2020年法律英语证书LEC样题参照模板

随着中国入世和对外开放的逐步深入，法律英语的重要性日渐凸现。

然而，由于法律英语的特殊性，国内一直没有一个科学的考核指标衡量法律从业人员专业英语的掌握程度。

法律英语证书（Legal Englis h Certificate，简称LEC）考试由教育部主管、中国职业技术教育学会主办、法律英语证书全国统一考试委员会具体组织，目的是为从事涉外业务的企业、律师事务所提供招募国际性人才的客观标准，同时督促国内法律从业人员提高专业英语水平。

法律英语证书考试试题由其专家委员会成员共同研究、开发，专家委员会由来自国内外的50名法律英语专家、学者、著名律师组成。

该考试的题型、考察内容与美国的律师资格考试相近，同时又突出了法律英语语言运用的特色，并结合中国的实际增加了法律英语翻译测试。

考试分试卷一和试卷二，各需三个小时完成。

试卷一为多项选择题，包括美国法基本知识和逻辑推理，内容涉及美国宪法、财产法、知识产权法、侵权法、商事组织法、民事程序法、刑法及刑事程序法等，重点考察合同法、商事组织法、侵权法、知识产权法及财产法的知识；试卷二是主观题，包括案件阅读、翻译和法务写作三项，其中法务写作将重点考察office memo, case brief 及律师信函的写作格式及写作内容。

公检法机关和企事业单位从事涉外法务工作人员；从事涉外法务的律师，公司法律部门的从业人员；高等院校法律专业、英语专业学生以及社会上一切有志于从事涉外法务的人员均可以参加法律英语证书（LEC）考试。

