死灰复燃英语

看看可不可以用，dying embers/smouldering ash/ashes of the dead.还有金山词霸的翻译: 死灰[dying embers]完全熄灭的火灰,因其颜色为灰白色,用以形容类似的颜色眼睛里那死灰般的颜色忽然不见了,发射出一种喜悦的光。――《七根火柴》面如死灰形容激情已逝,心灰意懒,不再有感情的起伏心若死灰死灰复燃[renascent;come to life again like dying embers that flare up] 比喻失势的力量重又兴起,也比喻已消亡的旧事物又重新活跃起来劫火不烬,玉固如斯;死灰复燃,物有待尔。――宋·陈亮《谢曾察院启》ember n.A small, glowing piece of coal or wood, as in a dying fire. 余烬燃着的小煤块或木块，如在一堆将要熄灭的火堆中embersThe smoldering coal or ash of a dying fire. 余烬将要熄灭的火中的冒着烟的煤块或灰烬

从尸骨中爬起

Dying embers

If the United States tort law on the punitive compensation system reform is a process of "Deconstruction", then ChinaThe system of punitive damages in tort law is a " construction" problem. Tort law of China on whether to introduce the punitive compensation system? If the answer is yes, how to design the system? Tort law of China but also from the American tort reform movement derive what enlightenment?China's current law on the punitive compensation system exists mainly in the field of contract law and its typical legislation has three: one is a great reputation in the "consumer protection law" provisions of the forty-ninth, "operator providing goods or services fraud, consumers should be in accordance with the requirements for additional compensation for the losses incurred, the increased amount of the compensations for consumers to purchase the commodity price or accept service costs double ." Two is the "contract law" article eighty-ninth" earnest money "," accepting the deposit of one party fails to perform the agreed debt, it should be double the return of deposit ." Three was enacted by the Supreme People's Court on the trial of" commercial housing sales contracts dispute case applicable legal interpretation" of the eighth, ninth and fourteenth paragraph 2, respectively on the real estate seller "a house to buy ", providing false information, construction area of error problem, provides " no more than paid the purchase of a times the compensation " or "double return" the liability for compensation. In the field of tort law, in addition to product liability beyond [54 ], there is no punitive damages system.Although the NPC Law Committee presided over the drafting of the" tort liability law" draft and not on the punitive damages system regulation, but the academic circles at present mainly four draft are in different levels of tort law is introduced in the system of punitive damages : Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Professor Liang Huixing presided over the draft ( hereinafter referred to as the "Liang Huixing " the draft ) and the Xiamen University Ma professor Chang Hua prepared draft ( hereinafter referred to as " Ma Chang Hua" draft), provides for intentional torts punitive damages ; [55 ] Renmin University of China professor Wang Liming presided over the draft ( hereinafter referred to as the "Wang Liming " of the draft ) and Professor Yang Lixin presided over the draft ( hereinafter referred to as " Yang Lixin", then the draft ) solely in terms of product liability or tort liability of securities occasions punitive damages responsibility. [56 ]And American tort reform in the encounter, the punitive damages system in Chinese tort law byThe more popular and sought after. From this paper the knowable, although the system of punitive damages in the United States by state law restrictions, but because of the strong punishment and deterrence and prevention function in American tort law still has a very important position. Therefore, China's tort law to introduce the punitive damages system, can be regarded as a wise choice. But the legislation conception, should not be big " convenient ways " to reduce the punitive damages to enter a doorsill, to prevent the " Wang Hai phenomenon" a stirring among the dry bones. So the author thinks, in the system design, still should draw lessons from the experience of the reform of American tort law, a limit punitive damages system developed relatively strict requirements ; on the other hand, may refer to the plaintiff the fill of compensation for punitive damages to set a maximum limit. As a result, in five a draft law on tort liability, "Liang Huixing " the draft will be the applicable condition is strictly limited to "deliberate infringement of life, body, health or emotional meaning property " of the situation, the amount of compensation control in "no more than ( fill damage ) damages of 3 times within the scope of scale to handle properly, is very rigorous and reasonable.

