新書推薦 | 劉芳：《美國法通識(shí)》 | 一本向中國人介紹美國法律體系的著作

美國法通識(shí)：十大核心法律課程

為塑造法學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)前沿微信公眾平臺(tái)的風(fēng)格，微信推送的外標(biāo)題系編輯根據(jù)文章理解所加，不代表作者立場。

《美國法通識(shí)：十大核心法律課程》

作者 劉芳

出版社 清華大學(xué)出版社

出版時(shí)間 2026.4

ISBN 9787302710400

編輯推薦

1. 美國密歇根州最高法院前任首席大法官史蒂芬·馬克曼撰寫了推薦序言

2. 系統(tǒng)梳理和總結(jié)了美國法學(xué)院和美國律師職業(yè)考試涵蓋的十大核心法律課程的內(nèi)容與知識(shí)點(diǎn)

3. 實(shí)務(wù)操作為出發(fā)點(diǎn)，結(jié)合大量案例講解，理論與實(shí)踐相結(jié)合

內(nèi)容簡介

本書以清晰、生動(dòng)的方式，系統(tǒng)地為中文讀者全面呈現(xiàn)美國法律的核心內(nèi)容與思維邏輯。緊扣美國法學(xué)院教學(xué)體系與律師執(zhí)業(yè)資格考試的真實(shí)框架，精選十大核心法律領(lǐng)域，系統(tǒng)梳理主要制度理論與關(guān)鍵知識(shí)要點(diǎn)。同時(shí)，通過經(jīng)典判例解析與大量貼近實(shí)務(wù)的真實(shí)場景，將抽象的法律規(guī)則轉(zhuǎn)化為可理解、可記憶的法律故事，引導(dǎo)讀者在案例分析與規(guī)則適用中把握美國法律的運(yùn)行邏輯。全書實(shí)現(xiàn)理論與案例的有機(jī)融合，語言通俗而不失嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)，既適合初學(xué)者系統(tǒng)入門，也具備長期查閱與進(jìn)階參考價(jià)值，并同步提升英文法律表達(dá)與實(shí)務(wù)溝通能力，尤為適合法學(xué)院學(xué)生、比較法研究者、美國律師資格考試備考者及從事涉外法律業(yè)務(wù)的實(shí)務(wù)人士閱讀。

作者簡介

劉芳

中國和美國紐約州、加利福尼亞州、密歇根州及華盛頓特區(qū)注冊(cè)律師，長期從事中美兩國公司法、跨境投融資并購、私募股權(quán)投資、知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)以及涉外商事訴訟和仲裁法律事務(wù)。

1999年本科畢業(yè)于北京大學(xué)法律系，2009年至2014年就讀于美國西密歇根大學(xué)庫利法學(xué)院和美國加州大學(xué)伯克利法學(xué)院，獲得法學(xué)碩士（LL.M.）和法學(xué)博士（J.D.magna cum laude）學(xué)位，并跟隨美國密歇根州最高法院大法官史蒂芬?馬克曼（Stephen Markman）和密歇根州第17巡回法院經(jīng)濟(jì)庭知名法官克里斯多夫?耶茨（Christopher Yates）實(shí)習(xí)。合著出版《商業(yè)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)戰(zhàn)略》；翻譯出版《商業(yè)秘密：網(wǎng)絡(luò)時(shí)代的信息資產(chǎn)管理》；在知產(chǎn)林教育平臺(tái)和點(diǎn)睛網(wǎng)律師培訓(xùn)平臺(tái)錄制并發(fā)行美國法課程系列。

