The Mysterious Case of the Reasonable Person

2019 ◽  
pp. 226-270
Author(s):  
John Gardner

This chapter focuses on the ‘reasonable person’, that ‘excellent but odious character’ who seems to inhabit every nook and cranny of the common law. According to Ripstein, the reasonable person embodies not just a justificatory standard but a particular justificatory standard. But what exactly is particular about the justificatory standard that he/she embodies? The chapter sketches six possible solutions to the mystery, which enjoy varying degrees of support in Ripstein’s text. They are by no means mutually exclusive. But how combining them would mitigate, as opposed to compounding, their several difficulties remains unclear.

2019 ◽  
pp. 175-184
Author(s):  
George P. Fletcher

This chapter explores the role of mental state in criminal cases, considering the concept of negligence. Lawyers trained in the common law tradition are familiar with the concept of mens rea and the maxim actus non facit reus nisi mens sit rea. Literally this means that there is no criminal (or guilty) act without a criminal (or guilty) mind. The problem is that there are both descriptive and normative interpretations of mens rea and of the maxim. The normative or moral interpretation of mens rea holds that the term equivalent to a guilty mind, for example, a basis for blaming the actor for their conduct, is something not possible in the face of the defenses considered in the last chapter. Meanwhile, negligence is based, as in the classic definition from the law of torts, on the conduct of “a reasonable person under the circumstances.” The important point is that negligence is based on the fault of not knowing.


2018 ◽  
Vol 77 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.W. Carter ◽  
Wayne Courtney ◽  
Gregory Tolhurst

AbstractThis article compares two models of discharge for repudiation. The first – termed the “mirror image model” – has come to the fore only in recent years. It treats the applicable principles as the mirror image of those that govern discharge for failure to perform a contractual term. Under the second model – the “differentiated model” – repudiation is analysed in terms of various criteria that respond to conceptual diversity within the basis for discharge. The two models diverge, at the heart of the repudiation doctrine, when the issue is whether a reasonable person would regard the promisor as having refused to perform the contract. It is argued that the differentiated model is the better model, and also the preferred view of the common law.


2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 238-290
Author(s):  
Colm Peter McGrath ◽  
◽  
Helmut Koziol ◽  

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-185
Author(s):  
Edyta Sokalska

The reception of common law in the United States was stimulated by a very popular and influential treatise Commentaries on the Laws of England by Sir William Blackstone, published in the late 18th century. The work of Blackstone strengthened the continued reception of the common law from the American colonies into the constituent states. Because of the large measure of sovereignty of the states, common law had not exactly developed in the same way in every state. Despite the fact that a single common law was originally exported from England to America, a great variety of factors had led to the development of different common law rules in different states. Albert W. Alschuler from University of Chicago Law School is one of the contemporary American professors of law. The part of his works can be assumed as academic historical-legal narrations, especially those concerning Blackstone: Rediscovering Blackstone and Sir William Blackstone and the Shaping of American Law. Alschuler argues that Blackstone’s Commentaries inspired the evolution of American and British law. He introduces not only the profile of William Blackstone, but also examines to which extent the concepts of Blackstone have become the basis for the development of the American legal thought.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document