scholarly journals Default and Termination of Contract: A comparative Study between Indonesia and The United Kingdom

Yuridika ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 469
Author(s):  
Akhmad Budi Cahyono
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Comparative Studies ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Contractual Relationship ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Injured Party ◽  
The Right

Default is something that often occurs in contractual relationship. It can be not perform its obligations in the contract in all or in a part, performing its obligations but not in accordance with was agreed, performing its obligations but not in time, and performing something that is prohibited in the contract. Due to default, the injured party may claim compensation and / or terminate the contract. The problem is, the Indonesian Civil Code does not specify how a contract can be terminated in case of default. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a comparative study in other countries in terms of how a default can terminate the contract. The British which adopt common law tradition where jurisprudence is the main source of law is the right choice for conducting comparative studies. Countries with common law traditions have detailed legal rules based on jurisprudence. As in Indonesia, according to British contract law, defaults also can terminate the contract. However, unlike in Indonesia, according to British contract law, termination due to a default is only allowed in the event that the default is very serious. The very serious forms of default will be elaborated and become a part of the discussion in this paper.

Strike Ballots, Democracy, and Law

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Breen Creighton ◽  
Catrina Denvir ◽  
Richard Johnstone ◽  
Shae McCrystal ◽  
Alice Orchiston
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Labour Organisation ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Strike Activity ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Worked Example ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Democratic Rights ◽  
The Right

The purpose of the research upon which this book is based was empirically to investigate whether the ballot requirements in the Fair Work Act do indeed impose a significant obstacle to the taking of industrial action, and whether those provisions are indeed impelled by a legitimate ‘democratic imperative’. The book starts from the proposition that virtually all national legal systems, and international law, recognise the right to strike as a fundamental human right. It acknowledges, however, that in no case is this recognition without qualification. Amongst the most common qualifications is a requirement that to be lawful strike action must first be approved by a ballot of workers concerned. Often, these requirements are said to be necessary to protect the democratic rights of the workers concerned: this is the so-called ‘democratic imperative’. In order to evaluate the true purpose and effect of ballot requirements the book draws upon the detailed empirical study of the operation of the Australian legislative provisions noted above; a comparative analysis of law and practice in a broad range of countries, with special reference to Canada, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States; and the jurisprudence of the supervisory bodies of the International Labour Organisation. It finds that in many instances ballot requirements – especially those relating to quorum – are more concerned with curtailing strike activity than with constructively responding to the democratic imperative. Frequently, they also proceed from a distorted perception of what ‘democracy’ could and should entail in an industrial context. Paradoxically, the study also finds that in some contexts ballot requirements can provide additional bargaining leverage for unions. Overall, however, the study confirms our hypothesis that the principal purpose of ballot requirements – especially in Australia and the United Kingdom – is to curtail strike activity rather than to vindicate the democratic imperative, other than on the basis of a highly attenuated reading of that term. We believe that the end-result constitutes an important study of the practical operation of a complex set of legal rules, and one which exposes the dichotomy between the ostensible and real objectives underpinning the adoption of those rules. It also furnishes a worked example of multi-methods empirical, comparative and doctrinal legal research in law, which we hope will inspire similar approaches to other areas of labour law.

scholarly journals PASSPORTS, THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL, AND NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE COMMONWEALTH

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (2) ◽  
pp. 365-395
Author(s):  
Paul F. Scott
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
National Security ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Statutory Basis

AbstractThis article, on the basis of a consideration of the development of the law relating to the use of passports as a tool of national security in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, challenges the common law conception of passports, arguing that passports effectively confer rights and so, consequentially, that the refusal or withdrawal of a passport represents a denial of rights. From this conclusion a number of points flow. Though these consequences are most acute for the United Kingdom and Canada, in which passports remain regulated by, and are issued under, prerogative powers, there are also a number of points of significance for Australia and New Zealand, where passports have a statutory basis.

