Commercial Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
M A Clarke ◽  
R J A Hooley ◽  
R J C Munday ◽  
L S Sealy ◽  
A M Tettenborn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Commercial Law ◽  
Trade Finance ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
Personal Property ◽  
Consumer Rights ◽  
Modern Slavery ◽  
Bankruptcy Procedure ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This new edition includes discussion of new legislation, including: Consumer Rights Act 2015; Insurance Act 2015; Modern Slavery Act 2015; Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015; Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010; Bribery Act 2010; Payment Services Regulations 2009. The text also has analysis of the latest developments in case law, including: Armstrong DLW GmbH v Winnington Networks Ltd and Devani v Republic of Kenya (on personal property law); Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc (on vicarious liability); Kelly v Fraser and Thanakharn Kasikorn Thai Chamkat (Mahachon) v Akai Holdings Ltd (on apparent authority); Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd and European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC (on agent's secret profits); Bailey v Angove's Pty Ltd (on irrevocable agencies); Cukurova Finance International v Alfa Telecom Turkey Ltd, Gray v G-T-P Group Ltd, and USA v Nolan (on the Financial Collateral Arrangements, No 2, Regulations). The book contains a new introductory section on the impact of Brexit on English commercial law. Insolvency coverage includes discussion of new out-of-court bankruptcy procedure, debt relief orders, and pre-pack administrations.

Sealy and Hooley's Commercial Law

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Fox ◽  
Roderick Munday ◽  
Baris Soyer ◽  
Andrew Tettenborn ◽  
Peter Turner
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Abu Dhabi ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Commercial Law ◽  
Trade Finance ◽  
Personal Property ◽  
Commission Report ◽  
Oil Company ◽  
Law Commission ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series extract key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing students with an invaluable resource. This new edition includes discussion of new legislation, including the new Insolvency Act 1986, ss 263H–263O; the Payment Services Regulations 2017; the Electronic Presentment of Instruments (Evidence of Payment and Compensation for Loss) Regulations 2018; and the Business Terms (Assignment of Receivables) Regulations 2018. In addition it discusses new case law such as Glencore International AG v MSC (on personal property law and shipping documents); Volcafe Ltd v Cia Sud Americana de Vapores (on bailment); Kaefer Aislamientos v AMS Drilling Mexico, Bailey v Angove’s Pty, and Banca Nazionale del Lavoro v Playboy Club (on agency); PST Energy 7 Shipping v OW Bunker Malta, Bajaj Healthcare v Fine Organics, Gunvor v Sky Oil & Gas, and Euro-Asian Oil SA v Crédit Suisse AG (on sale of goods); The Erin Schulte and Taurus Petroleum v State Oil Company (on trade finance); BP Oil International v First Abu Dhabi Bank (on assignment); Haywood v Zurich Insurance, The DC Merwestone, and Axa Insurance UK v Financial Claims Solutions (on insurance); and Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Ltd and JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov (on insolvency). Other developments are also covered, such as the proposed reform of bills of sale recommended in the 2017 Law Commission report on Bills of Sale. The book contains a new introductory section on the likely detailed impact of Brexit on English commercial law.

scholarly journals EMPLOYERS’ STATUTORY VICARIOUS LIABILITY IN TERMS OF THE PROTECTION OF PERSONAL INFORMATION ACT

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Daleen Millard ◽  
Eugene Gustav Bascerano
Keyword(s):  
Personal Information ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Data Subject ◽  
Responsible Party

A person whose privacy has been infringed through the unlawful, culpable processing of his or her personal information can sue the infringer’s employer based on vicarious liability or institute action based on the Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 (POPI). Section 99(1) of POPI provides a person (“data subject”), whose privacy has been infringed, with the right to institute a civil action against the responsible party. POPI defines the responsible party as the person who determines the purpose of and means for processing of personal information of data subjects. Although POPI does not equate a responsible party to an employer, the term “responsible party” is undoubtedly a synonym for “employer” in this context. By holding an employer accountable for its employees’ unlawful processing of a data subject’s personal information, POPI creates a form of statutory vicarious liability.Since the defences available to an employer at common law, and developed by case law, differs from the statutory defences available to an employer in terms of POPI, it is necessary to compare the impact this new statute has on employers. From a risk perspective, employers must be aware of the serious implications of POPI. The question that arises is whether the Act does not perhaps take matters too far.This article takes a critical look at the statutory defences available to an employer in vindication of a vicarious liability action brought by a data subject in terms of section 99(1) of POPI. It compares the defences found in section 99(2) of POPI and the common-law defences available to an employer fending off a delictual claim founded on the doctrine of vicarious liability. To support the argument that the statutory vicarious liability created by POPI is is too harsh, the defences contained in section 99(2) of POPI is further analogised with those available to an employer in terms of section 60(4) of the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 (EEA) and other comparable foreign data protection statutes. 

