sale by the court 中文意思是什麼

sale by the court 解釋
由法院頒令的售賣
  • sale : n. 1. 賣，出賣，出售。2. 拍賣；賤賣（尤指季末存貨的大減價）。3. 銷路。 4. 銷數，銷售額。5. 【法律】買賣契約。
  • by : adv 1 在側，在旁，在附近。2 （擱）在一邊，（放）到旁邊，（存）在一旁；收著。3 （由旁邊）經過，過...
  • the : 〈代表用法〉…那樣的東西，…那種東西。1 〈用單數普通名詞代表它的一類時（所謂代表的單數）〉 （a） 〈...
  • court : n 1 法院，法庭；法官。2 宮廷，朝廷；朝臣；朝見，謁見；御前會議；（公司等的）委員會；董事會；委員...
  1. A homestead cannot be the subject of a sale by court order to satisfy creditor

    宅地不能成為法院命令的滿足債權人所要求的銷售對象。
  2. Decisions in favour of the commissioner were given by the court in respect of appeals concerning the taxability of profits from the sale of property, the source of trading profits, a refusal of the board to grant an extension of time to allow a taxpayer to appeal against a determination of the commissioner, and the taxability of royalties. appeals to the court of appeal have been lodged in respect of the latter two decisions

    在4宗分別有關出售物業的利潤是否須要課稅、貿易利潤的來源、上訴委員會拒絕批準一名納稅人對局長所作決定提出延長上訴期限的申請、以及專利權費是否須征稅的個案，原訟法庭裁定局長勝訴，當中后兩宗個案的納稅人已就裁決向上訴法庭提出上訴。
  3. During 2003 - 04, the court of first instance ruled on three appeal cases. the issues considered by the court included the taxability of profits from the sale of properties ; the deductibility of amounts claimed by a practising accountant as office facilities charges and entertainment and equipment rental expenses ; and whether the provisions of the inland revenue ordinance concerning personal assessment in the case of a married couple are inconsistent with the basic law

    在2003至04年度，原訟法庭就3宗上訴個案作出裁決，所涉及的問題包括出售物業的利潤是否應課利得稅；一位執業會計師是否可以申索扣除他聲稱支付了的辦公室設施費用、應酬費及機器租賃費；以及《稅務條例》內有關已婚人士根據個人入息課稅評稅的條文是否與基本法不符。
  4. If, in accordance with the provisions of this convention, one party is entitled to require performance of any obligation by the other party, a court is not bound to enter a judgement for specific performance unless the court would do so under its own law in respect of similar contracts of sale not governed by this convention

    如果按照本公約的規定，一方當事人有權要求另一方當事人履行某一義務，法院沒有義務做出判決，要求具體履行此一義務，除非法院依照其本身的法律對不屬本公約范圍的類似銷售合同願意這樣做。
  5. The high court concluded that the flemings, judging their actions objectively, failed in their legal obligations to take all reasonable steps to try to obtain an unconditional contract for the sale of their property on terms acceptable to them by 1 december 2004

    高等法庭裁定，依客觀標準判斷，復萊明未能履行其法律責任，採取合理步驟，在2004年12月1日以前將自己的房產售出。
分享友人
分享到 Line

分享到臉書