1. bindv (to impose one or more legal duties) bound(to have a duty)
binding adj (of something written, having the power to demand obedience <e.g. to a law> or fulfillment <e.g. of a promise>
binding precedent (a precedent that a court must follow)
2. persuaden (to induce another to do something)
persuasiveadj(having the power to convince others)
3, reverse v (to change a decision or judgement to the opposite)
reversal n (an appellate courtís overturning of lower courtís decision)
persuasive precedent (a precedent that a court may either follow or reject, but that is entitled to respect and careful consideration)
4. legal rulingn ( a courtís decision, judgment, opinion)
5. overrule v (<of a court> to overturn or set aside a precedent by expressly deciding that it should no longer be controlling law)
6. distinguish v (to note a significant factual, procedural, or legal difference in an earlier case, usu, to minimize the caseís precedential effect or to show that it is inapplicable)
7. certainty n (the state of being completely certain)
8. flexibility n (the ability to change or be changed easily to suit a different situation) flexible (inflexible)
9.precise adj (exact)
10. rigid adj (difficult to change)
Exercise 1. Read the following sentences, notice carefully the active words in bold, and translate the sentences into Russian.
1. The contract binds the parties.
2. Courts are bound by precedent.
3. Binding precedent is a precedent from an earlier case which must be followed even if the judge in the later case does not agree with the legal principle.
1. These decisions may not be binding precedents, but they will have persuasive value.
2. The judge may consider it and decide that it is a correct principle so he is persuaded that he should follow it.
3. Persuasive precedentsare recognized by people as the law, and acted upon accordingly.
1. The appeal court reversed the original verdict and set the prisoner free.
2. The companyís profits have been steadily falling, and his job is to reverse this trend.
3. A decision can be reversed. This is where a court higher up in the hierarchy overturns the decision of a lower court on appealin the same case.
1. Where similar facts come before the courts in a later case, then a higher court can overrule the previous decision of a lower one. This is where a court in a later case states that the legal rule decided in an earlier case is wrong.
2.Overruling may occur when a higher court overrules a decision made in an earlier case by a lower court, for example, the House of Lords overruling a decisionof the Court of Appeal.
3. It can also occur where the European Court of Justice overrules a past decision it has made; or when the House of Lords uses its power under the Practice Statement to overrulea past decision of its own.
1. The lawyer distinguished the cited case from the case at bar.
2.Finally, a previous decision can often be distinguishedwhere the material facts of the earlier case differ from the present ones.
3.There will always be some difference between the facts of two separate cases and if the later judge feels that the difference is sufficient to justify a different decision, he will distinguishthe earlier case. In this way even a lower court can avoid holding itself bound by a previous higher decision.
1. She knew with absolute certainty that heíd say no.
2. The result is impossible to predict with any degree of certainty.
3. It creates certainty in the law and allows lawyers to advise clients on the probable outcome of a case.
1. Employees expect flexibility in the work-place.
2. The ability to distinguish cases also gives all courts some flexibility and freedom to avoid past decisions and develop the law.
3. The fact that lower courts have to follow decisions of higher courts, together with the fact that the Court of Appeal has to follow its own past decisions, can make the law too inflexible so that bad decisions made in the past may be perpetuated.
1. It was difficult to get precise information.
2. At that precise moment, her husband walked in.
3. As decisions are based on real cases there are practical illustrations of the law; the law becomes veryprecise.
1. He is very rigid in his ideas.
2. The doctrine as applied in the English Legal System is too rigid.
3. This rigidity can create injustice in an individual case.