史蒂芬大法官

推薦序

美國大法官推薦中國讀者讀《美國法通識(shí)》

本文系美國密歇根州最高法院前任首席大法官史蒂芬·馬克曼為《美國法通識(shí)—— 十大核心法律課程》撰寫的序言。史蒂芬·馬克曼大法官在美國密歇根州最高法院任職長達(dá)21年，并曾擔(dān)任首席大法官。在此之前，他在密歇根州擔(dān)任了4年首席聯(lián)邦檢察官，在美國參議院司法委員會(huì)及其憲法小組委員會(huì)擔(dān)任顧問7年，在美國司法部工作4年，擔(dān)任法律政策助理檢察長，負(fù)責(zé)為美國總統(tǒng)選拔聯(lián)邦法官的遴選程序。此外，馬克曼大法官還教授美國憲法課程近30年。（Justice Stephen Markman served for 21 years as a Justice and for a period as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Michigan; prior to that, he served for four years as the Michigan’s ‘United States Attorney’ or chief federal prosecutor; for seven years as Counsel for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee and the U.S. Subcommittee on the Constitution; and for four years as Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy in the U.S. Department of Justice, where he headed the federal judicial selection process for an American President. He has also taught American constitutional law for nearly thirty years.）

譯文

與劉芳第一次見面時(shí)，我正在美國密歇根州最高法院任職。密歇根州是美國一個(gè)規(guī)模較大且工業(yè)化程度較高的州。劉芳畢業(yè)于北京大學(xué)法學(xué)院，當(dāng)時(shí)正攻讀美國最大法學(xué)院之一的法學(xué)學(xué)位。我記得她在多門課程中獲得了最高分，正在打破學(xué)校的歷史紀(jì)錄，這對(duì)一位非英語母語的學(xué)生而言是非凡的成就。不久之后，她又在美國最負(fù)盛名的法學(xué)院之一獲得了高等法律學(xué)位。相比之下，我甚至連她新書的中文標(biāo)題都讀不出來，更別提理解其中的內(nèi)容了。幸運(yùn)的是，借助某種先進(jìn)的人工智能，這本書被翻譯成了英文，使我得以閱讀，盡管這項(xiàng)人工智能的翻譯在中文和英文上似乎還略顯生澀。

在我看來，是什么讓劉芳在申請(qǐng)密歇根州最高法院實(shí)習(xí)時(shí)脫穎而出？也許是她在充滿挑戰(zhàn)的環(huán)境中取得的卓越學(xué)術(shù)成就令我深感欽佩；也許是我對(duì)這樣一位成績斐然的學(xué)生如何在法庭工作中展現(xiàn)才華充滿好奇；又或許只是她的個(gè)人魅力和自信光芒難以忽視。顯然，她并未意識(shí)到，對(duì)于一名年輕的法律學(xué)生而言，司法面試是一項(xiàng)多么嚴(yán)肅且充滿壓力的考驗(yàn)。無論原因如何，劉芳最終獲得了這份實(shí)習(xí)機(jī)會(huì)，使她得以深入了解美國司法體系的復(fù)雜性和日常運(yùn)作。隨著時(shí)間的推移，我欣慰地看到，劉芳在法院實(shí)習(xí)中獲得的實(shí)踐經(jīng)驗(yàn)不僅使她受益良多，也惠及了她的讀者。

在詮釋美國法律體系的核心價(jià)值觀時(shí)，人們往往可以找到多種解讀方式。作為一名美國法學(xué)家，我深信這一體系的價(jià)值，并堅(jiān)信我們所推崇的“法治”理念推動(dòng)了美國的成長與繁榮，激發(fā)了社會(huì)創(chuàng)新，保障了公民的自由權(quán)利。這些價(jià)值觀在本書中可見一斑。

在梳理這些核心價(jià)值觀時(shí)，我將重點(diǎn)闡述一些對(duì)非美國法律從業(yè)者尤為重要的基本準(zhǔn)則，希望這些原則能獲得他們的認(rèn)同。在此過程中，我并非意圖將這些準(zhǔn)則與中國或其他法律體系進(jìn)行對(duì)比，因?yàn)槲也⑽磳ｉT學(xué)習(xí)過其他法律體系。盡管如此，我仍記得曾在幾次交流中與劉芳探討過中國法律在實(shí)踐中的具體問題。回想起來，我本該懷著更強(qiáng)烈的求知欲深入探討這些話題，但密歇根州最高法院堆積如山的上訴案件使我不得不將時(shí)間和精力集中在美國及密歇根州法律的解釋上，這已經(jīng)是一份全職的投入。

