No catches, no fine print just unadulterated book loving, with your favourite books saved to your own digital bookshelf.
New members get entered into our monthly draw to win £100 to spend in your local bookshop Plus lots lots more…Find out more
This collection of essays investigates the way in which modern private law apportions responsibility between multiple parties who are (or may be) responsible for the same legal event. It examines both doctrines and principles that share responsibility between plaintiffs and defendants, on the one hand, and between multiple defendants, on the other. The doctrines examined include those 'originating' doctrines which operate to create shared liabilities in the first place (such as vicarious and accessorial liability); and, more centrally, those doctrines that operate to distribute the liabilities and responsibilities so created. These include the doctrine of contributory (comparative) negligence, joint and several (solidary) liability, contribution, reimbursement, and 'proportionate' liability, as well as defences and principles of equitable 'allowance' that permit both losses and gains to be shared between parties to civil proceedings. The work also considers the principles which apportion liability between multiple defendants and insurers in cases in which the cause, or timing, of a particular loss is hard to determine. The contributions to this volume offer important perspectives on the law in the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, as well as a number of civilian jurisdictions. They explicate the main rules and trends and offer critical insights on the growth and distribution of shared responsibilities from a number of different perspectives - historical, comparative, empirical, doctrinal and philosophical.
Commercial relationships give rise to diverse forms of legal obligation in private law, including contract, tort, agency, company law and partnership. More controversially, equity and the law of restitution have a less defined and somewhat ambulatory role in regulating the affairs of commercial parties. Nevertheless, their impact is manifest in the commercial arena through the distinct types of liability they engender and the remedies that are imposed. This collection draws together the views of leading international scholars and judges to explore the nature and extent of this impact from two perspectives. Five chapters primarily address this impact at a macro-level, focusing on the roles of equity and the law of restitution in terms of legal taxonomy, doctrine and policy. In contrast, five further chapters primarily address this impact at a micro-level, focusing on selected liabilities and remedies within equity and the law of restitution. This bifocal approach enables a holistic appreciation of some important ways in which equity and the law of restitution affect or may affect commerce, with a view to fostering further debate over the fundamental issues at stake.
The scope of vicarious liability has significantly expanded since its original conception. Today employers are being found liable for actions of employees that they did not authorise, and never would have authorised if asked. They are being held liable for an employee's criminal activity. In the related strict liability field of non-delegable duties, they are being held liable for wrongdoing of independent contractors. Notions of strict liability have grown increasingly isolated in the law of tort, given the exponential growth in the tort of negligence. They require intellectual justification. Such a justification has proven to be elusive and largely unsatisfactory in relation to vicarious liability and to concepts of non-delegable duty. The law of three jurisdictions studied has now apparently embraced the 'enterprise risk' theory to rationalise the imposition of vicarious liability. This book subjects this theory to strong critique by arguing that it has many weaknesses, which the courts should acknowledge. It suggests that a rationalisation of the liability of an employer for the actions of an employee lies in more traditional legal doctrine which would serve to narrow the circumstances in which an employer is legally liable for a wrong committed by an employee.
In Patel v Mirza  UKSC 42, nine justices of the Supreme Court of England and Wales decided in favour of a restitutionary award in response to an unjust enrichment, despite the illegal transaction on which that enrichment was based. Whilst the result was reached unanimously, the reasoning could be said to have divided the Court. Lord Toulson, Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Hodge and Lord Neuberger favoured a discretionary approach, but their mode of reasoning was described as 'revolutionary' by Lord Sumption (at ), who outlined in contrast a more rule-based means of dealing with the issue; a method with which Lord Mance and Lord Clarke broadly agreed. The decision is detailed and complex, and its implications for several areas of the law are considerable. Significantly, the reliance principle from Tinsley v Milligan  1 AC 340 has been discarded, as has the rule in Parkinson v College of Ambulance Ltd  KB 1. Patel v Mirza, therefore, can fairly be described as one of the most important judgments in general private law for a generation, and it can be expected to have ramifications for the application of the illegality doctrine across a wide range of disciplinary areas. Unless there is legislative intervention, which does not seem likely at the present time, Patel v Mirza is set to be of enduring significance. This collection will provide a crucial set of theoretical and practical perspectives on the illegality defence in English private law. All of the authors are well established in their respective fields. The timing of the book means that it will be unusually well placed as the 'go to' work on this subject, for legal practitioners and for scholars.
