Ask for help in legal English translation, legal English translation, please help with the master

Criminal Law and Lucky ** Sanford HKaddish I propose to consider how to make a doctrine of criminal law seem irrational to support, although it is almost universally accepted by Western law, supported by many jurists and philosophers, whose resonance with intuitions lawyers and legal professionals. This is the doctrine of harm, which I call -- mitigating punishment for intentional offenders (often excluded from punishment for dereliction of duty and reckless wrongdoers) if Zhu Yuanzhang harms them intentionally or probably, it will not happen.

I will also consider that the doctrine of necessary damage provides an adequate defence against the injuries inflicted on the accused if, by coincidence, unbeknownst they are unlikely to be served. Whether the doctrine of damage can be justified is, as George Young said"Deep an unanswered question in the theory of criminal responsibility. "Indeed, a German scholar, Bjornburkhardt, recently concluded his comparative review of the law with sober words on the subject"Little progress has been made towards solving this problem in the last 200 years.

He also said:"The past of controversy continues to dominate contemporary discourse. h]ardly what substantial has been added.

He concluded:"At the end of the day, whether a convincing and rational debate is possible on this issue. "This may also be the case.

The issue of controversy remains unanswered, despite the careful attention of several generations of scholars. However, despite the formulaic nature of the ground, the subject is still fascinating, and I am not attracted to the criminal law that those of us are worried about (perhaps simply because it breaks the satisfactorial settlement).

Analysis:1Business-interruption insurance is defined as business interruption insurance.

2.Post-storm profits, which refers to the return to profit after a sharp economic crash, here literally translated as "post-storm profits".

3.In the second paragraph, "cour" should be a clerical error of "court"; The word "conteract" in the second sentence should be a clerical error of "contract".

4.finger, a person's first and last name, is conventionally translated as "Finger". Commonwealth is an insurance company, literally translated as a federal corporation.

5.The translation of the full text is carried out according to the principle of maintaining the meaning of the original text, and is as close to its style as possible. The details still need to be proofread according to the full text.

The first issue in the claim is how to calculate the loss caused by the business interruption insurance clause in the Inger policy of the federal corporation. Commonwealth Corporation alleges that the District Court should have used the profits from the 16-17 June 2001 Finger storm to offset the losses resulting from the 9-10 June 2001 Finger policy. However, Finger argues that the policy language does not allow federal corporations to consider Finger's post-storm profit termination loss from Finger's business interruption insurance.

According to Finger, Commonwealth attempted to avoid paying for Finger's losses on June 9-10, 2001, under the guise of policy language.

Because the case was divisive, the court had to apply Texas contract law to interpret policy. In Texas, if a policy is written in text so that it can give a only reasonable explanation, then the court must enforce it as written. Here, there is only one reasonable interpretation of the business interruption insurance provisions.

The first question is how to calculate the loss of the finger provided under the business-interruption policy and the Federal District Court of Federal District Court said that there should be a profit to compensate the loss of the finger, the 9 June 2001 post-storm with the finger pointer, the pointer of 16 17 June 2001, but the language, The determination of the business-interruption finger that does not allow the federal government to consider the post-storm profit loss of the finger is based on the language of the federal policy sought to expand the finger, to avoid spending the loss of the finger on June 9, 2001.

Because this is a multiplicity of situations, this site must apply for a legal conteract interpretation of Texas policy in Texas, and if a policy is worded so that only one reasonable construction can be given, the court shall enforce this policy here, and there is only one reasonable explanation for the business-interruption provisions.

Fainting, from the context, finger is the appellant's surname, and commonwealth should be the name of the insurance company.

The first issue is how to calculate the loss due to business interruption in accordance with the treaty. Finger objected to Commonwealth's use of post-storm (16-17/06/01) profits to calculate losses on 9-10 June, arguing that they were trying to evade compensation.

Because the case involved different interpretations of the insurance treaty, the Texas (suspected contract law) should be applied to the interpretation of the treaty, i.e., if the treaty uses language to indicate that there can only be one reasonable interpretation, the court must rule accordingly. There was only one reasonable interpretation for the ordinance in this case.