题目内容
A装饰公司(以下称A公司)承接甲开发商所建造楼盘的全部室内装饰工程，2009年7月5日，A装饰公司为此与B建材公司(以下称B公司)签订了一份买卖合同。该合同约定：B公司向A公司供应一批卫生间装饰用瓷砖，总价款为人民币130万元；在合同签订之后3日内，由A公司先期以银行承兑汇票的方式预付人民币30万元货款；B公司在同年8月5日前一次向A公司交货；A公司收到货物并验收合格后10日内一次向B公司付清余款；本买卖合同发生履行纠纷，提交酒店工程所在地的仲裁委员会解决纠纷。与此同时，为了保证该买卖合同的履行，B公司要求A公司提供担保，A公司提出由双方都有业务往来的C贸易公司(以下简称C公司)提供担保，C公司与B公司达成口头约定如果A厂不履行付款义务，C公司保证履行。 2009年7月8日，A公司为履行先期预付货款的义务，向B公司开出一张人民币30万元见票后定期付款的银行承兑汇票。B公司收到该汇票后于同月10日向承兑行提示承兑，承兑行对该汇票审查之后，即于当日在汇票正面记载“承兑”字样，签署了承兑日期和签章，同时记载付款期限为同年9月10日。B公司为支付D建筑公司(以下称D公司)的工程款，于7月20日，将该汇票背书转让给了D公司。 2009年8月1日，B公司依照上述合同的规定向A公司一次交付货物，并经A公司验收。同年8月上旬，A公司向B公司提出：B公司交付的瓷砖存在严重质量问题，要求退货；B公司声称其货物不存在质量问题，不同意退货；并要求A公司严格履行合同义务，按时向B公司支付货款。随后，A公司以B公司交付的货物不符质量为由，要求承兑行停止支付由其开出的人民币30万元的银行承兑汇票。D公司在该汇票到期日请求承兑行付款时，该行拒绝付款，A公司亦拒绝向B公司支付剩余货款。B公司认为A公司的行为属于违约行为，于是到A公司所在地的人民法院提起诉讼，追究A公司的违约责任。 经调查证实：B公司交付A公司的货物不存在质量问题，A公司之所以要求退货，主要是因其承接的甲开发商的室内装饰工程发生变化，甲开发商将一部分室内装饰工程转包给了其他公司。 甲开发商在楼盘尚未竣工并未取得预售许可证以前，即开始向社会公众进行预售。 张某有一学龄前孙子，因受甲售楼广告的影响，对正在预售的楼盘的儿童乐园、游泳池、篮球场等公共设施非常感兴趣，看中了一套面积为140平方米的商品房。虽然该商品房的价格明显高于周围楼盘，但张某认为该小区的设施对其孙子成长十分有利，故欣然向银行办理贷款手续，购买了该商品房。 该商品房交房时，张某发现该小区并没有售楼广告所宣传的儿童乐园、游泳池、篮球场等公共设施，随即与甲交涉，要求其承担违约责任。但甲认为广告只是要约邀请，难免有夸张和虚幻之处，拒绝承担违约责任。 此后不久，张又发现其购买的商品房的实际面积只有135平方米，当即要求退房，也遭甲拒绝。张即向法院提起诉讼。 经查，在张某向法院起诉前，甲已取得该商品房的预售许可证。 2010年4月，张某将上述房子出租给李某，并与之签订了为期2年的租赁合同。2010年8月，张某又将该房子出卖给陈某。 [要求] 根据以上事实和有关法律规定，请分别回答下列问题：1.A公司是否存在违约行为为什么
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Moral responsibility is all very well, but what about military orders Is it not the soldier’s duty to give instant obedience to orders given by his military superiors And apart from duty, will not the soldier suffer severe punishment, even death, if he refuses to do what he is ordered to If, then, a soldier is told by his superior to burn this house or to shoot that prisoner, how can he be held criminally accountable on the ground that the burning or shooting was a violation of the laws of war These are some of the questions that are raised by the concept commonly called "superior orders", and its use as a defense in war crimes trials. It is an issue that must be as old as the laws of war themselves, and it emerged in legal guise over three centuries ago when, after the Stuart restoration in 1660, the commander of the guards at the trial and execution of Charles I was put on trial for treason and murder. The officer defended himself on the ground "that all I did was as a soldier, by the command of my superior officer whom I must obey or die," but the court gave him short shrift, saying that "When the command is traitorous, then the obedience to that command is also traitorous." Though not precisely articulated, the rule that is necessarily implied by this decision is that it is the soldier’s duty to obey lawful orders, but that he may disobey--and indeed must, under some circum-stances-unlawful orders. Such has been the law of the United States since the birth of the nation. In 1804, Chief Justice John Marshall declared that superior orders would justify a subordinate’s conduct only "if not to perform a prohibited act," and there are many other early decisions to the same effect. A strikingly illustrative case occurred in the wake of that conflict which most Englishmen have never heard (although their troops burned the White House) and which we call the War of 1812. Our country was baldly split by that war too and, at a time when the United States Navy was not especially popular in New England, the ship-in-the-line Independence was lying in Boston Harbor. A passer-by directed abusive language at a marine standing guard on the ship, and the marine, Bevans by name, ran his bayonet through the man. Charged with murder, Bevans produced evidence that the marines on the Independence had been ordered to bayonet anyone showing them disrespect. The case was tried before Justice Joseph Story, next to Marshall, the leading judicial figure of those years, who charged that any such order as Bevans had invoked "would be illegal and void," and, if given and put into practice, both the superior and the subordinate would be guilty of murder. In consequence, Bevans was convicted. The order allegedly given to Bevans was pretty drastic, and Boston Harbor was not a battlefield; perhaps it was not too much to expect the marine to realize that literal compliance might lead to bad trouble. But it is only too easy to conceive of circumstances where the matter might not be at all clear. Does the subordinate obey at peril that the order may later be ruled illegal, or is protected unless he has a good reason to doubt its validity It can be concluded from the last paragraph that the author’s attitude towards Bevans was ______ .
Questions 21 to 23 are based on the following news. At the end of the news item, you will be given 15 seconds to answer the questions. Now, listen to the news. What was the cause of the explosion
在骨骼肌细胞兴奋-收缩耦联过程中，胞质内的Ca2+自
从首都机场至三元桥，被称______，全长约______，最高限速120千米，于1993年通车，总投资11亿多元。P134
微信支付 
支付宝支付