Question

法律英语翻译

How could a Court achieve such an equitable outcome? Its very suggestion is likely to bring the instant reaction: statutes are not contracts. That may be true, but much of the justification for statutes as law is very similar to the justifications for contract: the reliability of statutes and promises makes possible the future planning essential to modern division of labor and commerce. In those cases in which the same reasons apply, could we not apply some of the developed contract jurisprudence to statutes? Unfortunately it would seem not. When interpretation is not in question, a court can only strike the statute as unconstitutional or allow it to survive intact. On the analogy to contract damages, the victim of the retroactivity gets expectancy interest damages or nothing. Reliance damages are not possible.

Answer 1

法院如何实现这样一个公平的结果?它非常的建议可能会带来即时的反应:法规不合同。这或许是真的,但大部分理由法规的法律非常类似于合同的理由:法规的可靠性和承诺使可能的未来规划必不可少的现代劳动分工和贸易。在这些情况下,应用相同的原因,我们可以不适用一些发达合同法律法规吗?不幸的是,它似乎不是。当解释问题,法院只能罢工法令违宪或允许它完好无损。类比合同损失,追溯既往的受害者获得预期利益损失。依赖损失是不可能的。

Answer 2

How could
a Court achieve such an equitable outcome? Its very suggestion is likely to
bring the instant reaction: statutes are not contracts. That may be true, but
much of the justification for statutes as law is very similar to the
justifications for contract: the reliability of statutes and promises makes
possible the future planning essential to modern division of labor and commerce.
In those cases in which the same reasons apply, could we not apply some of the
developed contract jurisprudence to statutes? Unfortunately it would seem not.
When interpretation is not in question, a court can only strike the statute as
unconstitutional or allow it to survive intact. On the analogy to contract
damages, the victim of the retroactivity gets expectancy interest damages or
nothing. Reliance damages are not possible.

怎么可能一个法院实现这样一个公平的结果？它建议可能带来的即时反应：法规不合同。这可能是真的，但大部分的理由的法律法律是合同的理由非常相似：法规和承诺的可靠性使得未来规划必要劳动和现代商业部。在这些情况下，同样的理由申请，我们可以不适用于一些发达的合同法学对法律？不幸的是，它似乎不。当解释是毫无疑问的，法院只能罢工法令违宪或允许它完好无损。对合同损害赔偿的类比，溯及力的受害者被期待利益赔偿或无。信赖利益赔偿是不可能的。

望采纳，谢谢~~

Answer 3

怎么可能一个法院实现这样一个公平的结果？它建议可能带来的即时反应：法规不合同。这可能是真的，但大部分的理由的法律法律是合同的理由非常相似：法规和承诺的可靠性使得未来规划必要劳动和现代商业部。在这些情况下，同样的理由申请，我们可以不适用于一些发达的合同法学对法律？不幸的是，它似乎不。当解释是毫无疑问的，法院只能罢工法令违宪或允许它完好无损。对合同损害赔偿的类比，溯及力的受害者被期待利益赔偿或无。信赖利益赔偿是不可能的。