DOCSLIB.ORG

Business Law, Fifth Edition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Business Law, Fifth Edition BUSINESS LAW Fifth Edition This book is supported by a Companion Website, created to keep Business Law up to date and to provide enhanced resources for both students and lecturers. Key features include: ◆ termly updates ◆ links to useful websites ◆ links to ‘ebooks’ for introductory and further reading ◆ ‘ask the author’ – your questions answered www.cavendishpublishing.com/businesslaw BUSINESS LAW Fifth Edition David Kelly, PhD Principal Lecturer in Law Staffordshire University Ann Holmes, M Phil, PGD Dean of the Law School Staffordshire University Ruth Hayward, LLB, LLM Senior Lecturer in Law Staffordshire University Fifth edition first published in Great Britain 2005 by Cavendish Publishing Limited, The Glass House, Wharton Street, London WC1X 9PX, United Kingdom Telephone: + 44 (0)20 7278 8000 Facsimile: + 44 (0)20 7278 8080 Email: [email protected] Website: www.cavendishpublishing.com Published in the United States by Cavendish Publishing c/o International Specialized Book Services, 5804 NE Hassalo Street, Portland, Oregon 97213-3644, USA Published in Australia by Cavendish Publishing (Australia) Pty Ltd 3/303 Barrenjoey Road, Newport, NSW 2106, Australia Email: [email protected] Website: www.cavendishpublishing.com.au © Kelly, D, Holmes, A and Hayward, R 2005 First edition 1995 Second edition 1997 Third edition 2000 Fourth edition 2002 Fifth edition 2005 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing of Cavendish Publishing Limited, or as expressly permitted by law, or under the terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organisation. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Cavendish Publishing Limited, at the address above. You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Kelly, David, 1950– Business law – 5th ed 1 Business law – England 2 Business law – Wales I Title II Holmes, Ann E III Hayward, Ruth, LLB 346.4'207 Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available ISBN 1-85941-962-3 ISBN 978-1-859-41962-5 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2 Printed and bound in Great Britain PREFACE Business and commercial enterprise takes place within a legal context and, in the final analysis, is governed and regulated by law. One of the problems facing the person studying business activity, and the one that is specifically addressed in this book, is the fact that business enterprise takes place within a general and wide-ranging legal environment, but the student is required to have more than a passing knowledge of the legal rules and procedures which impact on business activity. The difficulty lies in acquiring an adequate knowledge of the many areas that govern such business activity. Law students legitimately may be expected to focus their attention on the minutiae of the law, but those studying law within, and as merely a component part of, a wider sphere of study cannot be expected to have the same detailed level of knowledge as law students. Nonetheless, they are expected to have a more than superficial knowledge of various legal topics. For the author of a business law textbook, the difficulty lies in pitching the material considered at the appropriate level so that those studying the subject acquire a sufficient grasp to understand law as it relates generally to business enterprise, and of course to equip the student to pass the requisite exams. To achieve this goal, the text must not be too specialised and focus on too small a part of what is contained in most business law syllabuses. For example, although contract law is central to any business law course, to study it on its own, or with a few ancillary topics, is not sufficient. Nor, however, should the text be so wide-ranging as to provide the student with no more than a superficial general knowledge of most of the possible interfaces between law and business enterprise. A selection has to be made and it is hoped that this text has made the correct one. No attempt has been made to cover all the areas within the potential scope of business law, but it is hoped that attention has been focused on the most important of these, without excluding any area of major importance. Additionally, it is hoped that the material provided deals with the topics selected in as thorough a way as is necessary. In this fifth edition we have taken the opportunity to expand the treatment of the company law and employment law sections. We have also been able to provide a more considered treatment of the Human Rights Act 1998 in the light of the most significant cases to have come before the courts since the previous edition. As usual, we have made every effort to ensure that the text is as up to date as we can make it. David Kelly Ann Holmes Ruth Hayward February 2005 CONTENTS Preface v Table of Cases xix Table of Statutes xlv Table