抗辩英语怎么说

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.

reply既可作不及物动词，又可作及物动词，还可作名词。作不及物动词，其意为“回答”，可用“reply to(sb. /sth. )”表示“对……作出回答”。作及物动词时，其意为“回答”，“回答说”。作名词时，意思为“答道”，“回信”，“答复”，后面跟介词to。 She sighed, but didn’t reply. 她叹了口气，没有回答。 He failed to reply to my question. 他没能回答我的问题。 What did he do in reply to your challenge?你提出与他较量，他作何反应? 注：reply和answer的区别 两个词都表示“回答”的意思。但是answer比较常用，如：answer a question/thedoor-bell/telephone, 而reply较正式，经过思考，一一答复问题。除了后面可跟直接引语或宾语从句以外，一般只用作不及物动词，和连用。参考资料：百度知道`

释义及词组节选 1）  A defendant's stated reason why the plaintiff or prosecutor has no valid case;esp., a defendant's answer, denial, or plea  答辩理由· 指民事诉讼中被告对原告起诉状中的主张和请求，或者刑事诉讼中被告人对控诉方的指控所做的否认、反驳，以及支持被告人反驳主张的理由、证据等。 affirmative defense   肯定性答辩     =plea in avoidance; plea in justification  Cf. negative defense capacity defense   能力欠缺抗辩 defense of habitation  居住防卫权    =defense of premises dilatory defense   延诉抗辩 equitable defense  衡平法上的抗辩 exculpatory defense   无罪辩护 issuable defense   涉及实质性问题的答辩 peremptory defense  绝对答辩public-authority defense  公共权力的抗辩     = entrapment-by-estoppel defense 2)   A defendant's method and strategy in opposing the plaintiff or the prosecution; a doctrine giving rise to such a method or strategy < the lawyer advised her client to adopt a passive defense and to avoid taking the witness stand>. 3)  One or more defendants in trial, as well as their counsel < the defense rests.> 4)  Commercial law. A basis for avoiding liability on a negotiable instrument < the drawer asserted a real defense against the holder in due course>. personal defense  属人抗辩     =limited defense 5) measures taken by a country or individual to protect against an attack.6)  A country's military establishment.

answer 是回答的意思reply 是回复的意思can you answer this question?你能回答这个问题吗?you should reply the e-mail.你应该回复这封邮件

这个翻译，你出100人民币才有人翻译。

I think I can competently do it for free, unlike the other guy. It is a products liability case. There are three causes of action an injured party can bring: breach of warranty, negligence, and strict product liability. What are the facts? My question is why not strict product liablity. Why is Mike not suing Fred, his employer. Why are you discussing Manufacturer's potential liability agasint Fred. Mike is all you need to worry about. 1. (When you are making an argument in a legal brief as here, DO NOT use I think, becaues it does not matter what you think. So just get on with the argument.) The drill Manufacturer("M") is negligent against Mike. First, the drill manufacturer has the duty to protect its consumers as a reasonable prudent manufacturer. M knew that 5% of its products had defective circuits resulting in melting of such circuits and electricuting users. However, there has been no warning or product recall on part of the M; therefore, M breached its duty as a reasonable prudent M. Mike is a consumer of M's product and is injured because of drill's defect in a manner foreseeable by the M. All three prima facie elements are met. Mike could have a cause of action against M in negligence. (you are missing causation here.) 2. Duty arises when there is a reasonably foreseeable danger that could cause harm. It is reasonably foreseeable that a drill could electricute a user when M put defective products on the market. It is irrelevant the manner in which the accident occurs; as long as it is caused by the defect, M has breached its duty. In the instant case, the way Mike is harmed is exactly the way he is expected to be harmed, so proximity of harm is met. 3. Pure economic loss is only recoverable in nelgigence when there is personal injury or property damage. Fred is the employer of Mike. So he is not going to recover for the loss as a result of losing Mike as an employee. If Fred owns the drill and the defective drill has damaged other property of his, he might get recovery of other property, usually measured by rental value. 4. Consequential damages in tort is governed by proximate causation. Fred should be precluded from recovering consequential damages because such harms are too far removed from the defect. 5. Mike has no liability against Fred for he is doing what is supposed to do. 6. M has affirmative defenses in contributory negligence and assumption of risk. Both defenses need to be pleaded by the defendant, M, and in some juridictions, both defenses can be brought in when rebutting causation. Are you a law student in China learning American torts? LOL!!