UPCOMING COURSES FOR LAWYERS


Bologna: 12th October

“CPL Concordia Group” (www.cpl.it) in cooperation with “Ancpl Regional Committee – Associazione Nazionale della Cooperative di Produzione e Lavoro (National Association of Production and Work Cooperatives)” has organized for October 12th, 2011 in Bologna (Italy), at CPL Bologna offices located in Via della Cooperazione, a day of study dedicated to “Legal English”.


The aim of the course is to develop, within the major cooperative companies of the Emilia Romagna Region, adequate skills for a correct knowledge of legal terminology and contracts in common law systems.


Monica Marzaioli
MMarzaioli@cpl.it







iti, lexacom, courses, law

Click on the picture to see the larger version.




Terminology and Concepts in Common Law: Contract & Civil Liability: Copenhagen: 24th October 2011

The course is interactive and covers the interpretation of the terms and wording of contracts, contract law, civil liability in contract and tort, damages, evidence, and common law terminology. Course materials (notes, law reports and contract documentation) will be distributed by email to all participants one week in advance. The course and all documents will be in English.


What is the difference between a 'lease' and a 'lease agreement'? What are 'without prejudice' negotiations? How did the Woolf reform change the use of the word 'pleadings'? Is there a difference between 'plaintiff' and 'claimant'?


This course covers a lot more than just contracts: it also includes a large amount of common law terminology and concepts which do not relate solely to contracts, or to contracts at all. Civil liability covers liability under tort (eg accident claims) as well as liability for breach of contract. The rules regarding evidence, causation, damages, mitigation of loss are all common to both. In addition there are several other essential topics such as agency, domicile, contempt of court, the new civil litigation terminology (following Lord Woolf's changes in 1999) and some basic civil litigation procedure.


24 October at the AXEL Hotel Guldsmeden, Helgolandsgade 11, 1653 Copenhagen V


Danish Association of State-authorised Translators and Interpreters. For more information or to register, contact the Association at dt@dtfb.dk.


 

 

       







Why is Common Law important?

Many cases which come before the English High Court and Court of Appeal involving, for example, large corporate mergers and acquisitions are decided on a basic Common Law point such as the absence of "consideration" or whether "time is of the essence" in contractual disputes, or whether a remedy should be ordered under the rules of Equity.

Example

EXAMPLE:  The word "DOMICILE", under English Law, has a specific legal meaning. It is a Common Law concept.
"Domicile" does NOT mean "address" or "residence" or "home" or "nationality".

EXAMPLE: The contract wording ".......time to be of the essence of the contract" also has a specific legal significance which the Translator needs to be aware of. To translate as the equivalent of " this time limit is an important term of the contract" is NOT accurate.

LANGUAGE EXAMPLE:   "JURISPRUDENCE" is NOT the same as "case law" or "precedent".

LANGUAGE EXAMPLE:   "DAMAGE" or "DAMAGES"? What's the difference? "Damages" is NOT the plural of "Damage".

LANGUAGE EXAMPLE:   "EVIDENCE" and "PROOF". Lawyers refer to the "evidence". The layman talks about the "proof". What's the difference?  

WITHOUT PREJUDICE   or   SUBJECT TO CONTRACT:  What's the difference? A prominent firm of London estate agents negotiated a new shop lease with a tenant by correspondence and agreed  terms "without prejudice". Before the new lease was signed they decided to add a new condition which the tenant refused to accept. They hadn't realised that the "agreement" was already legally binding and could not be changed. They had intended the negotiations to be "subject to contract" but had got it wrong. They had been professionally negligent and were liable in damages to the landlord, their client.      

 

Pena v Dale {2003} All ER {D} 416 MAR
High Court, Chancery Division

The Claimant alleged he was entitled to enforce an agreement (oral but confirmed by letter) that gave him an option to acquire shares in a company. The Defendants contested his claim, saying that, if there was an agreement, it was not enforceable due to certain conditions. The Court had to decide

a) whether an enforceable agreement (contract) existed

b) whether the Common Law remedy of damages was sufficient or whether to make an order for "Specific Performance", a remedy under Equity to enforce a transfer of the shares.

NOTE: Since April 1999 a civil action is now started by the "Claimant". The term "Plaintiff" is no longer correct. However, Defendants are still Defendants.
© 2011 LEXACOM ENGLISH LAW COURSES

Design & Developed By: Pace Solutions