[enterThe Role of Private Law in the Regulation of Educational Relations Paper Title]

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Kobchikova
Keyword(s):  
Private Law

Torts and Other Wrongs

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Gardner
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Moral Significance ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Reasonable Person Standard ◽  
The Law

Torts and Other Wrongs is a collection of eleven of the author’s essays on the theory of the law of torts and its place in the law more generally. Two new essays accompany nine previously published pieces, a number of which are already established classics of theoretical writing on private law. Together they range across the distinction between torts and other wrongs, the moral significance of outcomes, the nature and role of corrective and distributive justice, the justification of strict liability, the nature of the reasonable person standard, and the role of public policy in private law adjudication. Though focused on the law of torts, the wide-ranging analysis in each chapter will speak to theorists of private law more generally.

scholarly journals What Constitutions Can Do (but Courts Sometimes Don’t): Property, Speech, and the Influence of Constitutional Norms on Private Law

2004 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver Gerstenberg
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Social Democracy ◽  
Recent Attempt ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
The Right ◽  
Higher Law

In this paper I want to address, against the background of the ECtHR’s recent attempt to resolve the clash between property rights and the right to freedom of expression in its decision in Appleby v. UK, two questions, both of which I take to be related to the overarching theme of “social democracy”. First, there is the problem of the influence of “higher law”-of human rights norms and constitutional norms-on private law norms; second, the question of the role of adjudication in “constitutionalizing” private law, in other words, the question of the “judicial cognizability” of constitutional norms within private law.

scholarly journals Should New Zealand Shirk Its Obligations? A Critical Perspective on Private Law Scholarship

2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 429
Author(s):  
Bevan Marten ◽  
Geoff McLay
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
Coherent System ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Compensation Scheme ◽  
Critical Perspective ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Party Autonomy ◽  
Accident Compensation

This article concerns the role of the private law scholar in New Zealand, and how such scholars use their skills to improve the law. It argues that while an obligations scholar's preference may be to engage with the courts and other academics in their scholarly activities, a focus on statutory reform better suits New Zealand conditions. Scholars should share their talents with policy makers, law reform bodies and legislators, helping to explain the importance of a coherent system of private law, and how this may be achieved. The authors then go a step further by suggesting that, in the New Zealand context, the preferable approach to reform may be one involving policy-based solutions exemplified by the accident compensation scheme, as opposed to approaches based on traditional private law principles such as party autonomy.

DIGITAL FINANCIAL TOOLS FOR SOCIALIZING PRIVATE LAW

2021 ◽  
pp. 208-224
Author(s):  
Julia S. Kharitonova ◽  
◽  
Larisa V. Sannikova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Property Relations ◽  
The World ◽  
The Law ◽  
Private Investors ◽  
The Way

Nowadays, the law is being transformed as a regulator of relations. The idea of strengthe-ning the regulatory role of technologies in the field of streamlining public relations is making much headway in the world. This trend is most pronounced in the area of regulation of private relations. The way of such access to the market as crowdfunding is becoming increasingly widespread. The issuing of the so-called secured tokens is becoming popular for both small businesses and private investors. The trust in new ways of attracting investments is condi-tioned by the applied technology - the use of blockchain as a decentralized transparent data-base management system. Under these conditions, there is such a phenomenon as the democ-ratization of property relations. Every individual receives unlimited opportunities to invest via technologies. Thus, legal scholars all over the world face the question about the role of the law and law in these relations? We believe that we are dealing with such a worldwide trend of regulating public relations as the socialization of the law. Specific examples of issuing tokens in Russia and abroad show the main global trends in the transformation of private law. The platformization of economics leads to the tokenization and democratization of property relations. In this aspect, the aim of lawyers should be to create a comfortable legal environment for the implementation of projects aimed at democratizing property relations in Russia. The socialization of private law is aimed at achieving social jus-tice and is manifested in the creation of mechanisms to protect the rights of the weak party and rules to protect private investors. Globalization requires the study of both Russian and foreign law. To confirm their hypothesis, the authors conducted a detailed analysis of the legislation of Russia, Europe and the United States to identify the norms allowing to see the process of socialization of law in the above field. The generalization of Russian and foreign experience showed that when searching for proper legal regulation, the states elect one of the policies. In some countries, direct regulation of ICOs and related emission relations are being created, in others, it is about the extension of the existing legislation to a new changing tokenization relationship. The European Union countries are seeking to develop common rules to create a regulatory environment to attract investors to the crypto industry and protect them. Asian countries are predominantly developing national legislation in isolation from one another, but most of them are following a unified course to encourage investment in crypto assets while introducing strict rules against fraud on financial markets. The emphasis on the protection of the rights of investors or shareholders, token holders by setting a framework, including private law mechanisms, can be called common to all approaches. This is the aim of private law on the way to social justice.

Discovery Rights and the Arctic

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 387-407
Author(s):  
Daniel Schwartz
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Territorial Rights ◽  
The Many ◽  
Original Acquisition

AbstractThis article examines whether discovery could, contrary to common philosophical opinion, be taken seriously as a ground of territorial rights. I focus on the discovery of uninhabitable lands such as found in the Arctic. After surveying the role of discovery in Roman private law and modern international law, I turn to Locke's well-known theory or original acquisition. I argue that many of the justifications that do the work in Locke's theory also apply to discovery. I then discuss some of the many reasons why discovery may seem unpromising as a ground of original acquisition. I close by arguing that if there is a bridge mechanism by which property can legitimately transform into territory and if, at least in some circumstances, discovery can produce property rights, then it would follow that in some circumstances discovery could also produce territorial rights.

scholarly journals Materially Identical to Mistaken Payment

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-57
Author(s):  
Tatiana Cutts
Keyword(s):  
Private Law ◽  
Unjust Enrichment ◽  
The Core ◽  
Powerful Effect ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Central Characteristic ◽  
The Law

Mistaken payment is the ‘core case’ of unjust enrichment, and it has had a powerful effect on the development of this area of private law. For Peter Birks, unjust enrichment was simply ‘the law of all events materially identical to mistaken payment’—to be shaped through a process of abstraction from that core case. But this begs the question: how do we work out what counts as ‘materially identical’ to mistaken payment? The most obvious starting point, and that which Birks chose, is the central characteristic of money: money is valuable. Thus, ‘the law of all events materially identical to mistaken payments’ is ‘the law of all events that unjustly enrich one party at another’s expense’.In this article, I argue that this starting point is incorrect. Rather than looking for some factual similarity between mistaken payment and other events, we should identify the role that money plays in justifying restitution. And what justifies restitution in the core case is not the ‘value’ or ‘benefit’ that money confers; rather, it is a defect in the legal transaction that links payor with payee. The payee is not liable because she has been ‘enriched’, but because she is the counterparty to a legal transaction which exhibits traits that there are institutional reasons to disavow. Just like contract and torts, the role of value is secondary: where correcting the injustice in specie is impossible or undesirable, the defendant must pay whichever sum will most nearly achieve that goal.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document