- •Высшая школа экономики
- •I. Company law
- •1 Read through the text quickly and decide which of these phrases (a–f) best expresses the topic of each paragraph (1–6).
- •2 Some of the important roles in company management are discussed in Reading 1 above. Which roles are mentioned?
- •3 Here is a more comprehensive list of roles in company management.
- •5 Below is an extract from the articles of incorporation of a us company. Read through the text quickly and tick the issues it addresses.
- •6 Read the text again and decide whether these statements are true or false.
- •7 For each of these words or phrases, find the italicised word(s) in the text on
- •8 Read through the text again, noting how shall and may are used.
- •10 Read the first paragraph of the article. What situation is the bill trying to improve?
- •11 Read through the entire article and decide which of the following headings (a–f) would be most appropriate for each paragraph (1–6).
- •12 Decide whether these statements are true or false.
- •13 Do you agree that the llp is long overdue? In your view, is there also a need for such an institution in your jurisdiction?
- •14 Read the first three paragraphs. What does the dispute specifically involve?
- •15 Read the whole text and choose the best answer to each of these questions.
- •16 Choose the best explanation for each of these words or phrases from the text.
- •17 Answer these questions.
- •18 What is your opinion of the case? Do you think the shareholders’ claim is justified?
- •21 In Reading 4, which deals with a dispute concerning a company’s bylaws,
- •Vocabulary: distinguishing meaning. Which word in each group is the odd one out?
- •Vocabulary: prepositional phrases. Complete these sentences using the prepositional phrase from Exercise 4 that best fits in each. For some of the sentences, there is more than one correct answer.
- •Verb–noun collocations.
- •Increase the pay to staff above a certain percentage?
- •II Contract Law
- •1 Read the text and think of a suitable title for each of the two parts. Compare them with the titles given by your group mates.
- •2 Give Russian equivalents to the following words:
- •3 Complete the sentences (try not to look at the text):
- •4 Speak on the following:
- •5 Read the text about elements that are necessary for a valid contract. The parts of the text are mixed up. Put them in the correct order from 1 - 5.
- •6 Discuss with the partner
- •7 Read the text “Contract Law and Business”
- •8 Comment upon the diagram below.
- •2 Vocabulary. Give synonyms to the following words.
- •3 Match the words with their definitions.
- •Illegal obligation oral performance property signed terms
- •Newspapers write Newspapers write Newspapers write Friendly environment
- •The g8 countries agree on climate change, and more besides
- •Vocabulary
- •Financial times
- •Vocabulary
- •III . Family Law
- •1 Read the texts about different traditions to get married and compare the traditional wedding in Britain and the us with that in Russia.
- •2 Give Russian equivalents of the italicized words and expressions
- •3 Make up a summary of the text above by answering these questions:
- •4 Read through the entire text and decide which of the following headings (a–f) would be most appropriate for each paragraph (1–6).
- •5 Discuss the following questions:
- •6 Choose a topic for a short composition (write 180 – 200 words):
- •7 Before you read the text look up the meaning of the following:
- •8 Read through the entire text and decide which of the following titles (a - g) would be most appropriate for each part (1 - 7 ):
- •9 Discuss the following topics:
- •10 Write your own opinion on the following:
- •11 Vocabulary: Find a match
- •I. Before you read discuss these questions.
- •Vocabulary
- •1. Write what you think of the problem of dividing the assets of spouses.
- •2. Read another article from the Economist. It is about autistic children.
- •Vocabulary
- •Попова Татьяна Петровна Legal Reading Учебно-методическое пособие по чтению для студентов 3-го курса факультета права
- •Часть 1
Vocabulary
Find a word or phrase in the article that has a similar meaning
1. to leave your spouse or boyfriend suddenly ______________________
2. something you compare other things or people with judging how good they are _________________
3. something that is unfair or unjust ___________________
4. accusations made by two people about each other’s behavior on a particular occasion____________
5. relating to a wedding ________________
6. the splitting of the nucleus of an atom to provide a large amount of energy_______________________
(inequitable, nuclear fission, walk out on, recriminations, pre-nuptial, yardstick)
The Economist Britain
Divorce laws
Nuclear fission
The law lords lay down guidelines for big-money divorce settlements
If a wife walks out on her wealthy husband after a short marriage, should the courts penalise her when dividing the spoils? If a rich husband leaves his long-suffering wife for a young bimbo, should the wife be awarded a bigger share of their joint wealth on divorce? No, said the House of Lords, Britain's highest court, this week in a firm rejection of the notion of blame being re-introduced into divorce proceedings. Straying spouses around the country breathed a sigh of relief.
In 2000, the House of Lords ruled that assets should be divided according to a "yardstick of equality", and not simply on the basis of the claimant's-usually the wife's—financial need. Since then, judges have struggled to decide when they might depart from that broad principle of equal shares. The law lords have now tried to lay down some guidelines.
Their first case concerned Alan Miller, a fund manager with an income of over £1m a year, and his American wife, Melissa, who, on marrying, gave up her £85,ooo-a-year job. The union ended less than three years later when he went off with another woman. At the outset of the marriage, Mr Miller's wealth was estimated at nearly £17m. By its end, he had also acquired shares worth between £13m and £18m.
In awarding Mrs Miller a £5m lump sum last year, a lower court said that it had taken into account the husband's responsibility for the breakdown of the marriage along with the wife's "legitimate expectation" of a higher standard of living. To widespread astonishment, this was later upheld by the Court of Appeal. Under the 1973 Matrimonial Causes Act, judges are supposed to take the parties' conduct into account only if it was so egregious that it would "be inequitable to disregard it". Adultery and desertion had never been thought to fall into that category. Did this mean the end of no-fault divorces?
No, Lord Nicholls ruled this week. Judges could not, and should not, seek to discern the truth about a marriage from the recriminations that followed a breakup. But in view of Mrs Miller's expectations and the huge increase in Mr Miller's wealth during the marriage, he nonetheless felt the size of the award was fair.
In America and most other European countries, divorce settlements take into account only those assets acquired during a marriage. But in England and Wales (though not Scotland) all assets are traditionally up for grabs. Lord Nicholls has now ruled that the "yardstick of equality" should not necessarily be applied to "non-matrimonial" assets acquired before the wedding. The ruling should cheer the likes of Sir Paul McCartney, the former Beatle, who amassed most of his estimated £8oom fortune before his four-year marriage to Heather Mills, which publicly broke down last week.
The second case before the Lords concerned Kenneth and Julia McFarlane—he a senior tax partner at Deloitte Touche Toh-matsu, she a well-paid solicitor before she gave up her job to look after their three children. The marriage lasted 16 years. At their divorce, the couple agreed to share their capital assets, which were valued at £3m. But on the basis of her husband's anticipated future earnings, Mrs McFar-lane demanded an extra £250,000 a year for life. The law lords decided in her favour. While agreeing that the sum far exceeded her needs, they argued that she was entitled to compensation for having given up her own career.
The rulings should help make divorce more predictable for those at the top of the earning scale—something that may also be achieved by the growing use of pre-nuptial agreements. But they will change little for ordinary folk, who will continue to scrabble for what they can get, with both sides invariably ending up worse off.
On your own