法律英语证书考试属水平考试，满分为200分。

130分以上，且主、客观两卷得分分别不低于60分为及格标准；170分以上，且主、客观两卷得分分别不低于80分为优秀。

该考试证书是从事涉外法律服务工作人员的专业英语水平权威证明；该考试证书也是赴美攻读法学专业，及取得美国律师职业资格的可靠保证。

法律英语证书考试每年举行两次，分别在5月份和12月份的最后一个周六举行，目前只设中国政法大学一个考点。

合同法CONTRACTSIn law, a contract is a binding legal agreement that is enforceable in a court of law or by binding arbitration. That is to say, a contract is an exchange of promises with a specific remedy for breach. Agreement is said to be reached when an offer capable of immediate acceptance is met with a "mirror image" acceptance (i.e., an unqualified acceptance). The parties must have the necessary capacity to contract and the contract must not be either trifling, indeterminate, impossible, or illegal. Breach of contract is recognized by the law and remedies can be provided.As long as the good or service provided is legal, any oral agreement between two parties can constitute a binding legal contract. The practical limitation to this, however, is that only parties to a written agreement have material evidence (the written contract itself) to prove the actual terms uttered at the time the agreement was struck. In daily life, most contracts can be and are made orally, such as purchasing a book or a sandwich. Sometimes written contracts are required by either the parties, or by statutory law within various jurisdiction for certain types of agreement, for example when buying a house or land.Contract formationIn common-law systems, the five key requirements for the creation of a contract are:1. offer and acceptance (agreement)2. consideration3. an intention to create legal relations4. legal capacity5. formalitiesOffer and acceptance analysis is a traditional approach in contract law used to determine whether an agreement exists between two parties. As a contract is an agreement, an offer is an indication by one person (the "offeror") to another (the "offeree") of the offeror's willingness to enter into a contract on certain terms without further negotiations. A contract is said to come into existence when acceptance of an offer (agreement to the terms in it) has been communicated to the offeror by the offeree.Treitel defines an offer as "an expression of willingness to contract on certain terms, made with the intention that it shall become binding as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom it isaddressed", the "offeree". An offer is a statement of the terms on which the offeror is willing to be bound.The "expression" referred to in the definition may take different forms, such as a letter, newspaper, fax, email and even conduct, as long as it communicates the basis on which the offeror is prepared to contract.Whether two parties have an agreement or a valid offer is an issue which is determined by the court using the Objective test (Smith v. Hughes). Therefore the "intention" referred to in the definition is objectively judged by the courts. In the English case of Smith v. Hughes the court emphasised that the important thing is not a party's real intentions but how a reasonable person would view the situation. This is due mainly to common sense as each party would not wish to breach his side of the contract if it would make him or her culpable to damages, it would especially be contrary to the principle of certainty and clarity in commercial contract and the topic of mistake and how it affects the contract. As a minimum requirement the conditions for an offer should include at least the following 4 conditions: Delivery date, price, terms of payment that includes the date of payment and detail description of the item on offer including a fair description of the condition or type ofservice. Without one of the minimum requirements of condition an offer of sale is not seen as a legal offer but rather seen as an advertisement.Acceptance is a final and unqualified expression of assent to the terms of an offer. It is no defense to an action based on a contract for the defendant to claim that he had not intended to be bound by the agreement, if his conduct demonstrated that he had.Rules of acceptanceThere are several rules dealing with the communication of acceptance:•The acceptance must be communicated: see Powell v Lee (1908) Prior to acceptance, an offer may be withdrawn.•An exception exists in the case of unilateral contracts, in which the offeror makes an offer to the world which can be accepted by some act. A classic instance of this is the case ofCarlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1892] 2 Q.B. 484 in which an offer was made to pay £100 to anyone who having boughtthe offeror's product and used it in accordance with the instructions nonetheless contracted influenza. The plaintiff did so and the court ordered payment of the £100. Heractions accepted the offer - there was no need to communicate acceptance. Typical cases of unilateral offers are advertisements of rewards (e.g., for the return of a lost dog).•An offer can only be accepted by the offeree, that is, the person to whom the offer is made.•An offeree is not usually bound if another person accepts the offer on his behalf without his authorization, the exceptions to which are found in the law of agency, where an agent may have apparent or ostensible authority, or the usual authority of an agent in the particular market, even if the principal did not realize what the extent of this authority was, and someone on whose behalf an offer has been purportedly accepted it may also ratify the contract within a reasonable time, binding both parties.•It may be implied from the construction of the contract that the offeror has dispensed with the requirement of communication of acceptance (called waiver of communication - which is generally implied in unilateral contracts): see also Re Selectmove Ltd [1994] BCC 349.•If the offer specifies a method of acceptance (such as by post or fax), acceptance must be by a method that is no lesseffective from the offeror's point of view than the method specified. The exact method prescribed may have to be used in some cases but probably only where the offeror has used very explicit words such as "by registered post, and by that method only": see Yates Building Co. Ltd v. R.J. Pulleyn & Sons (York) Ltd (1975) 119 Sol. Jo. 370.•Silence cannot be construed as acceptance: see Felthouse v.Bindley (1862) 142 ER 1037.•However, acceptance may be inferred from conduct.Vitiating FactorsThere are the factors affecting the validity of an otherwise effective contract. They include mistakes, misrepresentation, duress, undue influence and illegality.DischargeOnce it is determined that a party is under an immediate duty to perform, the duty to perform must be discharged. A contract may be discharged in one of the following ways:·By performance·By tender of performance·By frustration·By operation of law·By occurrence of condition subsequent·By illegality·By rescission·By novation·By cancellation·By release·By substituted contract·By accord and satisfaction·By account stated·By lapse·By effect of running of statute of limitationsBreach of contract is a legal concept in which a binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance orinterference with the other party's performance. If the party does not fulfill his contractual promise, or has given information to the other party that he will not perform his duty as mentioned in the contract or if by his action and conduct he seems to be unable to perform the contract, he is said to breach the contract.Remedies for Breach of Contract•Damages, which may include:o Compensatory damageso Punitive damageso Incidental damageso Liquidated damageso Nominal damages•Coercive reliefo Specific performanceo Injunctionso Restitutiono Account of profits【版权声明】《合同法CONTRACTS》的版权属于法律英语证书（LEC）全国统一考试委员会所有。

