妖娆176991534
1, I think, the production of electric factory to MIKE made negligence of infringement, first, the production of electric drills to purchase the consumer factory has the responsibility, the careful care is one of elements, manufacturers, know about 5% of the electric circuit will be quality to have a problem, can lead to buyers are melting, shock, but not recycling, the purchaser or repair remind the caution of love, is the second requirement. While consumers by shock, so MIKE and hurt badly hurt, etc, which is three elements. So, in the event of all three elements, with, so MIKE to civil tort of negligence to Sue the electric company.2, manufacturer, with caution for love of MIKE? We can come from two aspects, firstly, the reasonable predictability, manufacturers of products is knowing oneself problem will cause accidents, but not the recovery and repair, causing MIKE received very serious damage, it can be predicted, the second is close proximity) (3, and manufacturers should make compensation for the loss of FRED? Obviously, I think yes, because the loss is FRED pure economic loss (loss) and pure have sought compensation for the pure economic loss to meet some of the third prerequisite: for manufacturers, know about 5% of the electric circuit will be quality to have a problem, can lead to buyers are melting, shock, but not recycling repair or cautioned buyers, should be foreseen this batch of products will cause accidents, and give consumers may bring accident, influence, so, I think it can be predicted, the second is the pure economic loss by proximity to (with), I think, the manufacturer's fault, led by MIKEThe shock, thus affecting the FRED's work, so I think it is a causal link between the causal relationship, is close, so that all fit in, so should give appropriate compensation for loss of FRED.Four, but MIKE to Fred loss should make compensation? I think this is not in itself, because of the operation on MIKE no mistakes, because the product quality, the causes of accidents caused by the influence of Fred work, the economic loss, this is not foresee. So MIKE should not liable to FRED.5, manufacturer can have what reason excuse? I think not, because the negligence of the defense has two conditions: a plaintiff themselves are careless, the plaintiff shall voluntarily undertake risk, it is not the case, so the company shall bear all responsibility, no excuse.
mon也是部长
你好 翻译如下2楼的同志你好，what you mean？ So what, ok, you understand every thing.Got? 请看1, I think that the manufacturers of electric production MIKE negligence committed a tort, first of all, the production of an electric drill electric drill on the purchase of the manufacturers of consumer responsibility for the Prevention of Cruelty to have caution, this is one element, producers, know the drill 5% of the quality of some problems, the circuit will melt, will lead to electric shocks by the purchaser, repair or recovery is not to remind the purchaser, which runs counter to the Prevention of Cruelty to be responsible for care is the second element. Consumer MIKE, so by the fall, such as electric shock and serious injury, and this is the third element. Therefore, in this case, three elements are met, therefore, MIKE tort can be prosecuted for negligence of this appliance drilling company.2, the manufacturer of the Prevention of Cruelty to MIKE care responsibilities with it? We can see from the two aspects to consider, first of all, a reasonable predictability manufacturers know their products have problems will lead to accidents, but the recovery and repair, resulting in the MIKE by a serious injury, which it is expected, followed by affinity (proximity)3, while the manufacturers should make compensation for the loss of FRED it? Obviously, I think it is because of the loss suffered FRED pure economic loss (pure economic loss) and seeking compensation for pure economic loss of its third-party will need to meet some of the prerequisite conditions: because the manufacturer know about the electric drill 5% of quality problems, the circuit will melt, will lead to electric shocks by the purchaser, repair or recovery is not to remind the purchaser, it should be expected that these products will lead to accidents, incidents and thus to consumers may affect the great place, so I think that this is foreseeable, the second point is that the pure economic loss has been close to nature with the (proximity), I believe that the fault of the manufacturer, resulting in the suffering MIKEElectric shocks, which affected the work of FRED, I think that there is a causal link between the, the close causal relationship is, therefore, are consistent with these two points, so manufacturers FRED loss should be given appropriate compensation.4, and MIKE should make compensation for the loss of Fred? I do not think this is because the MIKE in itself a failure of the operation because the quality of products caused the accident, which led to Fred's work have been affected, resulting in the economic loss, which is unpredictable. MIKE So should not be held responsible for FRED.5, there is no reason why manufacturers can justify it? I do not think so, because of the negligence defense there are two conditions: a plaintiff also has its own carelessness, the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk, which in this case the two are not, so the company should take full responsibility, there is no excuse.
优质英语培训问答知识库