The Interaction of Judicial and Legislative Policymaking

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne K. Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
European Legislation ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Political Preferences ◽  
General Rules ◽  
Judicial Policymaking ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

Chapter 4 systematizes the different ways that judicial policymaking can have an impact on European legislation. Identifying the codification of case-law principles in secondary law contributes to research on the EU in two important ways: it shows how EU legislation is embedded in case-law development, and that the impact of case law cannot be reduced to the question of compliance with single rulings. A differentiation is made between several types of judicial ‘shadow’ over the legislative process. Then the Services Directive and the regulation on the mutual recognition of goods are analysed. The principles of case law that were motivated by the specific circumstances of individual cases constrain the design of general rules. Secondary law cannot modify constitutional principles. At best, the legislature can hope to signal its political preferences to the Court.

scholarly journals Social values and public procurement in health: can ‘smart’ procurement enhance justice in health?

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
V Mezeiova
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Social Aspect ◽  
Health It ◽  
Health Governance ◽  
Ethics And Economics ◽  
Economics Of Health ◽  
Effectiveness And Efficiency ◽  
Health Justice ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Governments spend 29% of total expenditure on procurement while the second largest area is health. However, the important question is what the impact of these expenditures on health is. Can one buy health justice through procurement? In order to answer this issue, the study firstly analyses theory of global health governance to substantiate whether procurement is a health governance tool whose efficiency and effectiveness determines health outcomes. Secondly, health as a social aspect is scrutinised because its governance and procurement have to be driven by a normative value. Within the study, health justice is justified to be such a value as it is a significant public health factor in practice. Following this normative claim, the study uses analysis of legislation, case law and examples from procurement practice to show whether procurement law can enhance health justice. In terms of methodology, the study establishes a normative framework of governance in health, health justice and procurement. On that basis, it distinguishes procurement categories (procurement of health, and procurement for health) and concludes what it is in procurement that health justice is transformed into. In order to answer the core research question, the study analyses harmonised transnational EU legislation, policy, case law of the CJEU, and examples from practice through stages of supply framework - at input, output and outcome. The study leads to a conclusion that procurement serves as a tool of governance in health. In order to reach effectiveness and efficiency of procurement in health, it is submitted that procurement needs to reflect on the argument of ethics and economics of health. Health inequalities are an operationalized factor to reach this. The EU procurement law enables to consider health justice. However, it is restricted by the requirement of proportionality. Therefore, health justice is perceived as distortion, rather than a goal of competition to be enhanced. Key messages In order to reach effectiveness and efficiency of procurement in health, it is submitted that procurement needs to reflect on argument of ethics and economics of health. The EU procurement law enables to consider health justice. However, it is rather perceived as distortion, than a goal of competition to be enhanced.

Anticompetitive Effects in EU Competition Law

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pablo Ibáñez Colomo
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Time Variable ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Open Questions ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Competitive Disadvantage ◽  
Probability Threshold ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Freedom Of Action

Abstract This article examines the meaning and scope of the notion of anticompetitive effects in EU competition law. It does so by bringing together several strands of the case law (and this across all provisions, namely Articles 101 and 102 TFEU and merger control). The analysis is structured around a framework that considers the main variables that shape the notion in practice: the time variable (actual or potential effects); the dimensions of competition and the counterfactual; the meaning of effects and the probability threshold (plausibility, likelihood, certainty). The exercise shows that it is possible to discern a concrete meaning to the notion of anticompetitive effects. Some central questions, including the role and operation of the counterfactual and the threshold of effects, have already been answered by the Court of Justice. In particular, it has long been clear that anticompetitive effects amount to more than a mere competitive disadvantage and/or a limitation of a firm’s freedom of action. The impact on equally efficient firms’ ability and/or incentive to compete would need to be established. At the same time, some open questions and some potential areas of friction (relating, inter alia, to stakeholders’ tendency to conflate appreciability and effects) remain. These are also discussed.

