JUDGES AND JUDGING IN THE HISTORY OF THE COMMON LAW AND CIVIL LAW. Eds Paul Brand and Joshua Getzler Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (www.cambridge.org), 2012. xvi + 349 pp. ISBN 9781107018976. £70.00.

SummaryThe first NAFTA Chapter 19 binational panel review of a Mexican antidumping determination raises important questions about the interpretation of treaties. In confronting the different way in which Mexico, a civil law country, had implemented NAFTA, the panel had to deal with a process of implementation different from that in the common law jurisdictions of Canada and the United States. The authors argue that in interpreting NAFTA, the panel relied on the negotiating history of one party, the United States, to reach a conclusion that did not represent the intentions of the three parties, and led to the exercise of a jurisdiction by a Chapter 19 panel in respect of Mexico that ü different from that exercised by Chapter 19 panels reviewing determinations from the other two NAFTA parties.

Download Full-text

The Efficient Breach Theory under Jordanian Civil Law

Arab Law Quarterly ◽

10.1163/15730255-12341328 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 30 (4) ◽

pp. 336-356

Author(s):

Yusuf Mohammed Gassim Obeidat

Keyword(s):

Common Law ◽

Civil Law ◽

Good Faith ◽

Breach Of Contract ◽

Law System ◽

Legal Rules ◽

Specific Performance ◽

History Of ◽

The Common ◽

The Right

This study examined the ‘efficient breach’ theory and its possible application under Jordanian Civil Law. The theory says the promisor has the right to breach a contract and pay damages whenever his profit from breach exceeds his expected profits from performance. As a prerequisite for its application, the theory requires the general remedy for breach to be the payment of damages, rather than forced performance. Thus, the main area for its application is the common law system, since it favours damages as a primary remedy. This study reached the conclusion that the theory cannot work under Jordanian Civil Law, where the primary remedy for breach of contract is specific performance, that forces the promisor to complete the contract. In addition, it contradicts the good faith principle that Jordanian law is based upon, amongst other principles, and goes against the history of Jordanian legal rules.

Download Full-text

THE COMPARATIVE LEGAL HISTORY OF LIMITATION AND PRESCRIPTION

Obiter ◽

10.17159/obiter.v39i3.11337 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 39 (3) ◽

Author(s):

Eltjo Schrage

Keyword(s):

Legal History ◽

Common Law ◽

Civil Law ◽

The Other ◽

Legal Systems ◽

Oliver Wendell Holmes ◽

History Of ◽

The Common ◽

The Law ◽

The One

Within both the civil law and the common law (as well as in mixed legal systems), there are means of acquiring and losing rights, or of freeing ourselves from obligations with the passage of time. The reason for this is at least twofold: on the one hand, for a claimant, a dispossessed owner or a creditor, limitation and prescription provide stimuli for bringing the action; on the other, this sanction upon the negligence of the claimant implies in many cases a windfall for the defendant. If a creditor is negligent in protecting his assets, the law at a certain stage no longer protects him or her. As Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said aptly some 100 years ago: “Sometimes it is said that, if a man neglects to enforce his rights, he cannot complain if, after a while, the law follows his example”.

Download Full-text