In law a panel is a list of jurors.

7. refer (v) - посылать, отсылать (to - к кому-л., чему-л.); направлять (за)

They referred a complaint to another department.

The dispute was referred to the United Nations to arbitration.

You should refer a patient to a specialist for treatment.

The reader is referred to page 5.

referable (adj) - могущий быть приписанным или отнесенным (to - к кому-л., чему-л.)

referral (n) - отправка, отсылка; зд. судебное рассмотрение

the grounds for referral - основания для судебного рассмотрения

8. remit (v) - 1) прекращать, отменять, аннулировать; 2) прощать, помиловать; освобождать (от ответственности, наказания, уплаты); уменьшать ответственность; 3) пересылать, переводить деньги.

to remit the case - отсылать дело

His prison sentence has been remitted.

The taxes have been remitted.

The case has been remitted from the appeal court to a lower tribunal.

remission (n) - прощение, освобождение от уплаты, от наказания; отмена пли смягчение приговора.

9. remand (n) - юр. возвращение (арестованного) под стражу

a person on remand - I) подследственный; 2) арестованный, оставленный под стражей (для продолжения следствия)

remand (v) - 1) юр. отсылать обратно под стражу (для продолжения следствия); 2) отсылать (дело) обратно на доследование

The accused was remanded in custody for a week.

remand centre, remand home - дом предварительного заключения для малолетних преступников

prisoners on remand

detention on remand

a remand prisoner

Exc.3 Give Russian equivalents to the words given in bold type.

THE LAW AND THE FAMILY

Here, we will look at how the law sees the family a special institution; how some legal systems treat married couples and their children differently from the unmarried; the process of divorce; custody of and responsibility for children; and protection from violence in the home. Finally, we will consider the rights of succession to the property of a family member when they die.

Beyond the mere function of providing a new generation of children, the family is often promoted for its moral contribution to society. Despite a growing labor shortage, the Japanese government has passed very little legislation challenging the assumption that mothers should stay at home rather than go out to work. In Ireland, which is strongly influenced by the doctrines of the Catholic Church, divorce remains illegal.

In some societies the family is thought to be so important that there is very little legal intervention in family life. In many Islamic countries, for example, fathers, brothers and sons are allowed considerable authority over the females in their family. As late as the 1970s, the male head of the household in Switzerland was deemed to represent the interests of everyone within that household, and, consequently, none of the women could vote in national elections. But in many parts of the world, the law now promotes the rights of individuals within the family unit, and regulates family relations through legislation. Raised from the taxes of the working population as a whole, child benefit is paid directly to the mother, and retirement pensions are paid to grandparents, so that they are less dependent upon financial support from a family member. In Sweden, parents can be prosecuted for physically punishing their children and children have a limited capacity to divorce their parents. In Britain, as in many countries, there are special family courts with very strong powers to control and transfer private property in the interests of children. Much of the work of other courts is also directly relevant to family life.

MARRIAGE REQUIREMENTS

Generally, romantic love is the basis of marriage in this country, but this is a relatively recent development. In the past bride seizure, payment and parental arrangement were regarded as the normal methods for deciding on marriage partners. To be legally valid, a marriage must be: voluntary, between two single people, who are over sixteen, of the opposite sex and not closely related.

Both man and woman must be acting voluntarily. Force, fear and duress will all invalidate the marriage. But it must be real duress: for instance, social pressure and the desire to please one's parents do not invalidate the marriage.

The marriage will also be invalid if one of the couple does not realize what he or she is doing (e.g. if drink or old age affects their awareness of what is happening).

Similarly, if there was a mistake as to the identity of the other partner the marriage would be invalid. But other mistakes will not invalidate it. For instance, if the man is mistaken as to the financial standing, social status or career prospects of his wife, he cannot argue that he would not otherwise have married her and so claim that the marriage is invalid. Duress and social pressure can also invalidate the marriage. This can be a particular problem with arranged marriages.

A nineteen-year-old Hindu girl was forced into an arranged marriage. Had she not agreed, her parents would have thrown her out of the house, leaving her homeless and penniless. The Court of Appeal granted a declaration that the marriage was a nullity — the crucial question in these cases is whether the threats, pressure, or whatever it is, is such as to destroy the reality of the consent and overbear the will of the individual. So, in many ways it was the threat of homelessness and social ostracism that were the key factors in this case, and not so much the mere parental and social pressure.

This case should not be taken as showing that all arranged marriages can be set aside, but it is clear evidence of a change of attitude by the courts in being prepared to tackle this difficult problem.

CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS BETWEEN MAN AND WIFE

Marriage is a contract, but the courts will not enforce the contract between husband and wife. For instance, if the woman was persuaded to marry the man because he said he was wealthy, she cannot sue him for misrepresentation if he lied about his supposed wealth.

The courts will not interfere with a working marriage. So, if a husband arranges to meet his wife at twelve o'clock but she does not keep the appointment, he cannot hold her liable for the losses and expenses he has suffered. This is all part of the wear and tear of marriage. The courts will intervene only if the couple clearly intended a legal relationship to follow on from an agreement, such as when they are discussing a business matter.

CREDIT TEST ONE

Jury Adds $25 Million Damages

"Finding O. J. liable of the murders was one of the easiest decisions I have ever had to make"

Santa Monica, California - Jurors who decided O.J. Simpson was a killer and a liar tried to make sure he would never be a crass profiteer.

They decided Monday he should pay $25 million in punitive damages to the heirs of ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, on top of the $8,5 million in compensatory damages meted out February 4, for Goldman's parents.

Even by the plaintiffs' own evidence, that's more than double what Simpson is worth. And Simpson says he doesn't have the money to pay.

