市場(chǎng)營(yíng)銷專業(yè)畢業(yè)論文外文翻譯3

1、<p>　　畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)(論文)外文資料翻譯</p><p>　　院（系）： 經(jīng)貿(mào)系 </p><p>　　專 　業(yè)： 市場(chǎng)營(yíng)銷 </p><p>　　姓 名： </p><p>　　學(xué) 號(hào)：

2、 </p><p>　　外文出處： Donald Harris and Denis </p><p>　　Tallin.Contract Law TOday. 1995</p><p>　　附 件： 1.外文資料翻譯譯文；2.外文原文 </p><p>　　完成日期： 2010 年3 月25日 &

3、lt;/p><p>　　1.Briefly on contracts</p><p>　　The law of contracts is concerned with the enforcement of promissory obligations. Contractual liability is usually based on consent freely given in the f

4、orm of an express promise or one implied in fact from the acts of the parties. In some circumstances, however, the courts will imply a promise (often called implied in law or quasi contract) in order to avoid unjust enri

5、chment in spite of lack of consent by the party who is bound by it.</p><p>　　The subject matter of contract law comprises capacity, formalities, offer and acceptance, consideration, fraud and mistake, legali

6、ty, interpretation and construction, performance and conditions of performance, frustration and impossibility, discharge, rights of assignees and third party beneficiaries, and remedies. It has, to a very considerable ex

7、tent, preserved its unitary quality , resisting fundamental distinctions between different classes of contracts according to either the subject of the</p><p>　　Accordingly, with some exceptions, its principl

8、es are applicable to agreements on such varied subjects as employment, sale of goods or land, and insurance, and to such diverse parties as individuals, business organizations, and governmental entities.</p><p

9、>　　It is largely state rather than federal law, but it differs usually only in detail from one state to anther. While it is still primarily case law, an increasing number of statutes deal with particular problems. The

10、 Uniform Commercial Code, for example, contains some special provisions on the formation of contracts for the sale of goods. And by the Tucker Act of 1887, as amended, one of the most significant of the federal statutes

11、in the field, the United States government has waived its sovereig</p><p>　　A contract may be simply defined as a promise for the breach of which the law gives a remedy , although the word “contract” may als

12、o be used to refer to the series of acts by which the parties expressed their agreement, to the document which they may have executed, or to the legal relations which have resulted. Not all promise are enforceable and se

13、veral criteria must be met before the law will give a remedy. Two of the most fundamental of these are the requirement of a writing and requirement o</p><p>　　apart from any requirement of a writing, a promi

14、se is not generally enforceable in the United States unless it is supported by consideration. Historically a promissory could make a binding written promise, even without consideration, by affixing his wax seal to the wr

15、iting. But as the wax seal was replaced by a penned or printed imitation, the seal became an empty formality and its effectiveness has now been eliminated or at least greatly diminished by state statutes. Consideration i

16、s essentiall</p><p>　　In the United States, contracts, like statutes, are characteristically detailed and prolix. Those prepared by lawyers are often compounded of standard clauses, popularly known as “boile

17、r-plate,” taken from other agreements kept on file or from books. Even when a lawyer is not directly involved, the parties may use or incorporate by reference a standard printed form which has been drafted by a lawyer, p

18、erhaps for a particular enterprise, perhaps for an association of enterprises, or perhaps for </p><p>　　A related phenomenon is the widespread use of standard forms “contracts of adhesion,” such as tickets,

19、 leases, and retail sales contracts, which are forced upon the party with inferior bargaining power. In recent years, courts and legislatures have become increasingly concerned with the effects which unrestrained freedom

20、 of contract may have in such situations. Courts which had always refused to enforce agreements contemplating crimes, torts, or other acts which were clearly contrary to the publ</p><p><b>　　譯文:</b&

21、gt;</p><p><b>　　1．契約簡(jiǎn)論</b></p><p>　　契約法所關(guān)心的是實(shí)現(xiàn)所約定的義務(wù)。通常，契約責(zé)任是以自由同意為基礎(chǔ)的。這種同意表現(xiàn)為當(dāng)事人明示的允諾或事實(shí)上由當(dāng)事人通過(guò)行為而默示允諾。但在某些情況下盡管受約束的一方并未同意，法院仍會(huì)推定允諾之存在（往往稱為由法律推定的契約即準(zhǔn)契約），以免有人不當(dāng)?shù)美?lt;/p><p&g

22、t;　　契約法的內(nèi)容，包括能力、形式、要約與承諾、約因、欺詐與錯(cuò)誤、合法與否、解釋與推定、履行及其條件、契約目的無(wú)法達(dá)到和契約無(wú)法履行、免責(zé)、受讓人及受益的第三人之權(quán)利和補(bǔ)救方法。契約在很大范圍內(nèi)保持著統(tǒng)一性而按照協(xié)議之內(nèi)容或當(dāng)事人之性質(zhì)排斥了不同種類契約之間的基本區(qū)別。因此，除若干例外情況外，契約法原則適用于諸如個(gè)人、企業(yè)和政府實(shí)體等不同的當(dāng)事人。</p><p>　　契約法大多是州法不是聯(lián)邦法，但各州之間的契

23、約法只有細(xì)節(jié)之別。契約法主要雖仍為案例法，但處理具體問(wèn)題的制定法日益增多了。例如，美國(guó)《統(tǒng)一商法典》就對(duì)商品銷售合同之形成設(shè)有若干具體規(guī)定，而根據(jù)作為在這方面最重要的聯(lián)邦法之一的1887年塔克法（已經(jīng)修正的），美國(guó)政府已因同意在各聯(lián)邦法院應(yīng)訴而在契約訴訟中放棄了主權(quán)豁免。某些由制定法（以及案例法）規(guī)定的規(guī)則是強(qiáng)制的，當(dāng)事人不得避免；而另一些規(guī)則則是含蓄的、解釋性的、補(bǔ)充性的，因而可以由協(xié)議改變之。</p><p>

24、;　　不妨把契約簡(jiǎn)單地規(guī)定為一種允諾。允諾一旦遭到違反，法律就予以補(bǔ)救；雖然，“契約”一詞亦可用來(lái)指當(dāng)事人借以表示其協(xié)議的一系列行為、指雙方當(dāng)事人所制作的文契或指其所形成的法規(guī)關(guān)系。并非一切允諾都是可以執(zhí)行的，在法律予以補(bǔ)救之前，允諾必須發(fā)和幾項(xiàng)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。其中最重要的兩項(xiàng)，是必須有書面形式和必須有約因。書面要件，是由英國(guó)1677年《欺詐防止法》所派生、頒布于美國(guó)全國(guó)的欺詐防止法所規(guī)定的。欺詐防止法一般都規(guī)定：特定種類的契約如無(wú)書面證明不得執(zhí)

25、行；但也有例外。通常，這些特定契約包括超過(guò)最低價(jià)值的商品銷售契約、土地買賣契約、承擔(dān)他人債務(wù)的契約和一年后履行的契約。許多協(xié)議（如大多數(shù)提供服務(wù)的契約）則不包括在內(nèi)，因此即使沒(méi)有書面形式也能執(zhí)行。雖然人們的不滿導(dǎo)致英國(guó)于1954年廢除了英國(guó)《欺詐防止法》的大部分，但在美國(guó)卻沒(méi)有認(rèn)真要求廢止欺詐防止法的動(dòng)向。</p><p>　　在美國(guó)，除要求書面形式外，允諾如無(wú)約因的支持，一般也是不能執(zhí)行的。歷史上，允諾人甚至沒(méi)

26、有約因，也能在文書上蓋用火漆印而作出由約束力的書面允諾。但隨著火漆印為鋼筆或印刷的復(fù)制品所取代，印章也就徒有其名了。因此，其效力現(xiàn)已被制定法所取消，至少也已被制定法所大大限制了。約因主要是允諾人要談判到手，而且也是允諾人以其允諾換來(lái)的某事物。約因可以是對(duì)方所回報(bào)的另一個(gè)允諾（這樣形成的契約就是雙務(wù)契約）或一個(gè)行為（這樣形成的契約便是單務(wù)契約）。但是，比如說(shuō)，一個(gè)無(wú)償允諾（其中也包括因作出允諾時(shí)早已提供了的商品和勞務(wù)而作出的允諾在內(nèi)）是沒(méi)