法律英语证书（LEC）全国统一考试评测标准优秀（80—100）Excellent基础知识Fundamental Knowledge成绩优秀考生的能力表现如下：Test takers who receive scores at the Excellent level，typically 1. 对重要法律英语术语和基本法律概念有很好的掌握。

Have a good command of important legal English terms and basic legal concepts.2. 对美国法律知识有很好的掌握，擅长合同法、商法、知识产权法和民事侵权法案例的分析。

Have a good command of American legal knowledge and excel in analyzing cases on contract law，business law，intellectual property law and torts. 3. 能够确定复杂案例的关键问题，做出合理分析并得出正确结论。

Be able to define key issues of complex cases，analyze accordingly and then make correct conclusions.阅读、翻译和写作Case Reading，Translation and Writing成绩优秀考生的能力表现如下：Test takers who receive scores at the Excellent level，perform well in 1. 阅读Case Reading⑴充分解读案例Complete understanding⑵英语运用恰当、精确Good command of English with appropriate and accurate diction 2. 翻译Translation ⑴译文能真实反映原文，即使在词汇、句法、标点和拼写方面有一两处错误。

2013.11法律英语LEC模拟题卷二法律英语证书（LEC）模拟考试题试卷二2013年11月17日提示：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。

Part I: Case Reading Comprehension (25 points)Read the case carefully and answer the questions followed briefly:LEFKOWITZ v. GREAT MINNEAPOLISSURPLUS STORE, INC.86 NW 2d 689MURPHY, Justice.This is an appeal from an order of the Municipal Court of Minneapolis denying the motion of the defendant for amended findings of facts, or, in the alternative, for a new trail. The order for judgment awarded the plaintiff the sum of $138.50 as damages for breach of contract.This case grows out of the alleged refusal of the defendant to sell to the plaintiff a certain fur piece which it had offered for sale in a newspaper advertisement. It appears from the record that on April 6, 1956, the defendant published the following advertisement in a Minneapolis newspaper:Saturday 9 A.M. Sharp 3 Brand New Fur Coats Worth to $100.00.First Come First Served $1 Each.On April 13, the defendant again published another advertisement in the same newspaper, as follows:Saturday 9 A.M. 2 Brand New Pastel Mink 3-Skin ScarfsSelling for $89.50Out they go Saturday. Each ... $1.001 Black Lapin Stole Beautiful, worth $139.50 ... $1.00First Come First ServedOn each of the Saturdays following the publication of the above-described ads the plaintiff was the first to present himself at the appropriate counter in the defendant’s store and on each occasion demanded the coat and the stole so advertised and indicated his readiness to pay the sale price of $1. On both occasions, the defendant refused to sell the merchandise to the plaintiff, stating on the first occasion that by a “house rule” the offer was intended for women only and sales would not be made to men, and on the second visit that plaintiff knew defendant’s house rules.The trial court properly disallowed plaintiff’s claim for the value of the fur coats since the value of these articles was speculative and uncertain. The only evidence of value was the advertisement itself to the effect that t he coats were “Worth to $100.00”, how much less being speculative especially in view of the price for which they were offered for sale. With reference to the offer of the defe ndant on April 13, 1956, to sell the “1 Black Lapin Stole …worth $139.50” the trial court held that the value of this article was established and granted judgment in favor of the plaintiff for that amount less the $1 quoted purchase price.The defendant contends that a newspaper advertisement offering items of me rchandise for sale at a named price is a “unilateral offer” which may be withdrawn without notice. He relies upon authorities which hold that, where an advertiser publishes in a newspaper that he has a certain quantity or quality of goods which he wants to dispose of at certain prices and oncertain terms, such advertisements are not offers which become contracts as soon as any person to whose notice they may come signifies his acceptance by notifying the other that he will take a certain quantity of them. Such advertisements have been construed as an invitation for an offer of sale on the terms stated, which offer, when received, may be accepted or rejected and which therefore does not become a contract of sale until accepted by the seller; and until a contract has been so made, the seller may modify or revoke such prices or terms. Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Johnson, 95 N.E. 290 (Mass. 1911); Nickel v. Theresa Farmers Co-op. Ass’n, 20 N.W.2d 117 (Wis. 1945); Lovett v. Frederick Loeser & Co., 207 N.Y.S. 753 (N.Y. Mun. Ct. 1924); Schenectady Stove Co. v. Holbrook, 4 N.E. 4 (N.Y. 1885); Georgian Co. v. Bloom, 108 S.E. 813 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921); Craft v. Elder & Johnson Co., 38 N.E.2d 416 (Ohio Ct. App. 1941).The defendant relies principally on Craft v. Elder & Johnston Co., supra. In that case, the court discussed the legal effect of an advertisement offering for sale, as a one-day special, an electric sewing machine at a named price. The view was expressed that the advertisement was “not an offer made to any specific person but was made to the public generally. Thereby it would be properly designated as a unilateral offer and not being supported by any consideration could be withdrawn at will and without not ice.” It is true that such an offer may be withdrawn before acceptance. Since all offers are by their nature unilateral because they are necessarily made by one party or on one side in the negotiation of a contract, the distinction made in that decision between a unilateral offer and a unilateral contract is not clear. On the facts before us we are concerned with whether the advertisement constituted an offer, and, if so, whether theplaintiff’s conduct constituted