厦门大学2003年招收攻读博士学位研究生 yzz(<s:o/
)n$RHt+:>
入 学 考 试 试 题 +p &$`(
(%|L23
y3mJO[U0 a
| PzXN+DW
招生专业: 国际法 考试科目:民法与罗马法 $lAhKpdlW
H,U qU3b3
研究方向: 国际民商法 {@3p^b*E)1
__,}/|K2
注意:答案必须标明题号,按序写在专用答题纸上,写在本试卷上或草稿纸上者一律不给分。 "\x\P)j0>
PD@@4@^
=VDtZSa!$^
F5/,H:K\
以下4题,选做两题,每题50分,第1题必做. ~er4w+"
HXRK<6k$
/mFa*~dj2
N+0`Jm
1、论人身关系 tvvR
HvL
1M/_:UH`
2、论财团法人 ]iVoF N}^
zrCQEQq
3、论亲权 'Lv>!s 7
mRC6m
K>
4、论遗嘱自由 ,[0rh%%j
PEHaH"|([=
Fwv(J_'q
jCv%[H7
4?9cyv4H
@+
U++
说明: NKS-G2Y<P
\%011
I4
>J
No2
p(]o#$ 6[
*要求每道题都以论文的形式解答,除了观点能自圆其说外,还要求文字流畅、论证扎实、层次分明,不能以依序数罗列要点的方式答题。 oN6 '%
J`x!c9 zg7
*不分别就民法和罗马法出题,对每道题的解答,都必须同时涉及到罗马法和现代民法,两者各占每题分数的一半。 -R-|[xN
b".e6zev
BSib/)p
&lYe
vD*9b.*
b
#[7A
厦大法学院2002年度国际法专业国际民商法研究方向博士生入学考试之“国际私法”试题 ~)&im.Q4
?h4Rh0rkX
论述题(每小题25分,共100分) 17{$D,P
1、从私人、社会和国家之间的关系分析法律选择中的当事人“意思自治”原则。 >m;
*Zk`
2、如何适用最密切联系原则? p +>vX
X
3、试述国际民事管辖权冲突(国际民事诉讼竞合)的解决方法。 IJt8*
cw
4、试论中国区际冲突法的立法模式。 V
K)%Us-
nm597WeZp
?H2{R:
;jgJI~3l
+`)4jx)r/
2002年度国际法专业国际民商法研究方向博士生民法·罗马法考试试题 a9 CK4Kg
$rG~0
一、论述题(以下4题,选做两题,每题50分,第1题必做)
xfyUT^
x.OCE`
1、 论人格权 5,<:|/r
2、 论制定中国民法典 L93KsI
3、 论所有权的客体 dUg| {l
4、 论债的本质和功能 ]VU a$$
@a{1vT9b
`>mT/Rmb@
说明: dLs40 -R
lrXi*u]
*要求每道题都以论文的形式解答,除了观点能自圆其说外,还要求文字流畅、论证扎实、层次分明,不能以依序数罗列要点的方式答题。 JNYFu0
*不分别就民法和罗马法出题,对每道题的解答,都必须同时涉及到罗马法和现代民法。 5|E_ ,d!v
(K(6`~
SqF9#&F
U[Pll~m2b
-`o22G3w
厦大法学院2000年硕士研究生入学考试民法试卷 vQ/&iAyut
民法试卷(研2000) `f9I#B
] hxE^/8 7
一、名词解释(4*5,20分) X~ AE??
vl'2O7
1、抗辩权 Z,~EH
I<'wZJRRa
2、宣告死亡 DhL]\
4
Y!8Ik(/~i
3、过错 x-:a5Kz!