27、有約因支持它的。幸好，不符合約因要求的商業(yè)允諾，其實(shí)例寥若晨星。其中最麻煩的情況之一，涉及到“硬”要約，即不可撤回的要約。在美國(guó)，通常的規(guī)則是：要約人能在要約經(jīng)被要約人承諾之前隨時(shí)撤回，而且要約人關(guān)于不撤回要約之允諾，如無(wú)約因一般是無(wú)效的。使要約人信守允諾的常用辦法，是向他支付一筆有名無(wú)實(shí)金額（如一美元），作為取得因而被稱作“選擇權(quán)”者之對(duì)價(jià)。即使沒(méi)有約因（對(duì)價(jià)），少數(shù)法院也主張：被要約人因相信允諾而蒙受損害時(shí)，要約人不得出爾反爾，撤回

28、其要約。但是最令人滿意的解決辦法，</p><p>　　在美國(guó)，契約也同制定法那樣，是以詳細(xì)和冗長(zhǎng)為其特征的。由律師擬定的契約往往由標(biāo)準(zhǔn)條款組成，這種條款或取自己歸檔的其它契約，或來(lái)自書本，俗稱為“做成紙型的”條款。即使沒(méi)有律師直接參與其事，當(dāng)事人也可以直接采用或參照吸收一種標(biāo)準(zhǔn)格式。這種格式早由律師擬定以供某企業(yè)或企業(yè)聯(lián)合會(huì)之用或公開發(fā)售。美國(guó)企業(yè)特別重視細(xì)節(jié)，這也許是有一些原因的。其中包括：常規(guī)性交易的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化

29、、特殊性交易之每一階段往往都有律師參與其事、傾向于使用在過(guò)去糾紛中經(jīng)過(guò)考驗(yàn)的語(yǔ)言以及希望能在所涉及的是不止一個(gè)州的法律時(shí)防止捉摸不定的一種愿望。所有這一切更使得以案例為中心的美國(guó)律師增強(qiáng)下列愿望：就過(guò)去業(yè)已發(fā)生或今后可以預(yù)見的爭(zhēng)端，在契約中作出明文規(guī)定。</p><p>　　一個(gè)與此有聯(lián)系的現(xiàn)象時(shí)諸如發(fā)售的票子、租賃契約和零售契約之類強(qiáng)加于談判力差的一方的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)式“單方面契約（合同）”之廣泛使用。近些年來(lái)，法院和立

30、法機(jī)構(gòu)對(duì)在上述情況下契約自由竟會(huì)絲毫不受限制的后果越來(lái)越感到關(guān)切。過(guò)去一向?qū)ζ髨D犯罪、侵權(quán)或?yàn)槠渌黠@違反公共利益行為的協(xié)議拒不予以執(zhí)行的法院，現(xiàn)在已開始以解釋契約的名義偏護(hù)處于劣勢(shì)的一方，并在趨于極端的案件中拒不承認(rèn)由一方當(dāng)事人單方面說(shuō)了算的條款有任何效力――盡管協(xié)議內(nèi)容本身并無(wú)違法之可言。立法機(jī)關(guān)也頒布了規(guī)定諸如雇傭契約中最高工作時(shí)數(shù)和最低工資之類的條件甚至規(guī)定了整個(gè)契約（如保險(xiǎn)單之類）并予行政機(jī)關(guān)以規(guī)定諸如運(yùn)輸業(yè)和電力業(yè)的價(jià)格和條

31、件的權(quán)力。契約自由論雖已在許多領(lǐng)域遭受侵蝕，但仍不失其為原則而尚未成為例外。</p><p><b>　　2.Torts</b></p><p>　　Leading legal writers agree that no one has satisfactorily defined a tort. this is partly because torts are so

32、 common, so widespread and so varied. You are far more likely to be the victim of a tort than of a crime, and you are also far more likely to commit a tort than a crime.</p><p>　　A tort is a civil wrong aga

33、inst an individual. A crime , on the other hand, is an offense against the public at large, or the state. An automobile driver who carelessly bumps into your car in a parking lot and crumples the fender had committed no

34、crime.</p><p>　　Suppose, however, that after leaving the parking lot the same driver goes to a nearby bar, downs six whiskeys, then careens through a crowded city street at fifty miles an hour. Now he has co

35、mmitted at least these crimes: drunken driving, reckless driving and endangering the lives of others. But unless he actually damages another car or injures someone he has not violated the rights of nay individual.</p&

