Agency Law in China

The particular focus of this essay is on how terms are implied. This is central because the courts intervene and impose implied terms when they believe that in addition to the terms the parties have expressly agreed on, other terms must be implied into the contract. Gillies argued that the courts have become more interventionist in protecting the rights of contracting parties thereby encroaching upon the notion of freedom of contract. The doctrine of freedom of contract is a prevailing philosophy which upholds the idea that parties to a contract should be at liberty to agree on their own terms without the interference of the courts or legislature. Implied terms can be viewed as a technique of construction or interpretation of contracts. It has been argued that the courts are interfering too much in their approach to determine and interpret the terms of a contract. The aim of this essay is to explore this argument further and in doing so consider whether freedom of contract is lost due to courts imposing implied terms. The essay will outline how the common law implies terms. The final part of the essay will examine whether Parliament, by means of a statute, or terms implied by custom restrict freedom in a contract. An overall conclusion on the issue will be reached.

Statutory interpretation is the legal process whereby a judge applies a statute to a case and must give meaning to the words in the statute in order to decide what they mean and how it should be applied to a particular case. When interpreting statutes, the judges’ role is to put into effect the Parliaments wishes. Conflicts may arise when deciding if the intention of Parliament can be found in the words of the statute itself or whether judges should acquire into the purpose of the Act then interpret the words themselves. In order to interpret these

20) With regard to consideration in a sales contract, the UCC differs from the common law in that

Legalism is an ancient Chinese philosophy of administration that believes that humans are more inclined to do wrong than right because they are motivated entirely by self-interest. Shi Huangdi was the founder of the Qin dynasty. After conquering the seven kingdoms in ancient China, he halted the Warring States Period and took the throne as the first emperor of the unified Chinese nation. He ruled on the basis of Legalism. To prevent criticism of his rule, Shi Huangdi ordered that all books that seemed to be useless or against him be burned. This included all poetry from the Chou dynasty and all books written by Confucian scholars. The only books from previous eras that Shi Huangdi let off were the practical ones about medicine and farming. Focusing on the issue of media censorship, the current Chinese government governs in a similar way to the way Qin Shi Huangdi once governed. China still blocks and monitor citizens access to several social media services and shuts down media entertainment programs during government events. While some may see this as an extreme form of censorship, we must consider the fact that several other countries have similar policies in place.

In both China and the United States, the judicial system is composed of courts that contain several different levels. However, there is a basic structural difference between the Chinese and American legal systems. In America, the three branches of government are supposed to be separate, so that the court system is supposed to be beyond party politics and partisan antics. This separate system of checks and balances does not exist in China. On the contrary, the judicial branch is not independent. It is meant as an extension of the government, and therefore of the single political party with any power in China. The distinction between American judicial independence and Chinese judicial dependence may be one of the most critical differences between the two systems because the American judicial branch is meant to act as a check and balance with the other systems, while China's three-part system has the same branches but lacks the same independence.

Contracts are an important part of everyday life. They are an essential part of business. As a student of a business law class, I will discuss in this paper several aspects of contracts. This paper will give a definition of a contract and the essential elements necessary to form a valid contract. It will briefly discuss breach of contract and the difference between a material breach and a nonmaterial breach of contract. Examples of legal and equitable remedies available for breach of contracts will be highlighted. Also, legal excuses for nonperformance or other grounds for discharge of contracts will be addressed. Finally, three types of common contracts personally and professionally encountered will be mentioned.

Normally, contracts are governed and enforced by the law in the state in which the agreement was made but depending on the subject matter of the agreement such as property lease and sales of goods thus a contract may be govern by either one or two types of state law, namely; The common Law and The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).

The legal system is another issue to be considered when doing business in China because it is still viewed as being in a developing stage. Contracts, for example, are highly influenced by this difference. In the Chinese culture, contracts describe how relationships will be developed whereas in the United States, the contract is a binding agreement that spells out the specific terms, conditions and expectations from each party involved. As Company X pursues the possibility of expanding business to China, it must understand that the Chinese business culture does not place as much emphasis on the binding force of a written contract.

The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), in contrast, falls under civil law, “which is based on a rigid code of rules” (businessdictionary.com, 2013). It was established to create a uniform set of laws for business transactions, since common law can vary from state to state (Beatty, Samuelson, Bredeson, 2013). As far as contracts are concerned, Article 2 of the UCC is of most significance. This part of the code deals with the sale of goods. Goods are defined in terms of contracts as anything that is moveable, other than money, investment securities and certain legal rights (Beatty, Samuelson, Bredeson, 2013). Common law, on the other hand, is used for contracts involving the sale of services or anything else other than goods (Beatty, Samuelson, Bredeson, 2013).

All contracts are governed by the state laws where the agreement was made. Nevertheless, a contract can either be governed by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) or

The rules governing contracts traditionally came from common law, meaning the law that is produced on an ad hoc basis by courts. When the courts came up against a novel problem, they look at

Statutory interpretation is process of interpreting statutes by the judges. The definition of statutes have had very specific words but indeed the judges would still need the statutory interpretation to help them. The reason of this, even how, the words in the statutes are specific but sometimes the words contains ambiguity and vagueness in words. On top of that, each word could give us different meaning. For example, we can find in the Oxford Dictionary where a word would contain at least one meaning. Hence, without the statutory interpretation, a lot of judges would have trouble in deciding their judgments in deciding a case. This essay will analyse the four rules, intrinsic aids and extrinsic aids and presumptions in the interpretation

Due to the different roots of the two systems, the definition of a contract, as well as its formation, differ between contract law in Common Law Jurisdictions and in Civil Law Jurisdictions (France). The Common Law views contracts as bargains, exchange, a simple agreement has no binding force. It is mainly concerned with forecasting the impact and the binding legal consequences of a party’s promise. The structure or purpose of the contract is not as important as knowing whether the promise of performance that the contract is based upon is enforceable.

This essay will explore the changes that Article 263 TFEU has had to the accessibility of judicial review before the CJEU as well as assessing whether the reforms introduced were sufficient enough in improving a private parties ability to bring government decisions under scrutiny. In addition, the judgments of the Court in Inuit and Microban will be considered. This essay will analyse present criticisms of the definition set out in the two cases and the overall effect of the new article.

A Contract requires several elements in order to be considered enforceable. However for the purpose of this essay we would explore one of these elements in order to effectively understand the controversial cases of Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (contractors) Ltd (1990) and Stilk v Myrick (1804). Before going any further one should briefly understand the doctrine of Consideration. Despite the vast amount of content written, the doctrine of consideration is still to this day unclear due to the inconsistency of the courts and its application of necessary rules. Consideration refers to that which the law deems as valuable in that the promisor receives from the promise that which was promised. In other words, it is the exchange of something of value between the parties in a contract. One should be mindful that in English law, every promise may not be legally enforceable; it requires the court to distinguish between are enforceable and non-enforceable obligations. This brings us to the controversial cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v the Roffery brothers. Many argue that that the case of Williams was wrongly decided leading to impairments in the rule initially established in Stilk v Myrick. This essay seek to analyse and critique the cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v Roffey Brothers and also highlight whether or not the new rule of Practical benefit lead to serious impairments in later cases.