of Statutory Instruments lv Conventions, Treaties and EC Legislation lix Table of Abbreviations lxi 1 LAW AND LEGAL SOURCES 1 1.1 The nature of law 1 1.2 Categories of law 2 1.2.1 Common law and civil law 2 1.2.2 Common law and equity 2 1.2.3 Common law and statute law 6 1.2.4 Private law and public law 6 1.2.5 Civil law and criminal law 7 1.3 The Human Rights Act 1998 8 1.3.1 The structure of the Human Rights Act 1998 10 1.3.2 Cases decided under the Human Rights Act 1998 12 1.4 Sources of law 15 1.4.1 European Community 15 1.4.2 Sources of EC law 17 1.4.3 The institutions of the EU 19 1.5 Legislation 23 1.5.1 The legislative process 23 1.5.2 Types of legislation 25 1.5.3 Delegated legislation 26 1.5.4 Advantages of the use of delegated legislation 27 1.5.5 Disadvantages in the prevalence of delegated legislation 28 1.5.6 Control over delegated legislation 28 1.6 Case law 29 1.6.1 The meaning of precedent 29 1.6.2 The hierarchy of the courts and the setting of precedent 31 1.6.3 The nature of precedent 33 1.6.4 Evaluation 34 1.6.5 Advantages of case law 34 1.6.6 Disadvantages of case law 35 1.6.7 Case study 36 1.7 Statutory interpretation 37 1.7.1 Problems in interpreting legislation 37 1.7.2 Rules of interpretation 38 1.7.3 Aids to construction 39 1.7.4 Presumptions 40 1.8 Custom 41 1.8.1 Books of authority 42 1.9 Law reform 42 Summary of Chapter 1 45 viii Business Law 2 THE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL COURTS 49 2.1 Introduction 49 2.2 The criminal court structure 49 2.3 Magistrates’ courts 51 2.3.1 Powers of magistrates’ courts 51 2.4 The Crown Court 52 2.4.1 Jurisdiction 52 2.5 Criminal appeals 52 2.5.1 Appeals from magistrates’ courts 53 2.5.2 Appeals from the Crown Court 53 2.5.3 The Criminal Justice Act 2003 54 2.6 House of Lords 55 2.7 Judicial Committee of the Privy Council 56 2.8 The civil court structure 56 2.9 Magistrates’ courts 56 2.10 The Woolf Reforms to the civil justice system 56 2.10.1 Judicial case management 57 2.10.2 Pre-action protocols 57 2.10.3 Alternatives to going to court 58 2.10.4 Allocation to track (Pt 26 of the CPR 1998) 58 2.11 County courts 59 2.12 The High Court of Justice 59 2.12.1 The Queen’s Bench Division 60 2.12.2 The Queen’s Bench Divisional Court 60 2.12.3 The Chancery Division 60 2.12.4 The Chancery Divisional Court 60 2.12.5 The Family Division 60 2.12.6 The Family Divisional Court 61 2.12.7 Specialist courts 61 2.13 The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) 61 2.13.1 The Civil Procedure Rules 61 2.14 House of Lords 62 2.15 Judicial Committee of the Privy Council 62 2.16 The European Court of Justice 62 2.17 The European Court of Human Rights 63 Summary of Chapter 2 67 3 ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 69 3.1 Introduction 69 3.2 Arbitration 71 3.2.1 Arbitration procedure 71 3.2.2 Relationship to ordinary courts 75 3.2.3 Advantages 75 3.2.4 The small claims track (Pt 27 of the CPR 1998) 76 3.2.5 Small claims procedure 77 3.2.6 Evaluation 78 3.2.7 Arbitration under codes of conduct 79 Contents ix 3.3 Administrative tribunals 80 3.3.1 Tribunals and courts 81 3.3.2 Composition of tribunals 82 3.3.3 Statutory tribunals 82 3.3.4 Domestic tribunals 84 3.3.5 Advantages of tribunals 84 3.3.6 Disadvantages of tribunals 85 3.3.7 The Leggatt Review of Tribunals 87 3.4 Ombudsman 89 3.4.1 Procedure 90 3.4.2 Evaluation 94 3.5 Mediation and conciliation 95 3.5.1 Mediation 95 3.5.2 Mediation in divorce 96 3.5.3 Conciliation 98 Summary of Chapter 3 101 4 THE NATURE AND FUNCTION OF CONTRACT LAW 103 4.1 Introduction 103 4.2 Definition 104 4.3 Formalities 104 4.4 The legal effect of agreement 105 Summary of Chapter 4 107 5 THE FORMATION OF A CONTRACT 109 5.1 Introduction 109 5.2 Offer 109 5.2.1 Identifying an offer 109 5.2.2 Offers to particular people 112 5.2.3 Knowledge of the offer 112 5.2.4 Rejection of offers 112 5.2.5 Revocation of offers 113 5.2.6 Lapse of offers 114 5.3 Acceptance 115 5.3.1 Form of acceptance 115 5.3.2 Communication of acceptance 116 5.3.3 Tenders 117 5.4 Offer, acceptance and the classical model of contract 118 5.5 Consideration 119 5.5.1 Forbearance 119 5.5.2 Types of consideration 120 5.5.3 Rules relating to consideration 121 5.5.4 Performance of existing duties 122 5.5.5 Consideration in relation to the waiver of existing rights 124 5.5.6 Promissory estoppel 125 5.5.7 Promissory estoppel after Williams v Roffey Bros (1990) 127 5.6 Privity of contract 127 5.6.1 Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act
Load more

Recommended publications
  • European Union (Withdrawal) Bill – 'Francovich' Claims