36、gt;<p>　　A crime, then, is wrongful act against society. When a crime is committed, it is the state’s responsibility to investigate, prosecute and bear the expense of legal acting against the defendant, in the cou

37、rt handling criminal matters.</p><p>　　A tort, on the other hand, is an act that violates your private or personal rights. If you believe someone has violated your personal rights——but has not acted agai

38、nst the interests of the public as a whole——it is entirely up to you to seek relief by suing him in the civil courts. If the person who you believe has legally aggrieved you is found liable——that is , if the judge or jur

39、y finds that he did in fact injure you or your property——he may be required (a) to give you relief by paying you</p><p>　　If the tort is also a crime, two separate legal actions confront the wrongdoer: yours

40、 and the state’s. we will discuss later the effect of these actions on each other. But they are independent of each other.</p><p>　　A tort is usually committed when someone injures you physically, damages or

41、 misuses your property, attacks your reputation without justification or takes away your liberty and freedom of action without just cause. To recover damages for a tort you must prove either that the act was committed wi

42、th deliberate intent (as when someone circulated a letter calling you a thief) or that it was the result of negligence (as in the case of the driver in the parking lot who carelessly hit your car when he h</p><

43、;p>　　In most cases you must prove that the act inflicted actual damage or injuries. A malicious act that does you no harm, such as a threat to punch you in the nose or a shove in a crowded subway, is not a sufficient

44、cause for legal action.</p><p>　　Nor are you likely to recover damages from a neighbor when the healthy-looking elm tree in his yard crashes down on your roof in a windstorm. The crash was not something he i

45、ntended, nor was it the result of his negligence.</p><p>　　A person who is proved to have committed a tort have resulted from his act. A motorist who sideswipes your car, causing you to serve and hit a pedes

46、trian, is responsible for damages both to you (for the injure to your car) and to the pedestrian (for his dental expenses in replacing the false teeth knocked ort when your car hit him). A mugger who attacks you on the s

47、treet, leading you, in defending yourself, to raise your umbrella so quickly that you hit a passerby, is responsible both to you (fo</p><p>　　Generally speaking, any person, young or old, mentally competent

48、or not, is responsible for his torts: for the consequences of his actions to others injured by those actions. The same person who in the eyes of the law is not mentally competent to commit a crime may nonetheless be held

49、 liable for committing a tort.</p><p>　　Almost all employers are liable for the torts of their employees if the employee committed the harmful act during the course of his employment. The law usually holds a

50、n employer liable for what happens when his employee is carrying ort his instructions and working on his behalf. But not all employers——especially not governmental ones.</p><p>　　The doctrine of sovereign im

51、munity——that the state cannot be sued except by its own consent——severely limits your right to sue governments and governmental bodes for the torts of their employees.</p><p>　　Some people may not be held li

52、able in tort actions. Among them are bus bands and wives. Who are not considered responsible for each other’s torts, and parents, who are not usually liable for the torts of their children. Many people are not aware of t

53、his. But if your ten-year-old son carelessly knocks a baseball through a store window you are not legally responsible for the cost of replacing it——despite the owner’s angry protests.</p><p>　　The situation

54、changes, however, if a parent knows that his child has developed what lawyers call a vicious propensity to commit acts that injure other people or their property. If the neighborhood bully has a habit of going around hit

55、ting smaller children and stoning dogs and cats, and if his parents know about his habitual bad behavior, the court might find that it was their duty to restrain and control him. If they allow him to continue in his dest

56、ructive ways, they might be found liable for d</p><p>　　Police officers, sheriffs and other peace officers acting in the course of their official duties are not liable in tort unless they use excessive force

57、 or exceed their authority in discharging their duties. The same general rule applies to many kinds of public officials working under actual or even implied orders from their superiors. You can’t sue the over eager tax c

58、ollector who charges you an excessive real estate levy. You may pay the money under protest and sue the senior official in charge</p><p><b>　　譯文:</b></p><p><b>　　2．侵權(quán)行為</b&g

