/ Charles G. Leland Dat as Copdain Breitmann suited oos Egsockdly do an ounce, He vas ged de nomination, And need nod more eckshblain: Der Breitmann dink in silence, And denn roar aloudt, champagne! Den Mishder Twine, while trinken wein, Mitwhiles vent on do say, Dat long insdruckdions in dis age Vere nod de dime of tay; Und de only ding der Breitmann need To pe of any use Vas shoost to dell to afery mans He’s soundt oopon der coose. Und ash dis little frase berhops Vas nod do oos bekannt, He dakes de liberdy do make Dat ve shall oondershtand, And vouldt tell a liddle shdory Vitch dook blace pefore de wars: Here der Breitmann not to Trina, Und she bass aroundt cigars. “Id ish a longe dime, now here, In Bennsylvanien’s Shtate, All in der down of Horrisburg Dere rosed a vierce depate, ’Tween vamilies mit cooses, Und dose vhere none vere foundt— If cooses might, by common law, Go squanderin aroundt? “Dose who vere nod pe-gifted Mit gooses, und vere poor, All shvear de law forbid dis crime, Py shings and cerdain sure; But de coose-holders teklare a coose Greadt liberty tid need, And to pen dem oop vas gruel, Und a mosdt oon-Christian teed.

Keyword(s):  
2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-337
Author(s):  
Steve Hedley

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.


2000 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
WDH Sellar

This article is the revised text of the lecture delivered to the Stair Society at its Annual General Meeting in November 1997. It defends the proposition that Scots law, from the time of its emergence in the Middle Ages, has been a “mixed” system, open to the influence of both the English Common Law and the Civilian tradition. It also compares and contrasts the Reception of the Anglo-Norman law with that of Roman law. The former was quite specific as regards both time and substantive legal content. The Reception of Roman law, on the other hand, took place over a considerable period of time, and its effects were complex and diffuse. Above all, the Civilian tradition and the wider ius commune provided an intellectual framework against which to measure Scots law. Both Receptions exercised a profound influence on the continuing development of Scots law.


Moreana ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 40 (Number 153- (1-2) ◽  
pp. 193-217
Author(s):  
Jean-Pierre Moreau

Rien ne saurait mieux illustrer la modernité de Thomas More que la décision de Jean-Paul II, en novembre 2000, d’en faire le Patron des responsables de gouvernement et des hommes politiques. Pour évoquer cette modernité, quatre thèmes ont été retenus, sans souci d’exhaustivité: sa stature morale et l’écho particulier qu’éveille aujourd’hui son héroïsme, l’Utopie, non point comme programme politique mais comme champ d’expérimentation intellectuelle et littéraire, les droits de la conscience individuelle et leur transformation en défense des droits de l’homme, l’Europe en construction actuellement n’est pas totalement étrangère à l’édifice (chrétienté) que More voulait maintenir : principe de subsidiarité, rapports entre droit communautaire/droit canon et droit des Etats membres/Common law etc.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document