LOST ON PENALTIES

FREEDOM of contract is a fundamental principle of English law, but it is of course qualified by numerous protective regimes, some common law, most statutory nowadays, which protect vulnerable parties from untrammelled, unequal free bargaining. It is, quite rightly, exceptional for an experienced commercial party, negotiating at arm's length and with the benefit of specialist professional advice, to succeed in invoking such a regime to escape being bound by what he freely agreed. Yet, in Cavendish Square Holdings BV v Makdessi [2013] EWCA Civ 1539, this was precisely the controversial result.

Significative Supposition and Ockham’s Rule

Paul Spade argues that there is a tension between Ockham’s descriptions of the various types of supposition at Summa Logicae (sl) I.64 and a rule he provides at sl I.65. In later papers, Spade proposes a solution: a term supposits significatively (i.e., personally) just in case it supposits for everything it signifies. I evaluate Spade’s proposal and explore some of its implications. I show that it successfully resolves the tension and that it suggests a way to more precisely describe material and simple supposition. I argue furthermore that Ockham is committed to the proposal by showing that uncontroversial features of his theory imply it. In doing so, I raise and refute three potential objections. Finally, I highlight and discuss a controversial result: self-signifying conventional terms can supposit materially. I argue that this result makes for a more satisfying theory.

Self-Esteem among College Students from Four Arab Countries

This study had three objectives: (a) to compare undergraduates from four Arab countries on self-esteem, (b) to explore the sex-related differences in self-esteem in these four Arab countries, and (c) to examine the association of self-esteem with both per-capita income and unemployment rate. Four samples of 2,643 students were recruited from Egypt ( n = 576), Kuwait ( n = 674), Lebanon ( n = 826), and Oman ( n = 567). They responded to the Arabic version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Kuwaiti and Omani men had a significantly higher mean score on self-esteem than did Egyptian and Lebanese men. Egyptian women scored significantly lower than the Omani women, but the effect size was small. Regarding the sex-related differences in self-esteem, Kuwaiti men had a significantly higher mean score than did their female peers, but the effect size was small, whereas there were no significant sex differences in the other samples. The sex-related difference in self-esteem is a controversial result and it may not be replicable in different countries. It was suggested that self-esteem is associated with high per-capita income and low unemployment rate.

EC–Asbestos European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products

Some cases attain ‘landmark’ status because they constitute a jurisprudential paradigm shift. Others attain such status because in them a decisor, usually a supreme jurisdiction, renders a definitive, ‘canonical’, ruling. Sometimes it is both reasons. Sometimes, rarely, it is neither. EC–Asbestos is such a rare case. It may well qualify as a landmark. It has, justifiably, attracted huge attention and, understandably, considerable controversy. Its reasoning, however, is so decidedly non-definitive that it is not, consequently, possible to say whether it represents a veritable paradigm shift or is just a badly reasoned case by the Appellate Body (AB), albeit with a non-controversial result.

EC – Asbestos: European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products

Some cases attain “landmark” status because they constitute a jurisprudential paradigm shift. Others attain such status because in them a decisor, usually a supreme jurisdiction, renders a definitive, “canonical,” ruling. Sometimes it is both reasons. Sometimes, rarely, it is neither. EC – Asbestos is such a rare case. It may well qualify as a landmark. It has, justifiably, attracted huge attention and, understandably, considerable controversy. Its reasoning, however, is so decidedly non-definitive that it is not, consequently, possible to say whether it represents a veritable paradigm shift or is just a badly reasoned case by the Appellate Body (AB), albeit with a non controversial result.