G@O~*k1v
4、复代理 IfH*saN7
*[(}rpp M
5、专利权 !XvQm*1
J 1?)z+t9~
二、简答题(4*10,40分) ~
cKmf]
[HKTXF{n
1、简述法人的成立条件 26c,hPIeXY
Qg \OJmv
2、简述相邻关系的种类和处理原则 <23oyMR0
ZE ())W"
3、简述民法对所有权的保护 6w
d0
"
+w
;2k w
4、我国法定继承人的范围和顺序 @w)Vt$+b]
<$^76=x,8P
三、法条解释(20分) ;E8.,#/a
DA5kox&cU
1、《合同法》第54条第二款:一方以欺诈、胁迫的手段或者乘人之危,使对方在违背真实意思的情况下订立的合同,受损害方有权请求人民法院或者仲裁机构变更或者撤销。 !+;'kI2
p nS{W
\Q
四、论述题(20分) m'))prl
?N
6'*2{NT
《合同法》与合同自由原则 4,o|6H
mCa[?
c:SA#.
%1uY
厦大法学院2002年度国际法专业国际民商法研究方向博士生入学考试之“专业外语”试题 #S57SD
]UR@V;JG
请将下列材料翻译成汉语: 6!|-,t><
CONDITIONS `u%`Nj
]V,wIyC
L'dR;T[;
7V6gT}R
A. EXPRESS CONDITIONS PVGvj c
i1q
he?5
IN RE CARTER’S CLAIM
Bn83W4M
`K.2&6xc
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1957. ?0>%
a$`
S&y (A0M
390 Pa. 365, 134 A.2d 908. xFU*,Y
|Co ?uv
i
n\f8%z
~yQby&s
Before CHARLES ALVIN JONES, C. J., and BELL, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO, ARNOLD, BENJAMIN R. JONES and COHEN, JJ. c2aX
_ "
Y
#9dVUS
BENJAMIN R. JONES, Justice. C
NDf&dzX8
h|^RM*x
This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon an arbitrator’s award in a proceeding under the Act of 1927. `Pa)H
/%w9F
In June 1954 the Edwin J. Schoettle Co., a Pennsylvania corporation, and its six subsidiaries were available for purchase. Lester L. Kardon, interested in purchasing the company and five of its subsidiaries, opened negotiations for that purpose. The negotiations extended from June 24, 1954 to September 17, 1954, on which latter date the parties entered into a written agreement under the terms of which Kardon (hereinafter called the buyer) purchased all the issued and outstanding capital stock of Schoettle Co. and all its subsidiaries (hereinafter called sellers). The total purchase price set forth in the agreement of sale (excluding certain real estate) was $2,100,000 of which amount $187,863.60 was set aside under paragraph 11 of the agreement to be held by the provident Trust Company of Philadelphia as escrow agent to indemnify the buyer against “the liabilities of sellers by reason of any and all provisions of this agreement.” }P8@\2@=T
NwH`t#zd
The present litigation arises form the fact that the buyer has presented a claim against the escrow fund for $69,998.42 as a “liability” of the seller under the agreement. Payment of this claim having been disputed by the sellers, both parties, under the provisions of the agreement, submitted to arbitration and Judge Gerald F. Flood was selected as arbitrator. On October 26, 1956 Judge Flood, as arbitrator, and, after hearing, awarded to the buyer $3,182.88.[1] Buyer’s motion to correct the arbitrator’s award was dismissed by the Code of common Pleas No. 6 of Philadelphia County and judgment was entered in the amount of $3,182.88 in conformity with the arbitrator’s award. From that judgment this appeal ensued. ku
=o$I8K
xZJ
r*
r|U'2+vn
%A@Q %l6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \`:X37n)0q
DA)mkp
[1] The buyer’s claim is based largely on the proposition that sellers had warranted the company’s net worth. The amount allowed by the arbitrator $3,182.88 represented an error in computing state taxes, additional taxes and water rent. This amount is undisputed as a proper claim against the fund. 9>y6zFTV
!&f(Xs
Y|eB;Dm1q
}pP<+U
厦大法学院2000年硕士研究生入学考试民法试卷 4CR.=
民法试卷(研2000) m
K!73<p_
(DzV3/+p^
一、名词解释(4*5,20分) +}IOTw"O`
1
J3h_z6/
1、抗辩权 [i7Ug.Oi"
U#=Q`
2、宣告死亡 xHs8']*\
$tGk,.#j
3、过错 f0S&