59、t;</p><p>　　主要的法學(xué)著作家都同意：誰(shuí)也沒(méi)有給侵權(quán)行為下過(guò)一個(gè)令人滿意的定義。之所以如此，其部分愿意在于侵權(quán)行為司空見慣、比比皆是而又五花八門。人們可能成為侵權(quán)行為被害人的機(jī)會(huì)要比可能成為犯罪行被害人的機(jī)會(huì)多得多，而人們可能侵權(quán)的機(jī)會(huì)也要比可能犯罪的機(jī)會(huì)多得多。</p><p>　　侵權(quán)是對(duì)某個(gè)人的民違法行為；而犯罪，則是對(duì)全社會(huì)或?qū)?guó)家的犯罪行為。一位不慎在停車場(chǎng)內(nèi)碰了你的

60、東西且撞歪了你車上保險(xiǎn)杠的汽車司機(jī)已經(jīng)侵犯了你的財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)，但是他沒(méi)有犯什么罪。</p><p>　　可是，假定這位司機(jī)在離開停車場(chǎng)后，走進(jìn)了附近的一家酒吧間，灌下了六份威士忌酒，然后以每小時(shí)五十英里的車速在一條交通擁擠的市內(nèi)馬路上曲線駕駛；那么這下子他至少已經(jīng)犯下了下列罪行；酗酒駕車、開猛車和危害他人生命安全。但是除非實(shí)際損壞了他人汽車或傷害了他人身體，他還沒(méi)有侵犯任何人的權(quán)利。</p><p&

61、gt;　　所以，犯罪是針對(duì)社會(huì)的違法行為。只要有人犯罪，國(guó)家就有責(zé)任偵查，在刑事法院追訴并負(fù)擔(dān)對(duì)被告依法起訴的費(fèi)用。</p><p>　　在另一方面，侵權(quán)是侵犯他人的私人或人身權(quán)利的行為。如果你肯定某人雖已侵犯了你的個(gè)人權(quán)利卻尚無(wú)侵犯社會(huì)作為一個(gè)整體的利益，那么是否要上民事法院去告他以謀求救助，這就全得由你自己來(lái)決定了。如果你肯定此人已經(jīng)在法律上侵犯了你而且應(yīng)對(duì)此負(fù)責(zé)——這就是說(shuō)，法官或陪審官認(rèn)為他確已經(jīng)侵犯了你

62、或你的財(cái)產(chǎn)——那么都可以要求他：（甲因使你受到了人身傷害或財(cái)產(chǎn)損而向你給付損害賠償從而使你在法律上獲得救助；（乙）停止其違法行為或（丙）恢復(fù)原狀。一般他是不會(huì)坐牢的。在訴訟上由法院判給你的金錢賠償，當(dāng)然全歸你所有。日期，不管你勝訴還是敗訴，你聘請(qǐng)的律師辦案的費(fèi)用就由你自己支付了。甚至一個(gè)勝訴的被告也得擔(dān)負(fù)他自己的法律費(fèi)用。</p><p>　　如果同一個(gè)行為既屬侵權(quán)又是犯罪，那么違法行為就面臨兩種獨(dú)立的起訴：以你

63、為原告的訴訟和以國(guó)家為原告的訴訟。至于這兩種訴訟之相互影響，我們以后再談。但那是兩件互相獨(dú)立的訴訟。通常侵權(quán)行為發(fā)生于下列場(chǎng)合：有人傷害你的身體，損害或?yàn)E用你的財(cái)產(chǎn)，無(wú)緣無(wú)故地攻擊你的名譽(yù)或無(wú)正當(dāng)理由而剝奪你的行動(dòng)自由。</p><p>　　為了因他人的侵權(quán)行為而請(qǐng)求損害賠償，你必須證明該行為或系出于故意（如向他人分發(fā)通函，說(shuō)你是賊）或由過(guò)失（如在停車場(chǎng)內(nèi)負(fù)有小心駕車之責(zé)的司機(jī)不慎碰撞了你的汽車）所致。</

64、p><p>　　在大多數(shù)情況下，你必須證明該行為確已造成現(xiàn)實(shí)的損害或傷害，一個(gè)無(wú)損于你的惡意行為，如有人威脅要揍你的鼻子或在擁擠的地鐵里推你一下，那都不是依法起訴的充分理由。</p><p>　　同樣，如果鄰居院子里有一棵看來(lái)是勁健有力的榆樹在風(fēng)暴中倒在你的屋頂上，你大半是不能向你鄰居要求損害賠償?shù)?，因?yàn)橛軜渲瓜录确翘幱谒墓室?，又非他的過(guò)失所造成的</p><p>

