Book Review:Labor Relations and the Law: In the United Kingdom and the United States. Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather, Geraldson

1970 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 74
Author(s):  
Milton Derber
1871 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 77-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. B. Sprague

The past session of Parliament has witnessed the passing of an Act for the regulation of Life Assurance Companies in the United Kingdom, which, while introducing great changes in the law, still stops very far short of the system of legislation which has been for several years in operation in a few of the United States of America, and which is warmly approved of and urgently recommended for adoption by some persons in this country. The present may therefore be considered a fitting time for reviewing what has been done and considering whether any further legislation is desirable, and if any, of what nature it should be.


Legal Studies ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 485-502 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Griffiths

In both the United Kingdom and the United States, there have been a substantial number of copyright disputes concerning the creation of biographical works. Prominent recent examples have involved J D Salinger and Sir Stephen Spender. In many such disputes, the claimant's motive for bringing infringement proceedings is not financial but ‘personal’— for example, to protect privacy or reputation. In this article, it is argued that, when copyright is employed for such motives, inconsistent results can arise. In particular, in such cases, it is demonstrated that the possession of a copyright interest is capable of providing a number of apparently inequitable advantages to claimants whose privacy or reputation is threatened.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 52-80
Author(s):  
S. Khanderia

The outbreak of COVID-19 has severely impacted the performance of contracts across the globe. In some situations, the outbreak may render the performance of contracts impossible as a result of governmental restrictions in the form of national lockdowns to curb the spread of the virus. In other situations, the pandemic may adversely impact the execution of contractual obligations by dramatically affecting the price of the performance and, thus, resulting in hardship or commercial impracticability, while in certain situations the pandemic may be legally construed to not affect the performance of a contract. In domestic contracts, the consequences of such non-performance would depend on the principles of national law. In comparison, agreements with a foreign element (international contracts) are likely to increase the complexity of deciding claims arising from the non-performance of contracts due to the COVID-19 outbreak. The rights and liability of the parties would chiefly depend on the law that will govern the agreement – which differs across the globe. Some contracts would include a force majeure clause to exonerate the parties from performance on the occurrence of an event such as a pandemic. The courts’ interpretations of such force majeure clauses similarly differ across the globe. The laws of some countries would excuse the parties from performing their contractual obligations even if the pandemic resulted in hardship. Others would strictly construe the terms of such clauses and would invalidate them if the occurrence of the pandemic did not make the performance impossible. This paper examines the non-performance of transnational contracts due to the COVID-19 outbreak when they are governed by Indian law. It highlights the situations when an international contract for the sale of goods or services whose performance has been allegedly hindered due to COVID-19 would (a) frustrate and (b) breach the agreement under Indian law. The paper provides a comparative analysis of Indian law with jurisdictions such as France, Germany, Austria, China, the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States to demonstrate that Indian law is not well equipped to deal with complex lawsuits arising due to the non-performance of contracts as a result of the pandemic.


Utilitas ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 363-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
FREDERICK SCHAUER

In the Principles of the Penal Code, Jeremy Bentham described offences that he labelled presumed or evidentiary. The conduct penalized under such offences is punished not because it is intrinsically wrong, but because it probabilistically indicates the presence of an intrinsic wrong. Bentham was sceptical of the need to create offences, but grudgingly accepted their value in light of deficiencies in procedure and the judiciary. These days the scepticism is even greater, with courts and commentators in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and elsewhere believing that such ‘proxy’ offences deny a defendant the right to establish that he did not engage in the conduct that the presumed offence probabilistically but not necessarily indicates. On closer analysis, however, such scepticism appears unjustified. Almost all offences, and indeed almost all legal rules, are premised on a probabilistic relationship between the behaviour the rule encompasses and the behaviour that is the rule-maker's real concern. Presumed offences may make this relationship especially obvious, but it is a relationship that exists whenever the law operates by the use of rules.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document