美國法律體系以一部全國性的憲法為基礎(chǔ)。該憲法不僅界定了政府的權(quán)力及其邊界，還確立了235年前以憲法之名制定并記錄的公民個(gè)人權(quán)利。

美國法律體系基于聯(lián)邦制原則，將政府權(quán)力在聯(lián)邦政府（位于華盛頓特區(qū)）與50個(gè)州政府（包括密歇根州在內(nèi)）之間進(jìn)行分配。因此，美國由51個(gè)相對(duì)獨(dú)立的法律體系組成。這一結(jié)構(gòu)旨在分散權(quán)力，從而限制政府權(quán)力的行使。

美國法律體系還基于將政府權(quán)力分配至立法、行政和司法三個(gè)部門的原則。每個(gè)部門擁有特定的憲法權(quán)力，同時(shí)被禁止行使其他部門的權(quán)力，并被賦予對(duì)其他兩個(gè)部門進(jìn)行“制衡”的職能。這種“分權(quán)”體系旨在分散并限制政府權(quán)力的行使，并在美國的51個(gè)獨(dú)立法律體系中得到了類似的體現(xiàn)。

美國法律體系以“法治”為基礎(chǔ)，特別強(qiáng)調(diào)平等的“法治”原則。理想狀態(tài)下，所有人都應(yīng)享有平等的權(quán)利，并在法律面前承擔(dān)同等的責(zé)任。

美國法律體系還建立在一個(gè)司法系統(tǒng)之上，法官有責(zé)任合理且忠實(shí)地解釋法律和憲法，并公正地審判被指控違反法律的個(gè)人。

大多數(shù)人，甚至許多美國人可能都沒有意識(shí)到，美國約95%的法律爭議實(shí)際上是在五十個(gè)州各自獨(dú)立的法律體系內(nèi)得到解決的。每個(gè)州依據(jù)自身的法律、憲法、法規(guī)和程序，以及獨(dú)特的法院和法官體系來處理案件。然而，值得注意的是，許多至關(guān)重要且影響深遠(yuǎn)的案件是在聯(lián)邦法律體系框架下審理的，其中，美國最高法院作為憲法的最終解釋者，扮演著舉足輕重的角色。此外，涉及國際因素的案件，例如與中國或其他國家的個(gè)人或企業(yè)相關(guān)的法律糾紛，通常會(huì)產(chǎn)生更廣泛的跨州乃至跨國影響，因此更有可能落入聯(lián)邦法律體系的司法管轄范圍。當(dāng)然，這只是一個(gè)普遍現(xiàn)象，而非一成不變的原則。

盡管如此，我個(gè)人認(rèn)為，對(duì)于年輕的法律從業(yè)者或法學(xué)院學(xué)生來說，沒有比在美國50個(gè)州之一的最高法院實(shí)習(xí)更充實(shí)、更全面的體驗(yàn)了。這些法院處理的案件種類繁多、覆蓋廣泛。在我擔(dān)任密歇根州最高法院法官的21年間（由于州法律的年齡限制，我于三年前卸任），我們法院通常每月需審理250至300起上訴案件。這些案件來自密歇根州的初審法院、商事法院和上訴法院，幾乎涵蓋了所有類型的法律糾紛。

民事案件涉及各種可能出現(xiàn)的“案件和爭議”，包括個(gè)人、公司、鄰里、政府、制造商、產(chǎn)權(quán)所有人、保險(xiǎn)公司、大大小小的企業(yè)、雇主與雇員、醫(yī)生與患者、公共機(jī)構(gòu)與公民，以及納稅人和稅務(wù)征收人員之間的糾紛等。

刑事案件涵蓋各種可能的犯罪類型，并涉及相關(guān)的審判程序、陪審團(tuán)選拔、證據(jù)規(guī)則、量刑指南與懲罰措施，以及對(duì)犯罪受害者的賠償?shù)葐栴}。