The decision marked yet another milestone in the 2 1/2 year legal saga that trans­fixed the United States and still exposes its racial divisions - from the acquittal by a mostly black jury to the wrongful death verdict from a mostly white panel.

The verdicts - on liability, compensation and punishment - resonated with confi­dence.

At a post-verdict news conference, six jurors and two alternates spoke of decisions made carefully with logic and compassion during 17 hours of deliberations over five days. The criminal trial jury took just four hours in October 1995 to acquit Simpson of killing Ms. Simpson and her friend.

"Finding O.J.Simpson liable of the murders and acting with oppression and malice was one of the easiest decisions I have ever had to make", said 27-year-old juror Laura Fast-Khazaee.

Juror Deena Lynn Mullen, 40, dispensed with any notion that Simpson got nailed because the civil trial jury used the preponderance of evidence standard, rather than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard used at the criminal trial.

"What I needed to be able to walk out of that room was not just a reasonable doubt, but beyond a shadow of a doubt, and I was willing to stay there for a month if that's what it took to answer all of those questions for myself, she said.

Jurors said they took 12 hours to reach a verdict in the compensatory phase last week because they painstakingly went through the evidence. They didn't take their first vote until the very end - and found out then they were unanimous in their feeling that Simpson was a killer.

The mostly white jury, in contrast to the mostly black jury that acquitted Simpson, said race had nothing to do with its decision.

The jurors said the most compelling evidence was the blood and photos showing Simpson wearing the same type of Bruno Magli shoes that left bloody prints near the victims' bodies. They also said Simpson, who denied ever wearing the shoes, could not be believed.

Lurking behind the confident jury was a troubling issue. The lone remaining black panellist, an alternate who listened to the same evidence but did not deliberate, thought Simpson got a raw deal.

"For the most part I felt Simpson was pretty credible", said the woman, in her 40s. "The plaintiffs were more like bullies than professionals". The $33,5 million in total damages dwarfs the $15,7 million that plaintiffs estimated Simpson is worth, based on the predicted $3 million he stands to make every year for selling his name, likeness and trademark. The estimate is important because by law creditors can garnish up to 25 percent of future wages. The $25 million punitive award is do be split evenly be­tween Goldman's parents and Ms. Simpson's children.

Before the plaintiffs can claim their money, the judge must decide whether the awards are reasonable, or inflated by irrational passions. He can pare them down if he chooses.

Simpson also could appeal, but that would not let him postpone payment. Bank­ruptcy is another possibility, but it would not allow Simpson to avoid his debts.

Simpson watched reports of the verdict not from the courtroom, but from the golf course, which has always been his sanctuary.

Exc.1. Answer the following questions:

1. What did the jurors decide finally?

1. What can you say about the two juries and their decisions? What standards did they use to render their verdicts.

2. How did the jurors characterize the verdict they returned? What evidence did they use?

2. What fine did they impose on O.J.?

Law of Contracts

English law textbooks often describe a contract as an agreement which is made between two or more parties and which is binding in law. In order to be binding in law the agreement must include an offer and an acceptance of that offer. The parties must agree to contract on certain terms, that is, they must know what are they agreeing to (but they need not know that their agreement can be described in law as a contract). They must have intended to be legally bound: there would be no contract, if, for example, they were just joking when they made the agreement. And valuable consideration must have been given by the person to whom a promise was made. In this case, consideration is a legal word to describe something a person has given, or done, or agreed not to do, when making the contract.

When a court is deciding if a contract has been made, it must consider all these elements. In common law countries, the judge will be guided by decisions made in previous cases. If the judge is dealing with a problem which has never arisen before he must make a decision based upon general legal principles, and this decision will become a precedent for other judges in similar cases in the future. The most important principle guiding ajudge is whether a reasonable observer of the agreement would decide that it was a contract. But sometimes decisions seem very technical because lawyers try to explain exactly why a decision has been made, even when that decision appears to be obvious common sense. Of course exact explanations are even more important when the decision does not appear to be common sense. By looking at some of the elements of a contract, we can see how important cases have helped to develop English law.

One principle of English contract law is that there must be offer and acceptance. An advertisement to sell something is not normally considered an offer. If I see an add in a newspaper offering to sell a car, I nnd I telephone the advertiser and agree to buy it, the seller is not I obliged-to sell it to me. This is because the law considers that the real offer is when I contact the seller asking to buy the car. The seller may then decide whether to accept or reject my offer. This is the reason a I «tore does not have to sell you the goods it displays for sale.

Most systems of law have similar requirements about offer and acceptance, legal intention, and consideration. They also consider the I capacity of contractors; that is, whether they were legally entitled to contract.

In English law there are some special rules if one of the contractors is a I company, rather than an individual, under the age of 18, or insane. Legal I systems have rules for interpreting contracts in which one or more I contractors made a mistake or was pressured or tricked into making an I agreement, and rules for dealing with illegal contracts. For example, under I English law a contractor cannot enforce an agreement against another party if the agreement was to commit a crime.

Exc.1 Give English equivalents to the following words.

Контрактное право, заключать контракт, иметь обязательную силу по закону, сторона (по делу, в договоре), предложение, принятие, быть обязанным по закону, рассмотрение, достаточное/ встречное удовлетворение, руководствоваться решениями, правовой принцип, обозреватель, подрядчик, дееспособность подрядчика, имеющий право заключать договор по закону, принуждать к соглашению.

Exc.2. Answer the following questions:

1. How do the English law textbooks describe a contract?

2. What sides participate in acontract?

3. Is it necessary to be legally bound for a contract?

4. What should be given by the person to whom a promise was made?

5. Who decides that the contract has been made? Why?

6. What is the most important principle a judge is quided by?

7. What is the main principle of the English contract law?

8. What is not normally considered as an offer?

9. What is considered as a real offer by the law?

CREDIT TEST TWO