an acceptance.There are numerous authorities which hold that a particular advertisement in a newspaper or circular letter relating to a sale of articles may be construed by the court as constituting an offer, acceptance of which would complete a contract. J.E. Pinkham Lumber Co. v. C.W. Griffin & Co., 102 So. 689 (Ala. 1925); Seymour v. Armstrong & Kassebaum, 64 P. 612 (Kan. 1901); Payne v. Lautz Bros. & Co., 166 N.Y.S. 844 (N.Y. City Ct. 1916), aff’d, 168 N.Y.S. 369 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), aff’d, 171 N.Y.S. 1094 (N.Y. App. Div. 1918); Arnold v. Phillips, 1 Ohio Dec. Reprint 195 (Ohio Ct. Common Pl. 1846); Oliver v. Henley, 21 S.W.2d 576 (Tex. Civ. App. 1929).The test of whether a binding obligation may originate in advertisements addressed to the general public is “whether the facts show that some performance was promised in positive terms in return for something requested.” 1 W ILLISTON, CONTRACTS § 27 (Rev. ed. 1936).The authorities above cited emphasize that, where the offer is clear, definite, and explicit, and leaves nothing open for negotiation, it constitutes an offer, acceptance of which will complete the contract. The most recent case on the subject is Johnson v. Capital City Ford Co., 85 So. 2d 75 (La. Ct. App. 1955), in which the court pointed out that a newspaper advertisement relating to the purchase and sale of automobiles may constitute an offer, acceptance of which will consummate a contract and create an obligation in the offeror to perform according to the terms of the published offer.Whether in any individual instance a newspaper advertisement is an offer rather than an invitation to make an offer depends on the legal intention of the parties and the surrounding circumstances. We are of the view on the factsbefore us that the offer by the defendant of the sale of the Lapin fur was clear, definite, and explicit, and left nothing open for negotiation. The plaintiff having successfully managed to be the first one to appear at the seller’s place o f business to be served, as requested by the advertisement, and having offered the stated purchase price of the article, he was entitled to performance on the part of the defendant. We think the trial court was correct in holding that there was in the conduct of the parties a sufficient mutuality of obligation to constitute a contract of sale.The defendant contends that the offer was modified by a “house rule” to the effect that only women were qualified to receive the bargains advertised. The advertisement contained no such restriction. This objection may be disposed of briefly by stating that, while an advertiser has the right at any time before acceptance to modify his offer, he does not have the right, after acceptance, to impose new or arbitrary conditions not contained in the published offer. Payne v. Lautz Bros. & Co., 166 N.Y.S. 844, 848 (N.Y. City Ct. 1916); Mooney v. Daily News Co., 133 N.W. 573 (Minn. 1911).AFFIRMED.Questions to be answered:1. Did the trial court allow the plaintiff’s claim for the values of both articles? And Why?2. What is the rule of law for an advertisement to be an offer?3. What’s the defendant’s contention?4. What is the legal effect of an invitation for an offer in a sales contract?5. What’s the issue?Part II: Translation (40 points)Question 1. Translate the following paragraphs into Chinese:1. § 1-103. Construction of [Uniform Commercial Code] to Promote its Purposes andPolicies: Applicability of Supplemental Principles of Law.（a）[The Uniform Commercial Code] must be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies, which are: （1）to simplify, clarify, and modernize the law governing commercial transactions; （2）to permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage, and agreement of the parties; and （3）to make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions.（b）Unless displaced by the particular provisions of [the Uniform Commercial Code], the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, bankruptcy, and other validating or invalidating cause supplement its provisions.2. § 1-105. Severability.If any provision or clause of [the Uniform Commercial Code] or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of [the Uniform Commercial Code] which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of [the Uniform Commercial Code] are severable.3. "Buyer in ordinary course of business" means a person that buys goods in good faith, without knowledge that the sale violates the rights of another person in the goods, and in the ordinary course from a person, other than a pawnbroker, in the business of selling goods of that kind. A person buys goods in the ordinary course if the sale to the person comports with the usual or customary practices in the kind of business in which theseller is engaged or with the seller's own usual or customary practices. A person that sells oil, gas, or other minerals at the wellhead or minehead is a person in the business of selling goods of that kind. A buyer in ordinary course of business may buy for cash, by exchange of other property, or on secured or unsecured credit, and may acquire goods or documents of title under a preexisting contract for sale. Only a buyer that takes possession of the goods or has a right to recover the goods from the seller under Article 2 may be a buyer in ordinary course of business. "Buyer in ordinary course of business" does not include a person that acquires goodsin a transfer in bulk or as security for or in total or partial satisfaction of a money debt.Question 2. Translate the following Chinese into English:4. 第二章劳动合同的订立第七条用人单位自用工之日起即与劳动者建立劳动关系。