    European Union (Withdrawal) Bill – ‘Francovich’ Claims The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill excludes the right to claim damages under the rule in Francovich from being converted into UK law. Under the Francovich rule, a state may be liable for damages where it has failed to implement an EU directive within a specified time (and other conditions are met). Will Francovich be relevant post-Brexit? Francovich claims are only relevant where a Member State has failed to implement an EU directive within the time period for implementation. As such, its exclusion presumably will not be of great relevance post-Brexit when the UK will not be under any obligation to do so. However it may have the following residual relevance: • The exclusion of it via the Bill may prevent retrospective claims for current noncompliance with EU law. • The Francovich principle for damages is based on an ECJ case law concept. For instance a Government breech being ”sufficiently serious” to warrant damages. ”Sufficiently serious” is an ECJ concept and so may develop post Brexit. Removing it would unambiguously take the UK courts away from following the ECJ. It may, however, be a general move to reduce EU law related litigation and bring EU law in line with UK law and remedies. Provisions of European Union (Withdrawal) Bill 2017 (‘EUW Bill’) In accordance with paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 of the EUW Bill: • “There will be no right in domestic law on or after exit day to damages in accordance with the rule in Francovich.” • Schedule 1 of the EUW Bill has effect through s 5(6) (see ss 2(3), 3(5) and 4(3) of the EUW Bill, which state that the retention and conversion of EU law is subject to the exceptions in clause 5 and Schedule 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Spillover Or Backlash? Karen J
    The European Union’s Legal System and Domestic Policy: Spillover or Backlash? Karen J. Alter The legal system of the European Union (EU) offers domestic actors a powerful tool to influence national policy. European law can be drawn on by private litigants in national courts to challenge national policies. These challenges can be sent by na- tional judges to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which instructs national courts to apply European law instead of national law, or to interpret national law in a way compatible with European law. Combining victories in front of the ECJ with political mobilization and pressure, litigants and groups have used the European legal system to force their governments to change national policies. Using Europe’s legal tool involves overcoming four successive thresholds: First, there must be a point of European law on which domestic actors can draw and favorable ECJ interpretations of this law. Second, litigants must embrace EU law to advance their policy objectives, using EU legal arguments in national court cases. Third, national courts must support the efforts of the litigants by referring cases to the ECJ and/or applying the ECJ’s legal interpretations instead of conflicting national policy. Fourth, litigants must follow through on their legal victory, using it as part of a larger strategy to pressure the government to change public policy.1 A litigation strategy can fail at any of the four steps. When private litigants can surmount these four thresholds, the EU legal system can be a potent tool for forcing a change in national policy. Stated as such, these four steps may sound onerous.
    [Show full text]
  • WPS 5-2013 the Rule in Foss V Harbottle Is Dead by Kershaw
    The Rule in Foss v Harbottle is Dead; Long Live the Rule in Foss v Harbottle David Kershaw LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Papers 5/2013 London School of Economics and Political Science Law Department This paper can be downloaded without charge from LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Papers at: www.lse.ac.uk/collections/law/wps/wps.htm and the Social Sciences Research Network electronic library at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2209061. © David Kershaw. Users may download and/or print one copy to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. Users may not engage in further distribution of this material or use it for any profit-making activities or any other form of commercial gain. The Rule in Foss v Harbottle is Dead; Long Live the Rule in Foss v Harbottle * David Kershaw Abstract: The proper plaintiff rule reflects the elemental legal principle that only the right-holder is entitled to enforce the right. At common law, as a corollary of this principle, only when the general meeting was incapable of acting in the corporate interest could a derivative action be brought. It followed from this principle that wrongdoer control of the shareholder meeting was a pre-requisite to derivative litigation. The Companies Act 2006 introduced what is considered to be a ‘new’ derivative action mechanism. Although the Act is silent about the wrongdoer control requirement, it is widely understood to have abolished it. Central to this understanding is the view that this is what Parliament intended, as supported by a view of the mischief of the Act and by several ministerial statements.
