Перевод в сфере юриспруденции - 42 стр.

                                        42

                                      TORT LAW

       Of course not every wrong committed in the society is remediable in tort;
the plaintiff has to show that he has suffered an action recognized as a tortious
one, and he must show that his relation to the tortfeaser (committer of the tort)
gives him the legal capacity to sue. Nevertheless, the law of tort covers a wide
area of wrongdoings which may help those not in a contractual relationship. The
tort of nuisance covers many situations where even though no property is taken
or trespassed upon, your enjoyment of land is interfered with, for example, by a
neighbor who creates too much noise or whose rubbish causes unpleasant
smells. The tort of defamation covers attacks against someone's reputation
through the written or spoken word. The tort of negligence has particularly wide
application. Some torts are known as statutory torts – the kind of breach of duty
which must be proved is defined in a statute. For example, injury suffered
because of defective factory equipment may lead to a negligence action
regulated by the 1969 Employers Liability Act.



                                       TRUSTS

       When creating an express private trust, the settlor creates rights and
obligations that may survive his death. Certain conditions must therefore be
made if the trust is to be valid in law. In English law, for example, there must be
certainty that a trust is being created, what the trust property is, and who the
beneficiaries are. When a husband left property to his widow to use "in any way
she thinks best for the benefit of herself and her family," it was held that there
was no certainty he had intended to create a trust, and so she was free to use the
property as she wanted (Lambe vs Eames, 1871). On the other hand, when a Mr.
Constance opened a bank account in his own name but made arrangements for
his lover to draw money from it, this was certain enough evidence of her rights
as a beneficiary (Paul vs Constance, 1977). When someone's will declared a
trust over "the bulk (greater part) of my estate," it was held there could be no
trust since no one could say how much property should be in the trust (Palmer vs
Simonds, 1854). A trust for the benefit of a firm's employees, former employees,
and their relatives was held to be certain enough even though the number of
beneficiaries might be very large (Re. Baden, 1973). One of the judges in this
case suggested that a trust for the benefit of "the residents of London," would
not be valid, however; although it is certain who the beneficiaries are to be, the
number would be so great the trust could not be administered.