问题 问答题

渔民赵某于1992年出海打鱼,遇风浪一直未归。1998年其妻钱某不得已向法院申请宣告其死亡。赵某有两个孩子,分别为赵甲、赵乙,赵某夫妇有房屋6间,渔船一只(已经随赵某失踪而灭失了)。法院依法作出判决后,赵某留下的遗产开始被继承。房屋一间由其父亲继承,其余财产均由钱某和赵甲、赵乙继承。赵某被宣告死亡后,钱某生活十分困难,1999年,钱某将赵乙送给李某夫妇作为养子。2000年,钱某改嫁给周某。不久,周某死亡。 2001年,赵某回来了,原因是当时被海风刮到A国,失去记忆,现被送回。法院依法撤销了其死亡宣告,因财产返还,夫妻关系和子女收养等问题发生纠纷 问题:

赵某是否有权要求其父亲返还继承一间房屋为什么

答案

参考答案:有权。宣告死亡被撤销后,继承人继承的财产应予以返还。依《民法通则》第25条规定,被撤销死亡宣告的人有权请求返还财产。依照继承法取得他的财产的公民或者组织,应当返还原物;原物不存在的,给予适当补偿。本案中,赵某被宣告死亡后,其父亲继承了赵某的一间房屋,该房屋在继承后未发生不可抗力的灭失问题,因此,赵某有权要求其父亲返还继承的一间房屋。

阅读理解与欣赏
单项选择题

This week marks the 10th anniversary of the Alar apple scare, in which many American consumers were driven into a panic following the release of a report by an environmental organization claiming that apples containing the chemical Alar posed a serious health threat to preschoolers. The report was disseminated through a PR (Problem Report) campaign and bypassed any legitimate form of scientific peer review. Introduced to the American public by CBS "60 Minutes", the unsubstantiated claims in the report led some school districts to remove apples from their school lunch programs and unduly frightened conscientious parents trying to develop good eating habits for their children.

Last month, Consumers Union released a report warning consumers of the perils of consuming many fruits and vegetables that frequently contained "unsafe" levels of pesticide residues. This was especially true for children, they claimed. Like its predecessor 10 years earlier, the Consumers Union report received no legitimate scientific peer review and the public’s first exposure to it was through news coverage.

Not only does such reporting potentially drive children for consuming healthful fruits and vegetables, the conclusions were based on a misleading interpretation of what constitutes a "safe" level of exposure. Briefly, the authors used values known as the "chronic reference doses", set by the U. S. environmental Protection Agency, as their barometers of safely. Used appropriately, these levels represent the maximum amount of pesticide that could be consumed daily for life without concern. For a 70-year lifetime, for example, consumers would have to ingest this average amount of pesticide every day for more than 25,000 days. It is clear, as the report points out, that there are days on which kids may be exposed to more; it is also clear that there are many more days when exposure is zero. Had the authors more appropriately calculated the cumulative exposures for which the safety standards are meant to apply, there would have been no risks and no warnings.

Parents should feel proud, rather than guilty, of providing fruits and vegetables for their children. It is well established that a diet rich in such foods decreases the risk of heart disease and cancer. Such benefits dramatically overwhelm the theoretical risks of tiny amounts of pesticides in food. So keep serving up the peaches, apples, squash, grapes and pears.

The "chronic reference doses" (in boldface in Paragraph 3) refer to ().

A. the safe levels of pesticide exposure

B. the amount of fruits one can safely eat

C. one’s digestive capacity for fruits

D. health values of fruits and vegetables