    [Show full text]
  • WHY IS the RULE in FOSS V HARBOTTLE SUCH an IMPORTANT ONE? Ioanna Mesimeri Advocate 1. Introduction a Company Has a Separate
    WHY IS THE RULE IN FOSS V HARBOTTLE SUCH AN IMPORTANT ONE? Ioanna Mesimeri Advocate 1. Introduction A company has a separate legal personality, distinct and separate from the members who compose it and so it can ‘sue and be sued in its own name’1. Decisions of a company are taken by the shareholders and the board members and represent the majority of the company2. Each company member is contractually bound by the company’s constitution which mandates that every member agrees to be bound by the majority’s decisions3. Courts have long been reluctant to get involved in the company’s internal management4 as long as directors are operating under the provisions of the Articles5. All the above principles coexist in the rule of Foss v Harbottle (1843)6. The principle of separate legal personality, the doctrine of majority rule, the statutory contract and the internal management principle are all translated in the Foss v Harbottle rule, the ‘rule of procedure governing locus standi’7. This rule is the basis of ‘common law jurisprudence regarding who may bring an action on behalf of the company’8 and although its existence dates back beyond 150 years, it still constitutes a significant part of the company law9. The rule is considered prudent as it recognises that it is pointless to bring an action to the courts for an issue that a company can resolve on its own, or a wrongdoing that can be settled within its own internal management10. Without the rule in Foss v Harbottle, there would occur a huge amount of superficial litigation which would threaten the normal performance of a company11.
    [Show full text]
  • Law Contract Examining Bodies
    9 th 9 CASE TH editio EDITIO n 9TH Paul Richard’s Law of Contract, now in its ninth edition, presents a trusted EDITIOn account of the main principles of contract law, using clear explanations and N A R law law O contemporary applications. In an area of law that is growing in complexity n V I G A T and importance, a firm grasp of the fundamental principles is essential. POWERED BY This book provides this necessary foundation whilst also considering recent paul richards proposals for reform so that the reader can gain an understanding of the overall development of the law. law of contract This new edition has been thoroughly revised and fully updated to include: • O’Brien v MGN Ltd and Sterling Hydraulics Ltd v Dichtomatik Ltd, on the requirement of ‘reasonable notice’ in exemption clauses of • Careful consideration of exemption clauses and the principles governing non-intervention of the courts under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977and the case of Regus (UK) Ltd v Epcot Solutions Ltd contract • Further analysis of restitutionary damages and differences between the Wrotham Park and Blake decisions by the Court of Appeal in WWF World Wide Fund for Nature v World Wrestling Federation Entertainment • Analysis of the House of Lords’ decision on breach of contract in Golden Strait Corporation v Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha (‘The Golden Victory’) • Commentary on the House of Lords’ decision in Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc (‘The Achilleas’) and the rule in Hadley v Baxendale www.mylawchamber.co.uk/richards • Over forty new cases which represent important developments in the law This text is supported by a mylawchamber website which includes: of contract • Updates to chapters on Agreement, Consideration, Mistake, For students: regular case and legislation updates, web links, interactive self-test Misrepresentation, and Privity of Contract questions, practice assessment questions, an online glossary and flashcards for key terms.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Rights in the European Community Dinah L
    Hastings International and Comparative Law Review Volume 16 Article 6 Number 4 Summer 1993 1-1-1993 Environmental Rights in the European Community Dinah L. Shelton Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_international_comparative_law_review Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Dinah L. Shelton, Environmental Rights in the European Community, 16 Hastings Int'l & Comp.L. Rev. 557 (1993). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_international_comparative_law_review/vol16/iss4/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. Environmental Rights in the European Community By DNAH L. SI-ELTON* The Treaties creating the European Community' contain neither a catalogue of human rights nor a reference to environmental protec- tion. This is not surprising, given the focus of the Community,' as well as its relatively early date of inception. The language closest to both subjects is contained in article 36 of the Treaty of Rome, which states that provisions of the Treaty "shall not preclude prohibitions or re- strictions ...justified on grounds of... the protections of health and life of humans, animals or plants."'3 Despite their general absence from Community documents, both human rights and environmental protection have found their way into Community law as it has evolved over more than three decades. The evolution has not produced a de- clared human right to an environment of a particular quality; how- ever, it has resulted in certain guaranteed environmental rights,4 including the right to receive environmental information, the right to participate in decisions affecting the environment, and the right to ac- * Professor of Law, Santa Clara University.