This book aims to provide a detailed analysis and overview of the duty of care enquiry, drawing on both academic analyses and judicial experience in leading common law systems. A new structure through which duty problems can be analysed is also proposed. It is hoped that the book provides some fresh insights and clarity of the concept to the reader.
Constructive trusts significantly interfere with the rights of an apparent legal owner of property. This makes it necessary for their imposition to be properly explained and justified. Unfortunately, attempts to rationalise constructive trusts as a whole-as opposed to specific doctrines or particular aspects of constructive trusts-have been few and far between. Rationalising Constructive Trusts proposes a new structure for a coherent understanding of constructive trusts. By using a combination of conceptual tools, it provides answers to a number of crucial questions, for example: What are the ingredients of a constructive trust claim? What are the limits of constructive trusts? How can we rationalise the imposition of constructive trusts in particular situations? Why do judges exercise varying degrees of remedial discretion in different doctrines? From a wider perspective, the structured understanding helps us to appreciate the precise ambit and role of express, constructive, and resulting trusts.
This collection of essays, written by leading commentators from across the common law world, examines a range of topics concerning equity and trusts in the commercial context. The essays investigate the way in which doctrines derived from the equitable jurisdiction interact with and shape various areas of the law, including company law, commercial law and agency law. Subjects considered include the difficulties in identifying trust assets in the commercial context; the court's role in supervising the trust; and the remedies available in cases of fiduciary or trustee wrongdoing. This book will be of interest to both academics and practitioners working in these difficult areas of equity and commercial law.
This collection of essays interrogates significant issues at the forefront of scholarship and legal practice in the field of money remedies in equity. Chapters address the contentious and developing field of equitable compensation, including: the nature of equitable compensation; the relevant causation inquiry for equitable compensation; whether notions of contribution apply to multiple agents; accessorial liability; the role of discretion in limiting equitable compensation; which wrongs yield equitable compensation; and the extent to which compensation in equity differs from money remedies at common law. Other chapters examine the remedy of disgorgement of profit, and specifically the theoretical basis of that remedy, its application in the context of fiduciary obligations, and third-party issues. A number of chapters also examine the interrelationship between loss- and gain-based money relief. In addressing these issues the book includes both doctrinal and theoretical perspectives, and brings together leading equity scholars and judges from across the common law world.
This book examines claims in negligence arising from illegal conduct of the claimant. An array of public policy and other grounds have been advanced for resolving these claims, resulting in an area that is characterised by confusing and contradictory case law. The book analyses the various explanations put forward as the basis for illegality doctrine within a framework of corrective justice theory. Illegality law poses particular challenges for the corrective justice explanation of negligence law, as many illegality tests are based on public policy considerations external to the relationship of the parties. The book argues that the only circumstance where illegality doctrine should be applied to deny a claim is where this is necessary to preserve the coherence of the legal system. It develops the work of Ernest Weinribian corrective justice theorists to explain how the principle of legal coherence fits within the framework of corrective justice theory, and why legal coherence is the only valid conceptual basis for a doctrine of illegality. It also contains a detailed study on the scope of the coherence rationale and the principles that will determine its application.
The aim of this edited collection of essays is to examine the relationship between private law and power - both the public power of the state and the 'private' power of institutions and individuals. It describes and critically assesses the way that private law doctrines, institutions, processes and rules express, moderate, facilitate and control relationships of power. The various chapters of this work examine the dynamics of the relationship between private law and power from a number of different perspectives - historical, theoretical, doctrinal and comparative. They have been commissioned from leading experts in the field of private law, from several different Commonwealth Jurisdictions (Australia, the UK, Canada and New Zealand), each with expertise in the particular sphere of their contribution. They aim to illuminate the past and assist in resolving some contemporary, difficult legal issues relating to the shape, scope and content of private law and its difficult relationship with power.
This book presents an account of attribution in unjust enrichment. Attribution refers to how and when two parties - a claimant and a defendant - are relevantly connected to each other for unjust enrichment purposes. It is reflected in the familiar expression that a defendant be 'enriched at the claimant's expense'. This book presents a structured account of attribution, consisting of two requirements: first, the identification of an enrichment to the defendant and a loss to the claimant; and, secondly, the identification of a connection between that enrichment and that loss. These two requirements must be kept separate from other considerations often subsumed within the expression 'enrichment at the claimant's expense' which in truth have nothing to do with attribution, and which instead qualify unjust enrichment liability for reasons that should be analysed in their own terms. The structure of attribution so presented fits a normative account of unjust enrichment based upon each party's exchange capacities. A defendant is enriched when he receives something that he has not paid for under prevailing market conditions, while a claimant suffers a loss when he loses the opportunity to charge for something under the same conditions. A counterfactual test - asking whether enrichment and loss arise 'but for' each other - provides the best generalisation for testing whether enrichment and loss are connected, thereby satisfying the requirements of attribution in unjust enrichment.