If the United States is tort law on punitive damages system reform is a process of deconstruction so China Tort law on punitive damages system is a "construction" problem. China whether tort law needs to introduce punitive compensation system? If the answer is yes, this how to design the system? China and the United States tort law from tort law reform movement of what enlightenment for? Current China on punitive damages system mainly exist in the contract law, the typical area legislation has 3: it is big names "consumer rights and interests protects a law" the article 49 regulations ", a business operator providing commodities or the service has fraudulent action shall, in accordance with the request of the consumer, increase the loss that recoups its, increase the amount of compensation for consumers to purchase goods or services for the value of the cost of one times ". 2 it is "contract law" the 89th "deposit" regulations ", whoever from deposit a party fails to perform the contract, it shall be the debts of the deposit in double ". Three is issued by the supreme people's court on the trial of commodity house business contract dispute case applicable law the explanation of some issues "of article 8, article 9 and paragraph 2 of article 14, namely, commodity house betray a person to" one house bought more ", providing false information, building area error, the provisions of "no more than paid twice as much as the purchase of compensation" or "pay double the" responsibility for compensation. In tort law system, in addition to product liability [54], and other than no punitive compensation system applicable. Although the National People's Congress FaGongWei host drafted the law of tort liability in the draft and nothing about the regulation of system of punitive damages, but at present the academic circle mainly four draft are of different level in tort law introduced punitive compensation system: the Chinese academy of social sciences institute professor of law LiangHuiXing presided over the draft (hereinafter referred to as "LiangHuiXing" draft) and xiamen university professor of MaChangHua written draft (hereinafter referred to as "MaChangHua" draft), stipulated to intentionally punitive damages for copyright infringement; [55] people's university of China, presided over a draft of the written by wang liming (hereinafter referred to as "written by wang liming" draft) and written by Yang lixin, presided over a draft of the (hereinafter referred to as "written by Yang lixin" draft), the provisions in the tort liability only products or securities tort liability applicable occasions punitive compensation liabilities. [and] And the United States tort law reform than the encounter, punitive damages system in China by law of tort More welcome and popular. In this paper, it is known that the foregoing from despite punitive compensation system by states in the United States laws of the various restrictions, but because of its have strong punishment, stunning and prevention function, in the United States on the tort law is still a very important position. Therefore, China tort method is introduced into the system, punitive damages is a wise choice. But in the legislation idea, not open "door", soprano reduce the entry threshold, punitive damages in case of "wang hai phenomenon of resurgent". So I think, in the system design, the United States still to learn the lessons of tort reform, on the one hand, the limit of punitive damages for the system, make relatively strict established condition; On the other hand, can consult the plaintiff won fill sex damages, to set the maximum amount of punitive damages. Consequently, in the domestic five tort liability law in the draft, "LiangHuiXing" is strictly limited to the condition "deliberately infringes upon the life, body, health or have emotional significance of property" situation, will control the amount in damages "no more than (fill sex damage) three times" damages in the scope, scale hold proper, is especially rigorous reasonable.

如果说美国侵权法上的惩罚性赔偿制度改革是个“解构”的过程，那么中国侵权法上的惩罚性赔偿制度则是一个“建构”问题。中国侵权法上是否需要引进惩罚性赔偿制度？如果回答是肯定的，该如何进行制度设计？中国侵权法又能从美国侵权法改革运动中获得哪些启示呢？中国现行法上的惩罚性赔偿制度主要存在于合同法领域,其典型立法例有三：一是鼎鼎大名的《消费者权益保护法》的第49条，规定“经营者提供商品或服务有欺诈行为的,应当按照消费者的要求增加赔偿其受到的损失,增加赔偿的金额为消费者购买商品的价款或接受服务的费用的一倍”。二是《合同法》第89条的“定金罚则”，规定“收受定金的一方不履行约定的债务的,应当双倍返还定金”。三是最高人民法院颁布的《关于审理商品房买卖合同纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》的第8条、第9条和第14条第2款，分别就商品房出卖人“一屋多买”、提供虚假信息、建筑面积误差等问题，规定了“不超过已付购房款一倍的赔偿”或“双倍返还”的赔偿责任。在侵权法领域，除了产品责任以外[54]，并无惩罚性赔偿制度的适用。虽然全国人大法工委主持起草的《侵权责任法》草案中并没有关于惩罚性赔偿制度的规定，但是目前学术界主要的四个草案均不同程度的在侵权法中引入了惩罚性赔偿制度：中国社会科学院法学研究所梁慧星教授主持的草案（以下简称“梁慧星”草案）和厦门大学麻昌华教授编写的草案（以下简称“麻昌华”草案），规定了对故意侵权行为适用惩罚性赔偿；[55]中国人民大学王利明教授主持的草案（以下简称“王利明”草案）和杨立新教授主持的草案（以下简称“杨立新”草案），则规定仅在产品侵权责任或证券侵权责任场合适用惩罚性赔偿责任。[56]与美国侵权法改革中的遭遇相比，惩罚性赔偿制度在中国侵权法学界受到的更多的欢迎和追捧。从本文前述可知，尽管惩罚性赔偿制度在美国受到各州制定法的种种限制，但由于其具备强力的惩罚、震慑和预防功能，在美国侵权法上仍具有十分重要的地位。因此，中国侵权法引入惩罚性赔偿制度，不失为一种明智的选择。但是在立法理念上，不应大开“方便之门”、降低惩罚性赔偿的进入门槛，以防“王海现象”的死灰复燃。所以笔者认为，在制度设计上，仍要吸取美国侵权法改革的经验教训，一方面限制惩罚性赔偿制度的适用，制定相对严格的成立要件；另一方面，可参照原告所获得的填补性损害赔偿金，对惩罚性赔偿金额设定最高上限。这样一来，在国内五个侵权责任法草案中，“梁慧星”草案将适用条件严格限于“故意侵害他人生命、身体、健康或具有感情意义财产”之情形，将赔偿金数额上控制在“不超过（填补性损害）赔偿金3倍”之范围内，尺度拿捏得当，显得尤为严谨合理。= If the United States tort reform of punitive damages is a \u0026quot;deconstruction\u0026quot; process, then China tort system of punitive damages is a \u0026quot;construct\u0026quot; the problem. China on the need for the introduction of tort law punitive damages system? If the answer is yes, how the design of the system? China from the United States tort law but also tort reform movement which inspired him to get? China\u0026#39;s current law on the punitive damages system, mainly in the field of contract law, legislation of the typical three: First, the famous \u0026quot;Consumer Protection Law\u0026quot; Article 49 provides that \u0026quot;operators to provide goods or services