    [Show full text]
  • Intersex, Discrimination and the Healthcare Environment – a Critical Investigation of Current English Law
    Intersex, Discrimination and the Healthcare Environment – a Critical Investigation of Current English Law Karen Jane Brown Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements of London Metropolitan University for the Award of PhD Year of final Submission: 2016 Table of Contents Table of Contents......................................................................................................................i Table of Figures........................................................................................................................v Table of Abbreviations.............................................................................................................v Tables of Cases........................................................................................................................vi Domestic cases...vi Cases from the European Court of Human Rights...vii International Jurisprudence...vii Tables of Legislation.............................................................................................................viii Table of Statutes- England…viii Table of Statutory Instruments- England…x Table of Legislation-Scotland…x Table of European and International Measures...x Conventions...x Directives...x Table of Legislation-Australia...xi Table of Legislation-Germany...x Table of Legislation-Malta...x Table of Legislation-New Zealand...xi Table of Legislation-Republic of Ireland...x Table of Legislation-South Africa...xi Objectives of Thesis................................................................................................................xii
    [Show full text]
  • Contents of a Contract Representations and Misrepresentations
    THE LAW OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND CARRIAGE OF GOODS CONTENTS OF A CONTRACT REPRESENTATIONS AND MISREPRESENTATIONS. General definition : A representation is a statement about a factual situation, current or historical, or about a person’s state of mind, including an opinion or belief. Examples include a statement about the condition of a ship or its location, opinions or beliefs about the condition or location of the ship, statements about the vessel’s ability to perform a particular task and statements about where the ship has been or what it has done. A misrepresentation is a false representation. Distinctions : It is important to distinguish representations made as part of negotiations or otherwise, which give rise to remedies in their own right from other statements (or representations) which give rise to actions in other areas of contract. The above must also be distinguished from statements which are of no legal significance whatsoever. A statement may :- a) be a representation which gives rise to remedies discussed in this section; or b) become incorporated as a term of a contract1 for example s12-15 SOGA 1979 ; or c) form the basis of a collateral contract Esso Petroleum v Marsden 2 : Shanklin Pier v Detol Products 3; City of Westminster Properties v Mudd 4 or d) be a mere tradesmanʹs puff as alleged in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.5 which gives rise to no rights whatsoever since no one relies on them or expects them to be true. e) be a throw away remark, made in jest or casual conversation, with no expectation that anyone might take it seriously or rely upon it.
    [Show full text]
  • Body Integrity Identity Disorder and Cyborgs
    Body Integrity Identity Disorder and Cyborgs: An Exploration of the Ethics of Elective Amputation and Enhancement Technologies A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Bioethics and Medical Jurisprudence in the Faculty of Humanities 2021 Richard B. Gibson Centre for Social Ethics and Policy TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARIES ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... 6 DECELERATION AND COPYRIGHT STATEMENT.............................................................. 7 DECLARATION ......................................................................................................................... 7 COPYRIGHT STATEMENT....................................................................................................... 7 DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................... 8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... 9 THE AUTHOR ............................................................................................................................. 10 EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................ 10 PUBLICATIONS AND CONFERENCE PAPERS .................................................................. 10 DESTINATION ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Practical Benefits and Promises to Pay Lesser Sums: Reconsidering the Relationship Between the Rule in Foakes V Beer and the Rule in Williams V Roffey
    PRACTICAL BENEFITS AND PROMISES TO PAY LESSER SUMS: RECONSIDERING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE RULE IN FOAKES V BEER AND THE RULE IN WILLIAMS V ROFFEY DILAN THAMPAPILLAI∗ Since the decision of the UK Court of Appeal in Williams v Roffey there has been a great deal of academic debate about contract modifications and the validity of viewing a ‘practical benefit’ as sufficient consideration for a fresh promise. At the heart of these objections lies the notion that the promisor gets no more than that which he or she was originally promised. Similarly, the promisee stands to receive more in exchange for doing nothing more than that which he originally agreed to perform. The modification is clearly one-sided. Yet, it has been widely accepted by the courts as a valid exception to the existing duty rule within the doctrine of consideration. The widespread acceptance of the rule in Williams sidesteps a crucial question, one posed by Phang JA in Gay Choon Ing v Loh Sze Ti; if a promise to pay more can be binding, then why should a promise to accept less not be binding? This article explores the question of whether the rule in Foakes should make way for that in Williams. I INTRODUCTION It is a well-established rule within the doctrine of consideration that a promise to perform an existing duty is not sufficient consideration for a fresh promise.1 This rule finds a corollary of sorts in the rule developed in Foakes v Beer2 that a promise to accept a lesser sum in payment of a debt is not binding.3 Yet, as Chen-Wishart has acutely observed, despite the protestations of the UK Court of Appeal, the practical benefit exception that was established in Williams v Roffey,4 ‘clearly overturns the pre- existing duty rule for which Stilk v Myrick is authority’.5 How then can the rule in Foakes v Beer continue to stand in defiance of the rule in Williams? ∗ Lecturer, ANU College of Law, Australian National University.