This book provides a comparative study of contract law, examining the interaction of common law and civil law approaches to contract law. Drawing extensively upon English, French and European law, the book explores how the law of contract of Jersey, Channel Islands, has been influenced by both civil law and common law sources. It is argued that this jurisdiction is a striking example of comparative law in action, given that Jersey contract law is made up of a blend of common law and civil law approaches. Jersey law is premised upon a subjective approach to contracts, in which civil law concepts such as cause (rather than consideration) and vices de consentement are the foundational aspects, but is nonetheless highly influenced by the common law in areas such as remedies (damages, termination, etc). The book analyses a series of key issues from a comparative and European perspective, including the principles underlying contract law (comparing and contrasting civil and common law approaches), the formation of contract, requirements of reciprocity (cause vs consideration), the structure and approach of precontractual liability, the role of good faith in a mixed system, the architecture of remedies, and more.
This book provides a comprehensive theory of the rights upon which tort law is based and the liability that flows from violating those rights. Inspired by the account of private law contained in Immanuel Kant's Metaphysics of Morals, the book shows that Kant's theory elucidates a conception of interpersonal wrongdoing that illuminates the operation of tort law. The book then utilises this conception, applying it to the various areas of tort law, in order to develop an understanding of the particular areas in question and, just as importantly, their relationship to each other. It argues that there are three general kinds of liability found in the law of tort: liability for putting another or another's property to one's purposes directly, liability for doing something to a third party that puts another or another's property to one's purposes, and liability for pursuing purposes in a way that improperly interferes with the ability of another to pursue her legitimate purposes. It terms these forms liability for direct control, liability for indirect control and liability for injury respectively. The result is a coherent, philosophical understanding of the structure of tort liability as an entire system. In developing its position, the book considers the laws of Australia, Canada, England and Wales, New Zealand and the United States.
This book undertakes an analysis of academic and judicial responses to the problem of evidential uncertainty in causation in negligence. It seeks to bring clarity to what has become a notoriously complex area by adopting a clear approach to the function of the doctrine of causation within a corrective justice-based account of negligence liability. It first explores basic causal models and issues of proof, including the role of statistical and epidemiological evidence, in order to isolate the problem of evidential uncertainty more precisely. Application of Richard Wright's NESS test to a range of English case law shows it to be more comprehensive than the 'but for' test that currently dominates, thereby reducing the need to resort to additional tests, such as the Wardlaw test of material contribution to harm, the scope and meaning of which are uncertain. The book builds on this foundation to explore the solution to a range of problems of evidential uncertainty, focusing on the Fairchild principle and the idea of risk as damage, as well as the notion of loss of a chance in medical negligence which is often seen as analogous with 'increase in risk', in an attempt to bring coherence to this area of the law.
2013 was the 50th anniversary of the House of Lords' landmark decision in Hedley Byrne v Heller. This international collection of essays brings together leading experts from five of the most important jurisdictions in which the case has been received (the United Kingdom, the United States, New Zealand, Canada and Australia) to reappraise its implications from a number of complementary perspectives-historical, theoretical, conceptual, doctrinal and comparative. It explores modern developments in the law of misstatement in each of the jurisdictions; examines the case's profound effects on the conceptual apparatus of the law of negligence more generally; explores the intersections between misstatement liabilities in contract, tort, equity and under statutory consumer protection provisions; and critically assesses the ways in which advisor liabilities have come to be limited and distributed under systems of 'joint and several' and 'proportionate' liability respectively. Inspired by Hedley Byrne, the purpose of the collection is to reflect on the case's echoes, effects and analogues throughout the private law and to provide a platform for thinking about the ways in which liabilities for misstatement and pure economic loss should be modelled in the modern day.