The concept of human dignity in the case-law of the Supreme Court of Canada on Charter Equality Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 118-137
Author(s):  
Tatiana Vasilieva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Equality Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Additional Burden ◽  
The Impact

This article explores the evolution of the Supreme Court of Canada’s approach to the application of the concept of human dignity in constitutional equality cases. Traditionally, in human rights cases, this concept serves only to strengthen the argument, to show that the violation affects the person’s intrinsic worth. It is only in Canada and in South Africa that there is experience in applying the concept as a criterion for identifying discrimination. In 1999, in Law v. Canada, the Supreme Court recognized the purpose of Article 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982 to be the protection of human dignity and stated that discrimination must be established based on assessment of the impact of a program or law on human dignity. However, in 2008, in R. v. Kapp, the Court noted that the application of the concept of human dignity creates difficulties and places an additional burden of prove on the plaintiff. It is no coincidence that victims of discrimination have preferred to seek protection before human rights tribunals and commissions, where the dignity-based test is not used. Subsequently, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the use of the concept of human dignity as a criterion for identifying discrimination. The unsuccessful experience of applying the concept of human dignity as legal test has demonstrated that not every theoretically correct legal construction is effective in adjudication.

Article 51 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights from the Perspective of the National Judge

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 53-85
Author(s):  
Petr Mádr
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Track Record ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Relevant Case ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Academic Debate

This article contributes to the growing scholarship on the national application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights ('the Charter') by assessing what challenges national courts face when dealing with Article 51 of the Charter, which sets out the Charter's material scope of application. In keeping with this aim, the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) – with its general formulas, abstract guidance and implementation categories – is discussed strictly from the perspective of the national judge. The article then presents the findings of a thorough study of the case law of the Czech Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) and evaluates this Court's track record when assessing the Charter's applicability. National empirical data of that kind can provide valuable input into the CJEU-centred academic debate on the Charter's scope of application.

Product Liability

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fairgrieve Duncan ◽  
Richard Goldberg
Keyword(s):  
Strict Liability ◽  
Product Liability ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Financial Loss ◽  
Liability Law ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact

Product Liability is a recognised authority in the field and covers the product liability laws through which manufacturers, retailers, and others may be held liable to compensate persons who are injured, or who incur financial loss, when the products which they manufacture or sell are defective or not fit for their purpose. Product defects may originate in the production process, be one of design, or be grounded in a failure to issue an adequate warning or directions for safe use and practitioners advising business clients or claimants will find this book provides all the necessary information for practitioners to manage a product liability claim. This new edition has been fully updated to take account of 10 years of development in case law and regulation, and the increasing impact of cross-border and transnational sale of goods. The Court of Justice of the European Union handed down major rulings concerning the Product Liability Directive which affect the application of the Directive and national arrangements and Fairgrieve and Goldberg examines this in detail. For any legal practitioner operating in areas which require knowledge of European product liability law, an understanding of the impact of recent developments is essential and this work is an essential resource for practitioners working on product liability, sale of goods, personal injury and negligence. The work provides comprehensive coverage of the law of negligence as it applies to product liability, of the strict liability provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, and of the EU's Product Liability Directive on which the Act is based. Although the majority of cases involve pharmaceuticals and medical devices, in recent English cases the allegedly defective products have been as diverse as a child's buggy, an All Terrain Vehicle, and even a coffee cup. Many cases are brought as group actions, and the book examines the rights of those who are injured by defective products. As well as considering the perspective of the law as it has developed in the UK, this edition contains detailed discussion of case law from other jurisdictions including the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, France and Germany. The coverage in the work is complemented by a full analysis of issues which arise in transnational litigation involving problems of jurisdiction and the choice of laws.

L'azione dell'Unione europea contro le discriminazioni basate sulla religione: l'impatto della giurisprudenza della Corte europea dei diritti umani

2012 ◽  
pp. 475-511
Author(s):  
Federico Casolari
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
General Framework ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

Law Although EU law has established a general framework concerning the fight against discriminations on the grounds of religion (namely as far as equal treatment in employment and occupation is concerned), the related ECJ case law is not very rich. This article tracks and evaluates the impact of the ECHR case law devoted to the freedom of religion on the interpretation and application of EU law concerning religion discriminations. It argues that the ECHR case law may contribute to identify the notion of ‘religion' which is relevant for EU law, while several arguments may be put forward against the application of the Strasbourg approach to the balancing between the right to quality based on religion and others human rights into the EU legal order.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document