    [Show full text]
  • The English Law School London: Sweet & Maxwell
    Amicus Curiae The Journal of the Society for Advanced Legal Studies Inside ... Special issue: ‘Reflecting on Blackstone’s Tower’ Introduction Read more on pag e 311 Articles Read more on pag e 314 Notes Read more on pag e 501 News and Events Read more on pag e 523 Contributors’ Profiles Read more on pag e 526 Visual Law Read more on pag e 531 Series 2, Vol 2, No 3 310 Amicus Curiae CONTENTS Special Issue: ‘Reflecting on Blackstone’s Tower’ Guest Editors: Fiona Cownie & Emma Jones Editor’s Introduction Notes Michael -Palmer . 311 The Independent Panel’s Report on Special Issue Articles Judicial Review (CP 407) and the Government’s Consultation Document Blackstone’s Tower in Context on Judicial Review Reform (CP 408) Fiona-Cownie & Emma-Jones Patrick -J- Birkinshaw . 501 . 314 University of London Refugee Law Twining’s Tower and the Challenges of Clinic Online Launch Making Law a Humanistic Discipline Carl -Stychin . 521 David-Sugarman .. 334 The Tower News and Events Completion of IALS Anthony-Bradney . 352 Transformation Project . 523 Rutland Revisited: Reflections on Georg Schwarzenberger Prize . the Relationships between the Legal 524 Academy and the Legal Profession IALS Library . 524 Steven-Vaughan . 371 Selected Upcoming Events . 524 Experiencing English Law Schools: Contributors’ Profiles . 526 The Student Perspective Visual Law Jessica-Guth, Fiona-Cownie China’s Three Internet Courts & Emma-Jones . .. 390 Yang-Lin . 531 Building Access Routes into Blackstone’s Tower: Including Disability Perspectives in the Liberal Law School Amicus Curiae Contacts Abigail-Pearson .. 406 Editor: Professor Michael Palmer, SOAS and IALS, University of Should We Rethink the Purposes of London the Law School? A Case for Decolonial Thought in Legal Pedagogy Production Editor: Marie Selwood Foluke-Adebisi .
    [Show full text]
  • The Negotiation Stage
    Part I The negotiation stage M02_HALS8786_02_SE_C02.indd 17 7/19/12 3:47 PM M02_HALS8786_02_SE_C02.indd 18 7/19/12 3:47 PM 2 Negotiating the contract Introduction Lord Atkin once remarked that: ‘Businessmen habitually . trust to luck or the good faith of the other party . .’.1 This comment2 provides more than an insight into the motivations of businessmen. It also implicitly acknowledges a limitation of the common law in policing the activities of contractors: the law no more ensures the good faith of your contractual partner than it guarantees your good fortune in business dealings. However, this might not be an accurate description of the purpose of the law relating to pre-contractual negotiations. In an important judgment that was notable for its attempt to place the legal principles under discussion in a broader doctrinal and comparative context Bingham LJ in the Court of Appeal observed that:3 In many civil law systems, and perhaps in most legal systems outside the common law world, the law of obligations recognises and enforces an overriding principle that in making and carrying out contracts parties should act in good faith . It is in essence a principle of fair and open dealing . English law has, characteristically, committed itself to no such overriding principle but has developed piecemeal solutions to demonstrated problems of unfairness. This judgment makes it clear that the gap between civil and common-law jurisdictions is exaggerated by observations at too high a level of generality. While it is true to say that the common law does not explicitly adopt a principle of good faith, it is as obviously untrue to say that the common law encourages bad faith.
    [Show full text]