21中英文双语法学专业外文文献翻译成品： 合同：第三方受益人的权利：密歇根州受益合同条款履行效力

《21中英文双语法学专业外文文献翻译成品： 合同：第三方受益人的权利：密歇根州受益合同条款履行效力》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《21中英文双语法学专业外文文献翻译成品： 合同：第三方受益人的权利：密歇根州受益合同条款履行效力（8页珍藏版）》请在毕设资料网上搜索。

1、外文标题： Contracts：  Rights of Third Party Beneficiary：  Effect of Michigan Beneficiary Contract Statute  外文作者： GW Hueschen  文献出处 : Michigan Law Review  , 1951 , 50 (2) :336-339  英文 2189 单词，  10769 字符，中文 3179 汉字。  此文档是外文翻译成品，无需调整复杂的格式哦！下载之后直接可用，方便快捷！只需二十多元。  

2、;On agreement to make mutual wills, Stephen and his two sisters entered into an agreement whereby the sisters agreed to will to Stephen, or in event Stephen predeceased them, to his wife, all property which they should receive from their father. Stephen did predecease the sisters, whereupon they exe

3、cuted new wills with no provision for Stephens widow. Upon death of the last sister, the widows bill for specific performance of the agreement was dismissed by the circuit court. In affirming on appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the agreement as to Stephen and all other persons except the

4、 sisters being without consideration, the sisters were each bound only at the option of the other while both lived, and each could revoke with the others permission. Execution of the new wills showed a common purpose to do away with all agreements to leave plainti 任  anything， the will of each

5、sister amounting to a revocation of the agreement, to which the consent of the other sister is fairly to be inferred in the absence in the contract of any stipulation requiring revocation to be in writing. Rose v. Southern Michigan National Bank of Coldwater, 328 Mich. 639, 44 N.W. (2d) 192 (1950).

6、The courts treatment of the present fact situation as giving rise to a binding agreement between the sisters to make mutual wills even though the consideration of Stephen was held nonexistent， 1 is in line with Phelps v. Pipher2 as the 12 Moore v. Mitchell, supra note 3. 13 With regard to whether a claim for premiums for workmens compensation insurance constitutes a claim for taxes for conflict of law purposes, there seems to be little authority. Some analogy may be drawn to a number of decisions holding that unemployment and workmens co