憲法案件解釋國家和州憲法條款的含義；

條例的含義；

家事案件涉及結(jié)婚、離婚、收養(yǎng)、子女撫養(yǎng)以及遺囑和遺產(chǎn)等問題。

普通法案件依循美國數(shù)十年乃至數(shù)世紀(jì)以來發(fā)展出的司法判例，確立了美國人在合同、財(cái)產(chǎn)和侵權(quán)關(guān)系領(lǐng)域的慣例和傳統(tǒng)。任何在州法院（或聯(lián)邦法院）中擁有豐富經(jīng)驗(yàn)的法律從業(yè)者，都必須精通普通法及其歷史與發(fā)展過程，并理解司法機(jī)關(guān)在識(shí)別和制定普通法中所扮演的獨(dú)特角色。

回顧劉芳十年前撰寫的幾份備忘錄，不難看出她的實(shí)習(xí)經(jīng)歷在案件類型上具有典型性。我記得有因公共汽車為了避免與汽車相撞而導(dǎo)致的自行車事故而引發(fā)的責(zé)任糾紛；關(guān)于刑事性侵犯案件中被告認(rèn)罪自愿性的問題；約定排除司法上訴的仲裁協(xié)議有效性的問題；關(guān)于房主是否履行了保持其財(cái)產(chǎn)不對(duì)他人構(gòu)成風(fēng)險(xiǎn)之義務(wù)的爭議；保險(xiǎn)公司對(duì)由于供應(yīng)商疏忽而導(dǎo)致的公司意外業(yè)務(wù)損失的賠償義務(wù)的范圍問題；關(guān)于法律和醫(yī)療過失索賠的爭議；關(guān)于一艘大型船只的稅務(wù)爭議（密歇根是唯一一個(gè)被五大湖環(huán)繞的州）；以及關(guān)于刑事被告人是否適當(dāng)享有與證人對(duì)峙的憲法權(quán)利的爭議問題。這些案例只是其中的一部分，但充分展示了劉芳在實(shí)習(xí)期間接觸到法律問題的廣泛性和多樣性。

在這些案件以及其他許多案件中，劉芳所撰寫的備忘錄——這些是我所剩下可供回顧的材料——展現(xiàn)了她對(duì)法律和憲法的深刻理解，以及對(duì)我們各自在推動(dòng)結(jié)果公正方面所承擔(dān)的專業(yè)職責(zé)的敏銳洞察。尤其值得一提的是，她認(rèn)識(shí)到我們?cè)趯徟兄羞m用的必須是法律本身，而非她或我的個(gè)人主觀態(tài)度。她深知，解釋相關(guān)法律條文時(shí)必須合理地遵循立法者的初衷和目的。同時(shí)她明白，她需要全面而客觀地向我概述爭議各方的主張。此外，她還意識(shí)到，在她總結(jié)了所有相關(guān)觀點(diǎn)、證據(jù)和判例之后，還必須準(zhǔn)備具有說服力的闡述，向我說明如何在本案中最佳地實(shí)現(xiàn)“法律下的正義”，并且準(zhǔn)備好回應(yīng)我的疑問和反駁意見。

劉芳不僅是我最優(yōu)秀、最出色的法律實(shí)習(xí)生之一，還與我、我的四位常駐法律助理，以及另外六個(gè)司法辦公室的法律助理和實(shí)習(xí)生緊密合作。所有人都和我一樣，對(duì)她充滿欽佩與敬重。無論是在美國還是在她的祖國中國，我都為她在法律領(lǐng)域取得的成就感到驕傲，這些成就最終凝聚在了這本書中。在書中，劉芳對(duì)美國法律體系進(jìn)行了智慧、理性且權(quán)威的概述。對(duì)于不熟悉美國法律和司法體系的中國法律從業(yè)者，這本書將為他們指引正確的方向；而中國的法律學(xué)生也能從這本清晰的單卷本參考書中獲益良多。盡管如此綜合的書籍難以涵蓋美國51個(gè)司法體系的所有法律，劉芳成功地總結(jié)并突出展示了這些法律體系的共性。如果讓我對(duì)本書后續(xù)版本提出一些優(yōu)化建議，我希望能夠增加對(duì)美國各州憲法的關(guān)注。目前，各州憲法正引發(fā)廣泛的學(xué)術(shù)討論，旨在振興司法聯(lián)邦主義并重新調(diào)整州憲法與聯(lián)邦憲法權(quán)力的平衡。

