收藏本站 提供:电热管价格和电热管规格型号大全,还提供电热管接线、选型的问题,特耐佳电加热器高端电热供应商。

电烤箱加热管-电烤箱加热管-电烤箱加热管-电烤箱加热管

型号:未知

报价:面议

联系电话:051257123258

产品介绍

用户评价

今日出厂产品展示及部分报价

电烤箱加热管-电烤箱加热管-电烤箱加热管-电烤箱加热管


We can use syllogism reasoning methods to this premise is applicable to specific problems to solve
In the field of law
Judge it necessary to use in solving the dispute case there are three main kinds of dialectical reasoning
These three kinds of circumstances are: (l) law has not stipulated the decision of the pragmatic principles of new situation; (2) a problem can apply two or more than two opposing premise, but it must be a real choice between them, the situation of eight 3) although there is a case for the accepted by rules or precedent
But the court when exercising its power was awarded by considering the rule or precedent to subvert the strife in his solid background in general or how much is imperfect and refuse to apply it
In all of the above situations
Court impossible by inference analysis approach
Also is to use deduction, induction and analogy method to solve the dispute
In the case of this nature电烤箱加热管
Lawyers are trying to persuade the court is conducive to its, agent conclusion
Also inevitably resort to dialectical persuasion method
The outline of the first kind of situation is often involved who was known as a provision of the case
Maybe this will happen in the new creation in the field of law
Such as atomic energy or in the field o电烤箱加热管f environmental control
It will also appear in the field of traditional
Such as contract and immersion in the field of rights; This situation is the current effective principle can not properly apply or expand applicable to the unusual combination of facts
If that happens
It is necessary to those in the treatment to date is still pending issues should be considered when pragmatism or requirements on the important position
Haynes v. New York Central Railroad (Hynes v. New York Central Railroad)
To illustrate the second question provides an example
In the case
A 16-year-old boy swam after the harlem river
He climbed up a piece of the river f电烤箱加热管rom the Bronx (Bronx) side of the bank’s outstretched springboard
The springboard is set on the iron ‘road section
As he stood in the top of the springboard ready to dive in
He was on the railway company all pole killed a high-voltage wire and being knocked off into the river
In the mother of the proposed compensation lawsuit
Both sides counsel proposes two competing metaphors
Railway party lawyer compared the boy’s position at the time of the accident to the status of the illegal invasion of private land
So all the land is not liable of due care of for him
The plaintiffs’ lawyers have argued
The springboard above or below the space belongs to the country
So the boy should be seen as similar to th电烤箱加热管e pedestrians on the highway
The lower court adopted the metaphor put forward by the defendants and reject the plaintiff’s prosecution
But the appeal court has accepted the opposite view
Revoked the original judgment
Write the reason of card DouZuo judge said
On both sides of the metaphor analogy are logically acceptable
But he has come to the conclusion
Justice and reason requires the defendant to bear the legal responsibility
Against the verdict reason to study
In those who cannot infer from a clear the premise of law case reasoning is needed for the results of quite complex
The third class listed above case includes tw电烤箱加热管o sets of different but related problem
Is often happened
Although judges can get a performance for the major premise of the rules
But he says the rules already out of date, and conflicts with contemporary reality
If this happens
He will want to abandon this rule one if awarded him the power to a legal system with a more suitable for the current needs of specification to replace it
The obvious
His support for new rules and puts forward the reasons of his efforts to demonstrate the new normative solution
Rather than trying to deduce from the premise of a particular legal results
A related problem will appear in the following situations
If the judge decide to change a leading rule for an exception
The rule is not expected to abandon it
For example,
Although the fraudulent act requires real estate transfer contract shall be made in written form
But the court of justice (and follow the United States court) is to enforce such contracts in the oral contract
As long as the parties have fulfilled the part of the agreement
Here,
Court must formulate a persuasive argument in order to protect the are not consistent with the current valid rules of actual principles of equity
In all of the above three kinds of situations
Judicial decision makers are facing a real choice
This is both a selection of the choice of appropriate specifications to fill the blank of the law
And a determined a metaphor is superior to another as opposed to the decision of the metaphor
Or with a more timely arbitrary rules to replace outdated rules
People thought so often
The judge of your decision in these cases
Is subject to the emotional factors will
There such as intuitive hunches, irrational preference, as well as the rationalization later overshadowed somewhat arbitrary command, and so on
We can’t stand with this opinion
In the legal events is basically accord with rational dialectical reasoning
Although we have to admit
The influence of emotional potential or inexpressible bias; Not always can avoid the influence of
As Dennis? Lloyd (Dennis Lloyd) correctly pointed out
The choices made by the judge
With respect to its from a specific premise with inductive method infers the sense
It is not logical
But it is a kind of logic
This logic is based on the rational consideration
This makes it with arbitrary judgment completely apart
Features of this logic is that it is substantial
Rather than the form
With John? Devi (John Dewey) as saying
It is about control survey
To make it produce according to the claim
This is a rule
It can make us to doubt situation thorough investigation
The all relevant aspects of this investigation is to reveal and put in the center of attention
So that we can find the reasonable methods to solve the problem
(4) to all the for and against this carefully and carefully of the solution of the argument and to think about
Is an important part of the process
If the final conclusion is not only based on an individual basis but also get a collection of a lot of reasons to support
Then its reasonableness and persuasive usually will be enhanced
Are to be highlighted
This choice logic of law is not only limited to pure teleology, pay attention to the result of reasoning
To some extent this is a kind of logic related to the knot to stay
On the other hand
It is a kind of logic on the basis of precedent
As long as possible
Have the ability to judge will use judgment standard
These standards are not that there is no control of the will or the subjective preference of the product
But in the whole law and order, and to provide the judge based on the original material
The raw material origin, social customs, and traditional general spirit of The Times
In the case of will factor plays a limited role in the process of objective factors
Mainly those of the safe establish cultural value standard, permeate the law system of the necessity and the basic principles, the obvious situation the dominant public policy
In many situations
The origin of scalability
Making it possible for the judge to its verdict expected results into consideration
We should not assume that
That people must form and reasoning on the dialectic between form of making a choice
Also is to use a form have to rule out using another kind of form
Often happen is
Corollary of two ways in all aspects of the same trial is a hybrid form
For example,
In the following cases is that: although can find some general principles to solve the problem of a law or a premise
But in order to show it is suitable for the case is accepted by the right
This requires a detailed and complex and indirect reasoning process as much as possible
The Supreme Court of the United States in Mary anda v. Arizona (Miranda v. Arizona) in the case of the ruling for hybrid analytical reasoning and dialectical reasoning
In this case
The court trying to prove

相关产品

*

*

051257123258
重庆时时彩 贵州快3走势 重庆时时彩 广西快3 重庆时时彩 重庆时时彩 重庆时时彩 重庆时时彩 安徽快3走势 百万彩票