raison
envie
besoin
tort
第1题：
The defences and limits of liability ______ in this bill of lading shall apply in any action against the carrier for loss of or damage to the goods whether the action be founded in contract or in tort.
A.required
B.provided for
C.requested
D.supplied
第2题：
第3题：
Where can wemost probably read this text?
A.In s research paper
B.In a tort story.
C.In a travel magazine.
D.In a student’s book.
第4题：
required
provided for
requested
supplied
第5题：
单选题
多选题
判断题
矩阵题
第6题：
材料：
The contract of carriage of GOODs by sea is usually concluded as between the shipper and the carrier，either directly or through their respective agents．
Consequently，by virtue of the historic principle of privity of contract，only the shipper and the carrier have the right to take action against one another under the contract of carriage．The only clear exception to the rule was where the party having the right to sue assigned that right under a separate agreement to another party．
On the other hand，when GOODs are sold（as they typically are）prior to shipment，the terms of sale generally result in the risk in the GOODs passing from the seller（the shipper）to the buyer（the consignee or endorsee，in the case of a bill of lading，or the party entitled to take delivery under a waybill）when the GOODs cross the ship&39;s rail in the port of loading．
Therefore，although the law recognizes that the shipper alone has the right to sue the carrier in contract for subsequent cargo loss or damage occurring while the carrier had charge of the shipment，the shipper is not usually the party who actually suffers that loss．
Frequently，also，depending on the terms of sale，the shipper will no longer be the owner of the GOODs at the time when the loss or damage occurs，and so will be unable to sue the carrier in tort．
问题：
The contract of carriage of GOODs by sea is usually concluded as between ________．
A.the seller and the buyer
B.the shipper and the consignee or endorsee
C.the carrier and the consignee or endorsee
D.the shipper and the carrier
It is concluded ________ that only the shipper and the carrier have the right to take action against one another under the contract of carriage．A.by maritime laws
B.by a mainstay of the common law in particular
C.by virtue of the historic principle of privity of contract
D.by shipping practice
When GOODs are sold prior to shipment the risk in the GOODs passes ________．A.from the shipper to the carrier
B.from the seller to the buyer
C.from the carrier to the shipper
D.from the buyer to the seller
When GOODs are sold prior to shipment the shipper ________．A.is not usually the party who actually suffers the subsequent loss
B.is usually the party who actually suffers the subsequent loss
C.will still be the owner of the GOODs at the time when the loss or damage occurs
D.will be responsible for the loss of or damage to the cargo he shipped
请帮忙给出每个问题的正确答案和分析，谢谢！
第7题：
第8题：
In relation to company law, explain:
(a) the limitations on the use of company names; (4 marks)
(b) the tort of ‘passing off’; (4 marks)
(c) the role of the company names adjudicators under the Companies Act 2006. (2 marks)
(a) Except in relation to specifically exempted companies, such as those involved in charitable work, companies are required to indicate that they are operating on the basis of limited liability. Thus private companies are required to end their names, either with the word ‘limited’ or the abbreviation ‘ltd’, and public companies must end their names with the words ‘public limited company’ or the abbreviation ‘plc’. Welsh companies may use the Welsh language equivalents (Companies Act (CA)2006 ss.58, 59 & 60).
Companies Registry maintains a register of business names, and will refuse to register any company with a name that is the same as one already on that index (CA 2006 s.66).
Certain categories of names are, subject to the decision of the Secretary of State, unacceptable per se, as follows:
(i) names which in the opinion of the Secretary of State constitute a criminal offence or are offensive (CA 2006 s.53)
(ii) names which are likely to give the impression that the company is connected with either government or local government authorities (s.54).
(iii) names which include a word or expression specified under the Company and Business Names Regulations 1981 (s.26(2)(b)). This category requires the express approval of the Secretary of State for the use of any of the names or expressions contained on the list, and relates to areas which raise a matter of public concern in relation to their use.
Under s.67 of the Companies Act 2006 the Secretary of State has power to require a company to alter its name under the following circumstances:
(i) where it is the same as a name already on the Registrar’s index of company names.
(ii) where it is ‘too like’ a name that is on that index.
The name of a company can always be changed by a special resolution of the company so long as it continues to comply with the above requirements (s.77).
(b) The tort of passing off was developed to prevent one person from using any name which is likely to divert business their way by suggesting that the business is actually that of some other person or is connected in any way with that other business. It thus enables people to protect the goodwill they have built up in relation to their business activity. In Ewing v Buttercup
Margarine Co Ltd (1917) the plaintiff successfully prevented the defendants from using a name that suggested a link with
his existing dairy company. It cannot be used, however, if there is no likelihood of the public being confused, where for example the companies are conducting different businesses (Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Dunlop Motor Co Ltd (1907)
and Stringfellow v McCain Foods GB Ltd (1984). Nor can it be used where the name consists of a word in general use (Aerators Ltd v Tollitt (1902)).
Part 41 of the Companies Act (CA) 2006, which repeals and replaces the Business Names Act 1985, still does not prevent one business from using the same, or a very similar, name as another business so the tort of passing off will still have an application in the wider business sector. However the Act introduced a new procedure to deal specifically with company names. As previously under the CA 1985, a company cannot register with a name that was the same as any already registered (s.665 Companies Act (CA) 2006) and under CA s.67 the Secretary of State may direct a company to change its name if it has been registered in a name that is the same as, or too like a name appearing on the registrar’s index of company names. In addition, however, a completely new system of complaint has been introduced.
(c) Under ss.69–74 of CA 2006 a new procedure has been introduced to cover situations where a company has been registered with a name
(i) that it is the same as a name associated with the applicant in which he has goodwill, or
(ii) that it is sufficiently similar to such a name that its use in the United Kingdom would be likely to mislead by suggesting a connection between the company and the applicant (s.69).
Section 69 can be used not just by other companies but by any person to object to a company names adjudicator if a company’s name is similar to a name in which the applicant has goodwill. There is list of circumstances raising a presumption that a name was adopted legitimately, however even then, if the objector can show that the name was registered either, to obtain money from them, or to prevent them from using the name, then they will be entitled to an order to require the company to change its name.
Under s.70 the Secretary of State is given the power to appoint company names adjudicators and their staff and to finance their activities, with one person being appointed Chief Adjudicator.
Section 71 provides the Secretary of State with power to make rules for the proceedings before a company names adjudicator.
Section 72 provides that the decision of an adjudicator and the reasons for it, are to be published within 90 days of the decision.
Section 73 provides that if an objection is upheld, then the adjudicator is to direct the company with the offending name to change its name to one that does not similarly offend. A deadline must be set for the change. If the offending name is not changed, then the adjudicator will decide a new name for the company.
Under s.74 either party may appeal to a court against the decision of the company names adjudicator. The court can either uphold or reverse the adjudicator’s decision, and may make any order that the adjudicator might have made.
第9题：
第10题：
Blizzard
Spray
PArray
PCloud