Hey there,
I appeal to answer the following questionnaire, because I need some opinions of Americans for my skilled work. Please help me! Copy the questions into your window to write and send it filled back to me. It would be a great help!
It's very important for me. Thanks a lot!
Patricia
PS: you can send me your answers also by email
Email: [email protected]
Sex:
age:
profession:
state:
1. In Germany, one judge decides on the verdict whereas in the USA the verdicts in most cases are decided on by 12 jurors and the judge is rather a moderator of the procedure.
What do you think is the better way? And why? Maybe you find one fairer than the other one? If it is so, why?
Answer:
2. In the USA the hearing of evidence is before the lawsuit to avoid succeeding surprises and to enable both parties to achieve a realistic evaluation of their lawsuit's prospects.
In Germany the hearing of evidence is during the lawsuit.
What do you think about both ways of hearing of evidence? Do you see any advantages in the way Germany handles the procedure of hearing of evidence? Do you think this makes a difference in the way a witness reacts when being confronted with the evidence?
Answer:
3. A compensation for outlay for financially disadvantages people is rather unusal in a US lawsuit. Every party bears their own expenses for the "discovery" and the "trial" which are not very cheap. Thereby, an exaltation of an action should be seriously deliberated.
In Germany the party that loses the lawsuit bears all court expenses apart from the lawyer expenses of the opposite party. There aren't expenses for "discovery" and "trial" in Germany. So, the party who wins does not have to pay anything apart from their own lawyer expenses.
What are assets and drawbacks of both ways? What do you think is the better way? Why?
Answer:
4. In Germany people who do not have enough money for the lawsuit can apply for legal aid.
This legal aid can contain the expenses for the lawyer and the court but only if the charges are not mischievous and the party has adequate chances to win the suit.
Such legal aid does not exist in the USA. There is only the possibility of making a motion for a granting for poor-law. This refers only to the legal charges. (not contained: expenses for "trial" and "discovery", lawyer, the most expensive expenses)
What do you think do these both ways effectuate? Do you find reasons for both ways?
What is your opinion about them?
Answer:
5. In Germany, in most law suits a lawyer must represent the party. A party cannot act for him- or herself. In the USA, there does not exist such a must to have a lawyer.
Which norm do you prefer and why? What do you think are the reasons for both?
Answer:
6. In the USA, "standard of proof" according to the Common Law is that a preponderant probability is sufficient to win. In Germany a probability bordering on surety is required.
What do you think about it? Perhaps you can find assets and drawbacks? What do you prefer?
Answer:
I appeal to answer the following questionnaire, because I need some opinions of Americans for my skilled work. Please help me! Copy the questions into your window to write and send it filled back to me. It would be a great help!
It's very important for me. Thanks a lot!
Patricia
PS: you can send me your answers also by email
Email: [email protected]
Sex:
age:
profession:
state:
1. In Germany, one judge decides on the verdict whereas in the USA the verdicts in most cases are decided on by 12 jurors and the judge is rather a moderator of the procedure.
What do you think is the better way? And why? Maybe you find one fairer than the other one? If it is so, why?
Answer:
2. In the USA the hearing of evidence is before the lawsuit to avoid succeeding surprises and to enable both parties to achieve a realistic evaluation of their lawsuit's prospects.
In Germany the hearing of evidence is during the lawsuit.
What do you think about both ways of hearing of evidence? Do you see any advantages in the way Germany handles the procedure of hearing of evidence? Do you think this makes a difference in the way a witness reacts when being confronted with the evidence?
Answer:
3. A compensation for outlay for financially disadvantages people is rather unusal in a US lawsuit. Every party bears their own expenses for the "discovery" and the "trial" which are not very cheap. Thereby, an exaltation of an action should be seriously deliberated.
In Germany the party that loses the lawsuit bears all court expenses apart from the lawyer expenses of the opposite party. There aren't expenses for "discovery" and "trial" in Germany. So, the party who wins does not have to pay anything apart from their own lawyer expenses.
What are assets and drawbacks of both ways? What do you think is the better way? Why?
Answer:
4. In Germany people who do not have enough money for the lawsuit can apply for legal aid.
This legal aid can contain the expenses for the lawyer and the court but only if the charges are not mischievous and the party has adequate chances to win the suit.
Such legal aid does not exist in the USA. There is only the possibility of making a motion for a granting for poor-law. This refers only to the legal charges. (not contained: expenses for "trial" and "discovery", lawyer, the most expensive expenses)
What do you think do these both ways effectuate? Do you find reasons for both ways?
What is your opinion about them?
Answer:
5. In Germany, in most law suits a lawyer must represent the party. A party cannot act for him- or herself. In the USA, there does not exist such a must to have a lawyer.
Which norm do you prefer and why? What do you think are the reasons for both?
Answer:
6. In the USA, "standard of proof" according to the Common Law is that a preponderant probability is sufficient to win. In Germany a probability bordering on surety is required.
What do you think about it? Perhaps you can find assets and drawbacks? What do you prefer?
Answer:
