scholarly journals Liability for the Payment of Public School Fees

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 33
Author(s):  
Marita Carnelley
Keyword(s):  
Public School ◽  
Primary School ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
The Common ◽  
Unjustified Enrichment

The author highlights some legal issues regarding the liability of parents and other individuals to pay public school fees in the light of recent judicial precedent, specifically Fish Hoek Primary School v GW 2009 JOL 24624 (SCA). The various possible legal bases for the liability for such fees are examined. In this regard the common law duty to maintain as amended by legislation; contractual liability; and the concepts of household necessaries, stipulatio alteri, negotiorum gestio and unjustified enrichment are considered.

Product Safety Warnings: A Legal Review

1985 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Ursic
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Empirical Work ◽  
Product Liability ◽  
Product Safety ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Consumer Product ◽  
Comprehensive Review ◽  
Consumer Product Safety ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

It is imperative that businessmen understand the law concerning consumer product safety warnings if they are to minimize their losses in product liability suits; yet the legal issues in this area are often vague and complex. This paper will attempt to clarify these issues by providing a comprehensive review of the statutory and common law requirements concerning safety warnings. In addition, both the existing and the needed empirical work which could aid businessmen in complying with the common law will be delineated.

Unjustified Enrichment in Comparative Perspective

2006 ◽  
pp. 968-1002
Author(s):  
Daniel Visser
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Comparative Perspective ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Common ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Level Of Understanding ◽  
Unjustified Enrichment

Unjustified enrichment confronted both civil and common lawyers with thinking which was often completely outside the paradigm to which they had become accustomed. The recognition of unjustified enrichment as a cause of action in its own right in English law created a new arena of uncertainty between the systems. This article argues that comparative lawyers can make an important contribution to the future of the fractured and fractious world of unjustified enrichment. It may help to uncover the enormous wealth of learning of which both the common law and the civil law are the repositories, and so bring the same level of understanding to the law of unjustified enrichment which has, over the years, been achieved between the systems in regard to contract and tort.

scholarly journals Civil Law and Common Law: Two Different Paths Leading to the Same Goal

2001 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 817 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caslav Pejovic
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Distinctive Features ◽  
Theoretical Examination ◽  
Legal Structure ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
The Common ◽  
Substantive Law

"There are many ways to skin a cat".While there are many legal issues which are dealt with in the same way by the civil law and Common Law systems, there remain also significant differences between these two legal systems related to legal structure, classification, fundamental concepts and terminology. This paper does not deal with theoretical examination of differences between the common law and the civil law, but focuses rather on various distinctive features of civil law and common law, with several illustrations of resulting differences in both substantive law and procedural law. These differences are not examined in detail as they should serve only as illustration of those differences. The paper does not enter into polemic as to which legal system is better and what are the advantages of common law or of civil law. The purpose of this short study is simply to highlight some of the main conceptual differences between common law and civil law systems, and to explore the possibilities of reconciling of some of those differences.

Unjustified Enrichment in Comparative Perspective

2019 ◽  
pp. 960-993
Author(s):  
Daniel Visser
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Comparative Perspective ◽  
Unjust Enrichment ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Common ◽  
The One ◽  
Level Of Understanding ◽  
Unjustified Enrichment

The emergence of unjust enrichment as a cause of action in its own right in England and Australia sparked a remarkable debate between, on the one hand, civil and common lawyers, who were confronted with thinking which was often completely outside the paradigm to which they had become accustomed, and, on the other hand, between common lawyers inter se about the merits of the various ways in which unjust enrichment may be understood and organized. At the heart of this debate was the struggle of the common law to confront and deal with the deficit caused by its reliance solely on ‘unjust factors’ to make sense of enrichment liability without taking account of the notion of ‘absence of basis’. This chapter argues that comparative lawyers can make an important contribution to the future of the fractured and fractious world of unjustified enrichment by uncovering the enormous wealth of learning of which both the common law and the civil law are the repositories, and so bring the same level of understanding to the law of unjustified enrichment which has, over the years, been achieved between the systems in regard to contract and tort.

Skype kids and the price elasticity of demand: constructing the common law constitution

2021 ◽  
Vol 71 (4) ◽  
pp. 651-671
Author(s):  
Chris Rowe
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Elasticity Of Demand ◽  
Price Elasticity Of Demand ◽  
The Poor ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Equal Citizenship ◽  
Constitutional Legitimacy

In 2017, the Supreme Court held that it was unlawful to charge a British citizen earning £15,000 a year approximately £160 to bring a claim to an employment tribunal, but lawful to prevent their partner from living with them in the UK. This article analyses these two decisions in relation to the Common Law Constitution (CLC). It shows that there was a profound discrepancy in the judicial approach, with structurally different tests employed at sharply different intensities, despite the two cases raising similar legal issues and both plausibly involving interests which have been protected at common law. It is argued that the CLC is being used as guise to promote a distinctive ideology, focused on a set of court-centred norms. This article questions the constitutional legitimacy of this development, which privileges certain norms whilst marginalising others, especially those conducive to the interests of the poor and equal citizenship.

“Farewell to Unjustified Enrichment?” – A Common Law Response

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-337
Author(s):  
Steve Hedley
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
German Law ◽  
Unjust Enrichment ◽  
Level Of Abstraction ◽  
The Law ◽  
Unjustified Enrichment ◽  
High Level ◽  
Logical Process

In this article, Professor Steve Hedley offers a Common Law response to he recently published arguments of Professor Nils Jansen on the German law of unjustified enrichment (as to which, see Jansen, “Farewell to Unjustified Enrichment” (2016) 20 EdinLR 123). The author takes the view that Jansen's paper provided a welcome opportunity to reconsider not merely what unjust enrichment can logically be, but what it is for. He argues that unjust enrichment talk contributes little of value, and that the supposedly logical process of stating it at a high level of abstraction, and then seeking to deduce the law from that abstraction, merely distracts lawyers from the equities of the cases they consider.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document