法律英语证书（LEC）全国统一考试【简介】【说明】【考试大纲】【评测标准】法律英语证书（LEC）全国统一考试【简介】外语能力一直是衡量法律职业者素质和专业水平的一个重要方面，特别是经济全球化和我国对外开放不断深入的新形势对法律工作者的英语能力提出了更高的要求。

然而，由于法律英语的特殊性，国内一直没有一个科学的考核指标衡量法律从业人员专业英语的掌握程度。

法律英语证书（Legal English Certificate，简称LEC）全国统一考试的推出填补了国内相关领域的空白。

法律英语证书（LEC）全国统一考试指导委员会依托中国政法大学和北京外国语大学具体组织考试工作，旨在为从事涉外业务的企业、律师事务所提供招募国际性人才的客观标准，同时督促国内法律从业人员提高专业英语水平。

法律英语证书考试的题型、考察内容与美国的律师资格考试相近，同时又突出了法律英语语言运用的特色，并结合中国的实际增加了法律英语翻译测试。

公检法机关和企事业单位从事涉外法务工作人员；从事涉外法务的律师，公司法律部门的从业人员；高等院校法律、英语、经贸等专业学生；愿意从事法律英语教学的教师以及社会上一切法律英语爱好者均可参加法律英语证书（LEC）考试。

该考试证书是从事涉外法律服务工作人员专业英语水平权威证明，通过考试并取得LEC证书也是赴美攻读法学专业及取得美国律师职业资格的可靠保证。

法律英语证书考试每年举行两次，分别在5月份和12月份的最后一个周六举行，目前已在北京、上海、广州等城市设主考点，法律英语证书（LEC）全国统一考试指导委员会全面负责组考工作。

考试不受年龄、性别、职业、地区、学历等限制，持本人有效身份证件即可报名参加考试。

法律英语证书（LEC）全国统一考试【说明】一、法律英语证书（LEC）考试实行全国统一大纲、统一命题、统一考试制度。

欲了解考试相关信息，考生可随时登陆法律英语证书（LEC）全国统一考试官方网站.二、法律英语证书（LEC）全国统一考试指导委员会下设专家指导委员会，其主要职责是指导考试工作，提出理论学术新观点，参加全国统考委主办的学术研讨及座谈会议，负责制定法律英语证书（LEC）全国统一考试的考试大纲、研究开发考题、编写教材及考试辅导资料等。