The quantification of contractual money awards is a topic of both significant theoretical interest and immense practical importance. Recent debates have ranged from the availability of gain-based relief to the basis for principles of remoteness and mitigation. While these and other important issues, such as the recovery of damages for non-pecuniary loss, are touched upon, the book's principal objective is to challenge the conventional interpretation of the principle generally acknowledged to govern this area of the law, which Parke B famously laid down in Robinson v Harman. According to this conventional interpretation, the objective of all money awards given in accordance with the Robinson v Harman principle is simply to 'compensate' the promisee for the 'loss' that can be attributed to the promisor's failure to perform as promised. After challenging this orthodoxy, Dr Winterton proposes a new understanding of the Robinson v Harman principle, which draws an important distinction between money awards that substitute for the performance promised and money awards that aim to make good certain detrimental factual consequences that can be attributed to a promisor's breach. In exploring the significance of this distinction, the different principles underpinning the quantification and restriction of each kind of award are explored in addition to some important theoretical issues such as the effect that the occurrence of a breach has on the rights generated by contract formation. The book's unifying objective is to outline a coherent picture of the law of contractual money awards. It will be of interest to judges, practitioners and academics alike. Nominated for the 2018 St Petersburg International Legal Forum Private Law Prize!
Accessory liability in the private law is of great importance. Claimants often bring claims against third parties who participate in wrongs. For example, the 'direct wrongdoer' may be insolvent, so a claimant might prefer a remedy against an accessory in order to obtain satisfactory redress. However, the law in this area has not received the attention it deserves. The criminal law recognises that any person who 'aids, abets, counsels or procures' any offence can be punished as an accessory, but the private law is more fragmented. One reason for this is a tendency to compartmentalise the law of obligations into discrete subjects, such as contract, trusts, tort and intellectual property. This book suggests that by looking across such boundaries in the private law, the nature and principles of accessory liability can be better understood and doctrinal confusion regarding the elements of liability, defences and remedies resolved. Winner of the Joint Second SLS Peter Birks Prize for Outstanding Legal Scholarship 2015.
The law of torts recognises many defences to liability. While some of these defences have been explored in detail, scant attention has been given to the theoretical foundations of defences generally. In particular, no serious attempt has been made to explain how defences relate to each other or to the torts to which they pertain. The goal of this book is to reduce the size of this substantial gap in our understanding of tort law. The principal way in which it attempts to do so is by developing a taxonomy of defences. The book shows that much can be learned about a given defence from the way in which it is classified. This new paperback edition contains a substantial preface in which the author responds to critics. Reviews 'James Goudkamp's book can rightly claim to be the first serious attempt to examine tort law defences systematically and it is a very important addition to the private law canon ... [His] analysis is consistently thought-provoking ... [T]his book will provide the framework for future analysis of all private law defences'. Graham Virgo, The Cambridge Law Journal 'This book ... is the first sustained attempt in the modern law to explore the theoretical foundations of the defences to liability recognised by the law of tort and their interrelationship ... [It is] an instant classic'. Ken Oliphant and Annette Morris, Yearbook of European Tort Law 'James Goudkamp's Tort Law Defences fills a startling gap in tort law scholarship... [It] provides an impressive foundation for the future study of defences, and will undoubtedly become the standard against which all other works are measured'. Erika Chamberlain, Canadian Business Law Journal
Promises of indemnity are found in many kinds of commercial contracts, not just contracts of insurance. This book examines the nature and effect of contractual indemnities outside the insurance context. It is the first work to provide a detailed account of the subject in English law. The book presents a coherent theory of the promise of indemnity while also addressing important practical issues, such as the construction of contractual indemnities. The subject is approached from two perspectives. The foundations are laid by examining general principles applicable to indemnities in various forms. This covers the nature of indemnity promises; general principles of construction; the determination of scope; and the enforcement of indemnities. The approach then moves from the general to the specific, by examining separately particular forms of indemnity. Included among these are indemnities against liability to third parties, and indemnities against default or non-performance by third parties. The book states English law but it draws upon a considerable amount of material from other common law jurisdictions, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Singapore. It will appeal to readers from those countries. Reviews 'Overall, the book involves a close analysis of cases and dicta both in Australia and in other countries, notably the United Kingdom. In this respect it is a meticulous, scholarly and thorough work ... In setting out the principles which emerge from the [indemnity] cases, the book reminds the reader of the importance of the clauses in those cases. This book will greatly assist the drafting process'. Malcolm A Clarke, Journal of Contract Law 'This is a scholarly text which covers in meticulous detail the full range of issues associated with indemnities: not simply the technical issues of their nature and their construction, but also the more practical issues of their breach and enforcement. The author fulfils the stated aim to provide a coherent account of the construction and enforcement of promises of indemnity . This is a valuable and landmark work which should be of immense assistance to commercial practitioners, litigators and judges alike when confronted by indemnity problems'. Rohan Havelock, New Zealand Business Law Quarterly