最后，我不得不提的是，如果至今還沒有一本類似于劉芳所著的、面向美國從業(yè)者和學(xué)生的介紹中國法律體系的著作，那么這樣的作品早就應(yīng)該問世。或許，劉芳會(huì)再次肩負(fù)起這一重要使命，為我們帶來這樣一部作品。

原文

When I first met Fang Liu, I was serving on the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan, one of the larger and more heavily industrialized states of the American union. Fang at the time was a graduate of the Peking University Law School and then attending what was one of the largest law schools in the United States in pursuit of an American law degree. It is my recollection that Fang was well underway toward winning a school-record number of "prizes" (for having achieved the highest grade in a course), a remarkable achievement for a student for whom English was at best her second language. Soon after her graduation, Fang proceeded to earn an advanced law degree from one of the most highly-regarded law schools in the United States. By contrast, I am unable even to pronounce the Chinese title of Fang’s new book, much less to comprehend its words, sentences, and paragraphs-- but for the good fortune of having had it translated into English through some magical process of ‘a(chǎn)rtificial intelligence’ that seems fully conversant with neither the English nor the Chinese language.

What did I find most appealing regarding Fang’s application for an externship position in my judicial office? Perhaps, it was because I admired her academic record achieved under hugely challenging circumstances; perhaps, it was because I was curious to see how a student with such a record might be able to contribute to the work of the Court and take the fullest advantage of this opportunity; or perhaps, because it was simply difficult not to be impressed by her personal ebullience and exhilaration of spirit, failing apparently to recognize just how sobering and traumatic the judicial interview process was supposed to be for a young law student. In any case, Fang was hired to assist with the Court’s work, to be immersed in the intricacies and day-to-day operations of the American judicial process. I am content with the passage of time in concluding that the practical education she received at the Court has served both Fang and her reading audience well.

There are many ways by which to define the broadest values of the American legal system. It will come as little surprise as an American jurist that I think highly of this system and believe that our ‘rule of law’ has contributed enormously to the growth, the prosperity, the innovativeness and the freedoms of the American nation. These values are each, more or less, on display in the present book.

In summarizing these values, I would emphasize the following overarching principles that must each be recognized by the foreign practitioner. In so doing, I do not purport to compare or to contrast these principles with those of the Chinese or any other legal system because I do not purport to be a student of these other legal systems, although I do recall on several occasions engaging Fang on specific aspects of the Chinese practice of law. I wish I had inquired more often out of sheer curiosity, but it was full-time work giving reasonable meaning to the law of the United States and Michigan amidst the steady and heavy flow of appeals coming before the Michigan Supreme Court.

(1) The American legal system is predicated upon a national constitution that defines the authority, and the limits upon that authority, of government, and thus serves also to define the individual rights of the people in whose name that constitution was written and ratified 235 years ago.

(2) The American legal system is predicated upon a ‘federalist’ system in which governmental authority is apportioned between the national government (in Washington DC) and the fifty state governments of the Union (including that of Michigan). Thus, there are 51 separate legal systems that form the American nation, a structure designed to disperse and thus to limit the exercise of governmental power.

(3) The American legal system is also predicated upon governmental authority apportioned among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Each branch possesses certain specified constitutional powers, is denied other powers, and is authorized to exercise certain ‘checks and balances’ against abuses of power by the other two branches. This system of ‘separated powers’ is also designed to disperse and thus to limit the exercise of governmental power and is reflected similarly within each of our 51 legal systems.

