Question

请高手帮忙翻译一下，急用在线等，谢谢！！！

The Court hearing the action, per Coleman J. followed the authority of Society of Lloyd’s v Clementson in determining the nature of the claimant’s action. It held that a person who suffers loss as a consequence of a breach of either article 85 or 86 (now article 81 and 82) has a private right of action which is analogous to a claim for breach of statutory duty (the recent enactment of the Competition Act 1998, has not affected this position). The logical consequence of this case is that the courts may apply by analogy the terms of section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980 to any such action. The limitation period for an action governed by section 2 is six years from the date of accrual. A cause of action for breach of statutory duty accrues when a breach causes actionable damage to the claimant. Actionable damage is damage, which is more than purely nominal, although it should be noted that the Court did not use this term expressly. The application of these principles to actions based on articles 81 and 82 is not however, without its problems. These issues will now be considered.
Accrual of the action
.

Answer 1

法院审理的行动，每科尔曼J的跟随社会的劳合社的V权威克莱芒在确定索赔人的行动的性质。它认为，作为一个人谁遭受的任何一个85或86条（现第81条和82条）违反后果损失一私人诉讼权利，类似于一个法定职责（最近颁布的违反索赔1998年竞争法，并没有影响这一立场）。在这种情况下，合乎逻辑的结果是，法院可以通过类比条的规定，1980年时效法二的规定适用于任何此类行动。供管1条诉讼时效期间二是6从权责发生之日起两年。阿的行动违反法定义务的原因造成违约时，累计可操作的损害索赔。可操作的损害是破坏，更不是纯粹的名义是，尽管应该注意到，法院没有明确使用这个词。这些原则适用于对第81和82的行动然而，没有，没有问题。现在这些问题将予以考虑。
权责发生制的行动