案例分析
Case Brief
侯利阳
【摘要】这是一个美国案例。争点是律师费用是否应当有败诉方承担。制作判决书的法官是理查德-波斯纳（《法律经济的分析》的作者）。判决书认为：律师费用应当由当事人自己承担。
【关键词】律师费用的承担
【全文】
The Court:
United States Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit (the appellate court)
The Plaintiff-Appellee:
ZAPATA HERMANOS SUCESORES, S.A. (Zapata)
The Defendant-Appellant:
HEARTHSIDE BAKING COMPANY, INC., d/b/a MAURICE LENELL COOKY COMPANY (Lenell)
I. Facts:
Zapata, a Mexican corporation, supplied Lenell, a US company, with cookie tins and then sued Lenell before a US district court for breach of contract. The district judge ordered Lenell to pay Zapata damage including attorneys’ fees. Lenell appealed to the federal circuit court by claming that such attorney’s fees should not be included.
II. Procedural History:
1. Prior procedure:
This case was brought first before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The plaintiff prevailed on March 18, 2002.
2. Current procedure:
Then, Lenell appealed to United States Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit. On November 19, 2002 the judgment of reverse and remand was delivered by the Circuit court.
3. Subsequent procedure:
Subsequently, a petition for rehearing en banc was denied on January 9, 2003; later, US Supreme Court denied granting certiorari on December 1, 2003.
III. Legal Issues in the current procedure:
1. Applicable Substantive Law: Article 74 of the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (the Convention) and US contract law
2. Applicable Procedure Law: the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
3. Key Points: whether the damage for breach of contract should include attorney’s fees.