The Need for a Constitution in the United Kingdom

1979 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 269-285
Author(s):  
Wilberforce
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Flexible Instrument ◽  
The Common ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right

I was not surprised when, from several alternative subjects, you chose, as the title of my Lecture, the need for a Constitution in Britain. Those of us without a written constitution are indeed, a select club—New Zealand, Israel, the United Kingdom.I will start with a quotation from Lord Salmon. In a recent lecture, he said: In this country [U.K.] we have an unwritten constitution. I have always regarded this as a blessing and never agreed with the theoretical objections to it. It is superbly flexible and above all it has stood the test of time. It works—and works admirably. But I am beginning to wonder whether it might not be wise to evolve, not an elaborate written constitution but perhaps the equivalent of a modern Bill of Rights. A statute which should lay down our basic freedoms, provide for their preservation and enact that it could not be repealed save by, say, a 75% majority of both Houses of Parliament.One can recognize in this passage the views of an eminent common lawyer, believing in the strength and potentialities of the common law as a flexible instrument, in, of course, the right hands: of one who believes deeply in human freedom, and who is concerned about the threat to it: who desires an explicit definition of the basic liberties and who believes that these can be protected by a sufficiently strong, entrenched, legal system. In this he undoubtedly reflects the views of many people, probably of the majority of ordinary men.

scholarly journals Immigration Bill 2007: Special Advocates and the Right to be Heard

2009 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 471 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lani Inverarity
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Affected Person ◽  
The Subject ◽  
New Challenges ◽  
The Right ◽  
Special Advocates ◽  
Similar Development

The increasing role of "special advocates" in common law jurisdictions raises fundamental questions about the development of the law in response to new challenges and the extent to which individual rights can be abrogated in the name of national security. Special advocates are employed to examine and challenge classified evidence, withheld from affected persons and their legal advisors, in closed proceedings. They are, notionally, representing the affected person, but face an almost complete restriction on communication once exposed to the classified evidence. This is strikingly at odds with long-established norms of advocacy and a fair hearing, leading the United Kingdom Joint Committee on Human Rights to describe the system as "Kafkaesque".  The special advocate function, widely utilised in the United Kingdom, will be statutorily introduced into New Zealand with the passing of the Immigration Bill 2007, mirroring a similar development in Canada. The Bill extends the use of classified information in immigration decision-making and allows for special advocates to examine and challenge classified evidence in review, appeal or detention proceedings. That Bill is the subject of this article.

Illegal Earnings

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-80
Author(s):  
James Goudkamp ◽  
Lorenz König
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Considerable Promise ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

AbstractThis article addresses the principles of tort law that govern claims in respect of lost illegal earnings. It focuses on common law jurisdictions (and the law in the United Kingdom in particular) where such claims, despite apparently being commonplace, have been largely ignored by academics. It describes the existing law and calls in aid in this regard a four-fold taxonomy of cases. The article then turns attention to how claims in respect of lost illegal earnings ought to be decided. At this juncture, the article looks to ideas emanating from German tort law, which has developed a highly sophisticated jurisprudence on the subject of illegal earnings. The German approach, stated simply, requires tort law to defer to rules in other departments of private law. If, for example, contract law would not protect an interest that a claimant has in a particular transaction by reason of the transaction being tainted with illegality, tort law will not allow a claimant indirectly to obtain the benefits of that transaction via a claim for lost illegal earnings. It is argued that the German solution holds considerable promise and merits consideration as a serious alternative to the significantly more complicated principles that the common law courts have developed, which principles currently lack any thoroughgoing rationalisation.

scholarly journals The scope of rights of appeal (not recourse) from arbitration awards

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Benjamin Suter
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Law Courts ◽  
Model Law ◽  
The Right

