题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
A．sanction
B．congratulate
C．remunerate
D．promote
E．impeach
简答题官方参考答案
（由简答题聘请的专业题库老师提供的解答）
更多“The plaintiff could only recover payment for her services if there was evidence of an impl”相关的问题
Wilson v Dagnall [1972] 1 QB 509 Court of Appeal (Lord Denning MR, Megaw and Stephenson LJJ) Statute – effective date Facts The plaintiff’s husband was killed in a motor accident in 1969. On 19 March 1970 she commenced proceedings claiming, inter alia, damages under the Fatal Accident Acts. The hearing was on 27 July 1971: the defendant admitted liability and formal judgment was entered on 30 July. On 1 July 1971 the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1971 received the Royal Assent and the Act stipulated that it was to come into force on 1 August 1971. The Act provided (in s4) that, in assessing damages under the Fatal Accidents Acts, no longer was account to be taken of a widow’s prospects of remarriage. As the 21- year- old plaintiff enjoyed such prospects, the judge assessed her damages as though the 1971 Act were already in force. The defendant’s appeal was heard in December 1971. Held (Lord Denning MR dissenting) The judge had been wrong to apply the 1971 Act and the plaintiff’s damages would therefore be reduced to take account of her prospects of remarriage. Megaw LJ: ‘It is natural to feel sympathy for this young widow, as against an anonymous insurance company. But it cannot be proper for a court of law to decide a case in favor of a plaintiff on the basis of sympathy, if the law of the land, as laid down in an Act of Parliament, provides otherwise. Whenever the law is changed by an Act of Parliament, there are likely to be cases which can be regarded as hard cases. That would not have been avoided if, for example, Parliament had provided- as it deliberately did not provide- that the change in the law was to take effect on the date when the Act was passed, 1st July 1971. For in that event the cases decided by the courts in the days or weeks preceding 1st July (instead of, as now, 1st August) could equally have been regarded as hard cases: hard, because they fell so close to the dividing line but on the wrong side of it for the plaintiff concerned. Yet a dividing line there must be. The only question is: what is the dividing line which Parliament has chosen to lay down？ Parliament has unambiguously said that the Act is to come into operation on 1st August 1971. To my mind there is no ambiguity about that nor any doubt as to its effect. It means that Parliament has ordained that up to that date, 1st August 1971, the law is to remain as before. I do not know why Parliament so provided. But that it did so provide is beyond dispute. I should have thought it was also beyond dispute, as an essential part of the unwritten constitutional law of England, by which courts of law are ineluctably bound, that those courts must loyally give effect to what Parliament has provided, and not seek to give effect to what they may think that Parliament ought to have provided. If Parliament has made a mistake, it has full sovereign power to correct the mistake. It follows that in my judgment the learned judge could not lawfully treat s4 of the Act as though it was already in force on 27th July. The judge’s decision was wrong and contrary to law. It ordered the defendant to pay money which, in law, the defendant could not lawfully be ordered to pay to the plaintiff. I do not regard it as relevant that the delivery of the judgment or the drawing up of the order could, as a matter of fact, have been postponed by the judge until 31st July had come and gone and the Act had come into operation.’ Questions 1. How many parts can this case be divided into？ What are they？ 2. Which two judges agreed with the ruling？ Who dissented？ 3. Why did the defendant appeal？ 4. Why did the judges of the Court of Appeal reverse the first ruling？
A.defendant
B.allegation
C.plaintiff
D.advocacy
A.attorney
B.allegation
C.plaintiff
D.defendant
A.injuries
B.tortfeasor
C.plaintiff
D.acquitted
Corporate governance in the UK mediates the rights and duties among (), employees, creditors and directors.
A、shareholders
B、tortfeasor
C、plaintiff
D、victim
A、In negligence law, the creation of a legal duty.
B、In negligence law, the breach of a legal duty.
C、A close relationship between a plaintiff's action (or failure to act).
D、In negligence law, the damages resulting from a breach of duty.
A.vindicated
B.plaintiff
C.takeover
D.insolvency
A.liable
B.plaintiff
C.intentional
D.tortfeasor
警告：系统检测到您的账号存在安全风险
为了保护您的账号安全，请在“简答题”公众号进行验证，点击“官网服务”-“账号验证”后输入验证码“”完成验证，验证成功后方可继续查看答案！
