Negotiating —a complex process even between parties from the same nation —is

游客2024-06-10  13

问题     Negotiating —a complex process even between parties from the same nation —is even more complicated in international transactions because of the added chance of misunderstandings stemming from cultural differences. It is essential to understand the importance of rank in the other country; to know who the decision makers are; to be familiar with the business style of the foreign company; and to understand the nature of agreements in the country, the significance of gestures, and negotiating etiquette. These cultural differences lead to very different style of contract negotiation.
    There are enormous cultural differences between Asia and the United States. The classic difference is that in Asia, the good faith human relationship between the parties is central. In the United States, on the whole, there is a greater effort to have precise legal descriptions of everything that might happen, resolving every particular type of dispute that can be predicted in advance. Thus, during negotiations, the United States party frequently likes to have a lawyer present and tends to be less ready to use a situation of simple negotiation between the principals.
    This docs not mean that concepts of good faith and good faith relationship between the parties to a contract are not taken seriously in the West, but it does mean that in the legal tradition we are looked forward to spelling out all the precise details and you should not be surprised if your Western partner asks you to do that. There is a good faith obligation as part of normal contract law under the United States and European law.
    A contract is a legally binding agreement which the courts will enforce. This definition, likes all definitions,, is not perfect, but it does emphasize the most important element in all contracts — agreement, All contracts are agreements, although not all agreements are contracts.
    So without agreement there can be no contract. But how do you prove the existence of agreement which is really no more than a state of mind of English judges, who are more interested in practical solutions than in abstract theories? They have found, from experience, that if one person makes a clear and definite offer and another person unconditionally accepts the offer, then it is reasonable to say that the two of them are in agreement. There is no attempt to look inside their minds to find out what they are really thinking: it is what they say and do that counts. [br] You should be ready to accept it if your western partner asks you to

选项

答案 spell out all the precise details.

解析 本题空白处问“当来有西方的谈判身对你提出何种要求时,你应该欣然接受”。第三段第二行提到西方国家在谈判中坚持的信念。文中提到" it does mean that in the legal tradition we are looked for ward to spelling out all the precise details and you should not be surprised if your Western partner asks you to do that"(如果西方谈判者要求你清楚地说出所有具体的细节,你不应该感到奇怪。因为从法律传统上说,我们被期待那么做)。因此,空白处应该填"spell out all the precise details"。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3627707.html
最新回复(0)