(4) The American legal system is predicated upon the ‘rule of law,’ in particular the equal ‘rule of law,’ in which, ideally, all persons enjoy equal rights and are subject to equal responsibilities under the law.

(5) And the American legal system is predicated upon a judicial system in which judges carry out the obligation of reasonably and faithfully giving meaning to the law and constitution and fairly judging the conduct of those who are accused of acting in their breach.

It is not commonly recognized, even by many Americans themselves, that approximately 95% of all legal disputes in the United States are resolved within the fifty state legal systems, each with their own laws, constitutions, rules and procedures, and system of courts and judges. However, many of our most important and far-reaching disputes are addressed within the federal legal system, especially by the United States Supreme Court which is the final arbiter of the meaning of the national Constitution. Furthermore, it should be understood that disputes involving individuals and businesses of other nations, such as China, will tend to have a broader interstate and international impact and thus be more likely to implicate the jurisdiction of the federal legal system. But that is only a general proposition rather than an inflexible rule.

Still, in my own judgment, there is no more satisfying and better-rounded externship experience for a young lawyer or law student than that undertaken within the fifty state supreme courts of America, with their breadth and variety of cases. During my 21 years on the Michigan Supreme Court (ending three years ago on account of age limitations that I will not mention imposed by our state constitution), my Court often considered as many as 250-300 appeals each month brought from the decisions of state trial courts, business courts, and intermediate appellate courts. These appeals typically implicated the fullest range of litigation:

(a) civil cases, involving every conceivable type of ‘case and controversy’ arising between individuals, corporations, neighbors, governments, manufacturers, property owners, insurors, small and large businesses, employers and employees, doctors and patients, public agencies and citizens, taxpayers and tax collectors, etc.

(b) criminal cases, involving every conceivable type of criminal offense, including adjacent issues of trial procedures, jury selection, rules of evidence, sentencing guidelines and punishments, and the restitution of victims of crime;

(c) constitutional cases, assessing the meaning of provisions of both the national and the state constitutions;

(d) statutory and administrative cases, resolving the meaning of laws, rules, and regulations enacted by federal, state, and local legislatures and administrative authorities;

(e) domestic cases, involving issues of marriage, divorce, adoption, child support, and wills and estates; and

(f) common law cases, drawing upon judicial precedents that have developed in America over decades and centuries, identifying the customary practices and traditions of the American people in the realm of contract, property, and tort relationships. It is necessary that any accomplished legal practitioner in state court (and often in federal court as well) be well-versed in the common law, its history and development, and the distinctive role played by the judiciary in its identification and formulation.

Reviewing several of Fang’s written memorandums of a decade ago, it is clear that her externship experience was a typical one in its range of cases. I am reminded of a liability dispute arising from a bicycle accident caused by a public bus seeking to avoid a collision with an automobile; an issue of the voluntariness of a guilty plea in a criminal sexual conduct case; the validity of an arbitration agreement precluding access to a judicial appeal; a question of a homeowner’s compliance with his obligation to maintain his property free of hazards posing risks to others; the extent of an insuror’s obligations to reimburse a corporation suffering unexpected business harms from the negligence of a supplier; the merits of legal and medical malpractice claims; a tax controversy surrounding a large marine vessel (Michigan is the only state surrounded by each of five Great Lakes); and a dispute surrounding whether the constitutional right of confrontation with a witness have properly been afforded a criminal defendant. To name only a few cases at random.

In each of these cases and in many others, Fang’s written memorandums— all that I have left to review— reflect sophisticated understandings of the law and constitution and a nuanced appreciation of both her, and my, professional obligations in furthering a just outcome. In particular, Fang recognizes that it is the law that must be applied, not her, or my, personal attitude. She is cognizant that relevant provisions of the law must reasonably be understood in accordance with the intentions and purposes of their framers; and she understands that she must present me with a thorough and fair-minded summation of what has been asserted by all sides in a dispute. And she appreciates as well that, after she has summoned and presented all of the relevant arguments, evidence, and precedents, she must then be prepared to explain persuasively how ‘justice under law’ can best be obtained in the case and equally prepared to address my concerns and contrary arguments.