法律英语证书(LEC)全国统一考试一、简介外语能力一直是衡量法律职业者素质和专业水平的一个重要方面，特别是经济全球化和我国对外开放不断深入的新形势对法律工作者的英语能力提出了更高的要求。

然而，由于法律英语的特殊性，国内一直没有一个科学的考核指标衡量法律从业人员专业英语的掌握程度。

法律英语证书（Legal English Certificate，简称LEC）全国统一考试的推出填补了国内相关领域的空白。

法律英语证书（LEC）全国统一考试指导委员会依托中国政法大学和北京外国语大学具体组织考试工作，旨在为从事涉外业务的企业、律师事务所提供招募国际性人才的客观标准，同时督促国内法律从业人员提高专业英语水平。

法律英语证书考试的题型、考察内容与美国的律师资格考试相近，同时又突出了法律英语语言运用的特色，并结合中国的实际增加了法律英语翻译测试。

公检法机关和企事业单位从事涉外法务工作人员；从事涉外法务的律师，公司法律部门的从业人员；高等院校法律、英语、经贸等专业学生；愿意从事法律英语教学的教师以及社会上一切法律英语爱好者均可参加法律英语证书（LEC）考试。

该考试证书是从事涉外法律服务工作人员专业英语水平权威证明，通过考试并取得LEC证书也是赴美攻读法学专业及取得美国律师职业资格的可靠保证。

法律英语证书考试每年举行两次，分别在5月份和12月份的最后一个周六举行，目前已在北京、上海、广州、重庆、杭州、济南等城市设考点，法律英语证书（LEC）全国统一考试指导委员会全面负责组考工作。

考试不受年龄、性别、职业、地区、学历等限制，持本人有效身份证件即可报名参加考试。

二、参考教材《法律英语证书(LEC)全国统一考试真题解析》，法律英语证书全国统考委编，法律出版社。

《法律英语证书(LEC)全国统一考试大纲》（修订版），法律英语证书全国统考委编，法律出版社。

《法律英语综合教程》，法律英语证书全国统考委编，中国法制出版社。

《法律英语阅读教程》，法律英语证书全国统考委编，中国法制出版社。

2020年司法考试法律英语专业能力历年真题解析司法考试是对法律专业人员能力的全面考核，其中法律英语专业能力也是其中的一项重要内容。

掌握法律英语专业能力对于学习和实践法律具有重要意义。

本文将对2020年司法考试法律英语专业能力历年真题进行解析，帮助广大考生更好地掌握法律英语专业能力。

一、背景介绍法律英语是指将法律与英语结合起来形成的一种特殊语言体系。

在国际交流和法律实务中，法律英语的运用极为广泛。

因此，掌握法律英语专业能力成为现代法律人士的基本素养之一。

二、解析题目2020年司法考试法律英语专业能力历年真题涉及领域广泛，如合同法、刑法、民事诉讼法等。

下面对其中几个典型的题目进行解析。

题目一：What are the main elements of a valid contract under American law? （美国法下有效合同的主要要素是什么？）解析：这是一道关于合同法的题目。

回答该问题时，可以从以下几个方面进行阐述。

首先，合同法中的要素包括offer（要约）、acceptance（接受）、consideration（对价）和legal purpose（合法目的）。

其次，合同还应当满足明确、合意和可执行的要求。

最后，根据美国法，封存和合法性也是合同的要素之一。

题目二：What are the essential elements to establish criminal liability under English law? （英国法下建立刑事责任的基本要素是什么？）解析：这是一道关于刑法的题目。

回答该问题时，可以从以下几个方面进行解答。

首先，英国法下建立刑事责任的主要要素包括actus reus（违法行为）和mens rea（有心之谋）。

其次，根据具体罪名的不同，还需在这些基本要素之上有所补充和裁定。

例如，对于谋杀罪，还需证明unlawful killing（非法杀人）和malice aforethought（预谋恶意）。