65、　　已被證明是侵權(quán)行為者，要對(duì)業(yè)經(jīng)證明系因其行為所造成的損害承擔(dān)責(zé)任。一個(gè)從你車邊擦撞而過(guò)，使你曲線避讓而撞了行人的另車司機(jī)既要對(duì)你（因?yàn)樗鰤牧四愕能嚕┮惨獙?duì)行人（因?yàn)槟愕钠嚺龅袅怂强诩傺?，他得花錢請(qǐng)牙科醫(yī)生另配一副牙）負(fù)損害賠償之責(zé)。街道上有一個(gè)行兇搶劫的路賊毆打了你，使你出于自衛(wèi)，匆匆舉起傘來(lái)，結(jié)果碰傷了行人；這樣，該行為人既要對(duì)你（因?yàn)轶@動(dòng)了你的精神系統(tǒng)）也要對(duì)行人（因?yàn)樾腥说没ㄥX請(qǐng)大夫把腦勺子縫好）。該行為人同時(shí)犯了罪，因

66、而得予以逮捕并追訴之。</p><p>　　一般來(lái)說(shuō)，任何人（不問(wèn)年齡大小、智力健全與否）都必須對(duì)其侵權(quán)行為負(fù)責(zé)，即因其行為之后果對(duì)其受害人負(fù)責(zé)。同一個(gè)人雖在法律傷無(wú)犯罪能力亦可命其對(duì)所犯之侵權(quán)行為負(fù)責(zé)。</p><p>　　幾乎所有的雇用人都要對(duì)其被雇傭人的侵權(quán)行為負(fù)責(zé)，但以后者的侵權(quán)行為是在雇傭中所犯者為限。法律通常要求雇傭人——但并不是一切雇傭人，特別是國(guó)家作為雇用人——因其被雇傭人

67、執(zhí)行其指示并為其工作而造成的后果負(fù)責(zé)。</p><p>　　主權(quán)豁免原則（即一個(gè)國(guó)家非經(jīng)該國(guó)家同意不得被列為被告）嚴(yán)重地限制了你因政府和政府機(jī)關(guān)所雇工作人員之侵權(quán)行為而對(duì)該政府和政府機(jī)關(guān)提起訴訟的權(quán)利。</p><p>　　某些人是不能使之對(duì)侵權(quán)行為負(fù)責(zé)的。其中包括夫婦（各不對(duì)他方的侵權(quán)行為負(fù)責(zé)）和父母（一般不對(duì)子女之侵權(quán)行為負(fù)責(zé)）。這一點(diǎn)許多人是不了解的。但是如果你十歲的孩子不小心把棒球

68、一擊，擊穿了商店的櫥窗，那么盡管店主怒氣沖沖地一再抗議，在法律上你仍不必對(duì)配一塊櫥窗的費(fèi)用負(fù)責(zé)。</p><p>　　但是如果父或母明知其子女已養(yǎng)成了律師稱之為“惡習(xí)”的傷害他人或損害他人財(cái)產(chǎn)的習(xí)慣，那么情況就不同了。如果街道里弄的小霸王有到處去打年齡比他小的兒童、向狗或貓兒擲石塊等習(xí)慣而且如果他的父母對(duì)他習(xí)以為常的惡習(xí)又是知情的，那么法院會(huì)認(rèn)定他們有義務(wù)約束并監(jiān)督他。如父母聽任他繼續(xù)各種破壞活動(dòng)，則可以認(rèn)定他們

69、應(yīng)對(duì)他所造成的損害負(fù)責(zé)。此外，某些州已經(jīng)通過(guò)法律使父母對(duì)其未成年子女所造成的故意損害負(fù)責(zé)。</p><p>　　警察官員、地方司法行政官和其他治安官員不因其公務(wù)行為負(fù)侵權(quán)行為之責(zé)，但執(zhí)行公務(wù)而濫用強(qiáng)制力或超越權(quán)力者自當(dāng)別論。對(duì)于按上級(jí)明文下達(dá)的命令甚或心照不宣的命令行事的許多不同種類的官員，亦適用同上的總規(guī)則。你不能上法院去告那位過(guò)分積極而超過(guò)規(guī)定向你征課房地產(chǎn)稅的稅收官。你可以有異議地繳納稅款并去告主管的上級(jí)官