．However，such an ordinary inspection would not have revealed the high levels of radon．Such a defect is a critical and material factor in the transaction，affecting the value of the property and its potential resale value．Thus，rescission is appropriate to relieve the appellee from the burden of this agreement，obtained through appellant’s silence on a matter he surely knew was material to the transaction．The decision of the Superior Court，allowing appellee to rescind the contract is，therefore，affirmed．
Ward v．Salt
In the Supreme Court of New York（2001）
Appellee was granted rescission of a contract for the purchase of a house．Appellee did not discover until afterwards that the septic tank and drain lines were inadequate．The deficiency was not made known until after the purchase，as it resulted in the overflow of raw sewage into the front yard after every heavy rain．This condition was made apparent only then．
Passive concealment of defective realty constitutes an exception to the rule of caveat emptor．This exception places a duty on the seller to disclose facts not apparent to the buyer that would probably affect his decision to purchase．
Here，even the most diligent of examinations would not have disclosed this defect，because the problem was apparent only after a heavy rain．The appellant new of the deficiencies in the sewage system，yet he allowed appellee to sign the contract without disclosing these material facts．Such conduct constitutes fraud and warrants rescission of the contract．Affirmed．