Fang Liu was one of my finest and most accomplished legal externs and worked closely with myself, my four permanent law clerks, and the law clerks and legal externs of six other judicial offices, all of whom shared my admiration and regard. I have since been made proud of her accomplishments in the law, both in the United States and back home in China, culminating in the present book. Here, Fang has offered an intelligent and reasoned and authoritative overview of the American legal system. The Chinese legal practitioner, otherwise unfamiliar with the American legal and judicial systems, will be pointed in the right direction in gaining his or her bearings and the Chinese law student will gain much in having access to a clear single-volume reference. Although it is impossible in such a work to summarize the law of fifty-one separate jurisdictions, Fang undertakes an impressive effort to emphasize what is possessed in common by these distinctive systems of law. If there is any matter to be given greater attention in a later edition, I hope it will be a greater focus upon America’s state constitutions, which at the present are the subject of considerable intellectual ferment in an effort to revitalize judicial federalism and recalibrate the balance of state and federal constitutional authority.

I must finally conclude by observing that, if there is not yet a comparable work to Fang’s on the Chinese legal system intended to be accessible for the American practitioner and student, it is overdue and Fang may again be called upon to carry out such a task.

作者和史蒂芬的合影

目錄

第一章 合同法

背景介紹

一、合同法概述

二、要約與承諾（Offer & Acceptance）

三、合同對(duì)價(jià)（Consideration）

四、合同成立的抗辯因素（Defenses to Formation）

五、違約救濟(jì)（Remedies）

第二章 侵權(quán)法

背景介紹

一、故意侵權(quán)（Intentional Torts）

二、過失侵權(quán)（Negligence）

三、嚴(yán)格責(zé)任（Strict Liability）

四、其他常見侵權(quán)責(zé)任

第三章 憲法

背景介紹

一、聯(lián)邦政府的權(quán)力（Powers of the Federal Government）

二、聯(lián)邦體系（The Federal System）

三、個(gè)人權(quán)利（Individual Rights）

第四章 刑法

背景介紹

一、刑法的基本原則（General Principles）

二、刑法中的主要犯罪類型（Major Crimes）

三、不完全犯罪（Inchoate Crimes）

四、抗辯理由（Defenses）

第五章 刑事訴訟法

背景介紹

一、美國聯(lián)邦刑事訴訟審前程序、審理程序和審后程序

二、基于憲法第四修正案確立的刑事訴訟制度

三、基于憲法第五修正案確立的刑事訴訟制度

四、基于憲法第六修正案確立的刑事訴訟制度

第六章 民事訴訟法

背景介紹

一、美國聯(lián)邦法院的管轄權(quán)

二、美國聯(lián)邦民事訴訟的幾個(gè)主要階段

三、合并審理（Joinder）

第七章 證據(jù)法

背景介紹

一、證據(jù)法的基本原則（General Principles of Evidence）

二、品格證據(jù)（Character Evidence）

三、傳聞（Hearsay）證據(jù)

四、基于特權(quán)和公共政策的證據(jù)排除（Privileges and Policy Exclusion）

第八章 企業(yè)組織法

背景介紹

一、代理制度（Agency）

二、個(gè)人獨(dú)資企業(yè)法和合伙企業(yè)法

三、公司法

第九章 不動(dòng)產(chǎn)法

背景介紹

一、不動(dòng)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)（wnership）

二、不動(dòng)產(chǎn)交易（The Land Transaction）

三、產(chǎn)權(quán)登記（Recordation）

四、不動(dòng)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)人與承租人的關(guān)系（Landlord & Tenant）

五、關(guān)于不動(dòng)產(chǎn)權(quán)屬的爭議（Disputes on Ownership in Land）

第十章 婚姻家庭、遺囑與信托法

一、婚姻家庭法（Family Law）

二、遺囑與無遺囑繼承（Wills & Intestacy）

三、信托（Trust）

（本文僅代表作者觀點(diǎn)，不代表知產(chǎn)力立場）