<p>This paper examines the scope of rights of appeal from arbitration awards in New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States.  In countries that have drafted their legislation after the UNCITRAL Model Law appeals are often excluded and only recourse based on very narrow grounds is available. While many countries are more permissive with regards to appeals than the Model Law in that they allow the parties to opt for more expansive review, none of the examined jurisdictions give the parties the right to opt for appeals on questions of law and fact.  In several cases parties have tried to expand the rights of appeal by agreement. Such agreements are deemed invalid in all jurisdictions. When examining whether the invalid clause renders the entire arbitration agreement invalid, courts in common law jurisdictions have applied the doctrine of severance in some variations. Civil law courts usually examine whether the parties would have concluded the contract without the invalid clause (“but for”-test).  This paper suggests that many of these tests are not suitable for arbitration agreements where the parties do not exchange considerations but rather promise one another exactly the same. The preferable approach is to combine the “but for”-test with a test that assesses if severance alters the nature of the agreement.</p>

scholarly journals The scope of rights of appeal (not recourse) from arbitration awards

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Benjamin Suter
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Law Courts ◽  
Model Law ◽  
The Right

<p>This paper examines the scope of rights of appeal from arbitration awards in New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States.  In countries that have drafted their legislation after the UNCITRAL Model Law appeals are often excluded and only recourse based on very narrow grounds is available. While many countries are more permissive with regards to appeals than the Model Law in that they allow the parties to opt for more expansive review, none of the examined jurisdictions give the parties the right to opt for appeals on questions of law and fact.  In several cases parties have tried to expand the rights of appeal by agreement. Such agreements are deemed invalid in all jurisdictions. When examining whether the invalid clause renders the entire arbitration agreement invalid, courts in common law jurisdictions have applied the doctrine of severance in some variations. Civil law courts usually examine whether the parties would have concluded the contract without the invalid clause (“but for”-test).  This paper suggests that many of these tests are not suitable for arbitration agreements where the parties do not exchange considerations but rather promise one another exactly the same. The preferable approach is to combine the “but for”-test with a test that assesses if severance alters the nature of the agreement.</p>

The province of jurisprudence determined-again!

Legal Studies ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 88-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hilaire Barnett
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Legal Education ◽  
Academic Training ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Detailed Questionnaire

This report presents the findings of the survey conducted in 1993/94, this survey being an updated version of one conducted in 1983/94. The present study has been expanded to cover Australian and Canadian (Common Law) universities, and as in previous surveys has been conducted primarily through the medium of a detailed questionnaire.In each of the jurisdictions surveyed there exist parallel concerns about legal education and, of more direct interest here, the role of Jurisprudence and Legal Theory within the law curriculum. By drawing on data received from Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom and the literature on legal education, this article aims to provide a comparative study of the extent to which Jurisprudence features in the academic training of the next generation of lawyers, a large proportion of whom will enter a profession characterised by a shared common law tradition.

scholarly journals The scope of rights of appeal (not recourse) from arbitration awards

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Benjamin Suter
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Law Courts ◽  
Model Law ◽  
The Right

<p>This paper examines the scope of rights of appeal from arbitration awards in New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States.  In countries that have drafted their legislation after the UNCITRAL Model Law appeals are often excluded and only recourse based on very narrow grounds is available. While many countries are more permissive with regards to appeals than the Model Law in that they allow the parties to opt for more expansive review, none of the examined jurisdictions give the parties the right to opt for appeals on questions of law and fact.  In several cases parties have tried to expand the rights of appeal by agreement. Such agreements are deemed invalid in all jurisdictions. When examining whether the invalid clause renders the entire arbitration agreement invalid, courts in common law jurisdictions have applied the doctrine of severance in some variations. Civil law courts usually examine whether the parties would have concluded the contract without the invalid clause (“but for”-test). This paper suggests that many of these tests are not suitable for arbitration agreements where the parties do not exchange considerations but rather promise one another exactly the same. The preferable approach is to combine the “but for”-test with a test that assesses if severance alters the nature of the agreement.</p>

Bentham on Presumed Offences

Utilitas ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 363-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
FREDERICK SCHAUER
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The United States ◽  
Penal Code ◽  
Jeremy Bentham ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Almost All

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