DOCSLIB.ORG

Do Contracting Parties Have a Duty to Act in Good Faith Under English Law?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Do Contracting Parties Have a Duty to Act in Good Faith Under English Law? Issue 25, July 2013 The judge, Leggatt J, had various reasons Welcome to the July edition of Insight, Fenwick What is good faith? why he saw fit to imply these two terms. In Elliott’s newsletter which provides practical the main, it was necessary for terms to be information on topical issues affecting the building, The concept of good faith is subjective implied because the contract was skeletal engineering and energy sectors. and depends very much on the overall terms of the contract and the commercial in form, it had not been professionally context, but good faith essentially means drafted and it did not take into account an In this issue we discuss the recent approach of being honest and “playing fair”. important industry assumption that duty the courts to good faith and the implications free prices would be lower than domestic for commercial practice. A deliberate failure to share information retail prices, which was common ground that is objectively relevant to the between the parties at trial. performance of the contract, for example, would undoubtedly amount to a breach Leggatt J also commented obiter that the of good faith in the case of a long-term contract was a long-term distributorship contract such as a joint venture which agreement which required the parties to requires the parties to work together. communicate effectively and cooperate Good faith would not automatically apply with each other in its performance. to clauses that involve an element of Accordingly, there would probably have Insight discretion, but it may apply to clauses that been an implied obligation upon ITC to involve an assessment or choice as to a keep Yam Seng informed of ITC’s best range of options to which the interests of estimate of when products would be both parties are relevant. available for sale and to inform Yam Seng of any material change in this information Do contracting Recent case law without Yam Seng having to ask. parties have a duty Yam Seng – February 2013 Compass - March 2013 In Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade In Compass Group UK and Ireland Ltd v Mid to act in good faith Corporation Ltd [2013] EWHC 111 (QB), Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust [2013] the parties entered into a contract under EWCA Civ 200, the parties entered into the terms of which ITC granted Yam a long-term facilities contract under under English law? Seng an exclusive agreement in respect the terms of which Compass agreed to of the distribution of fragrances bearing provide catering services to the Trust. the name “Manchester United”. The The reluctance of the courts to imply terms relationship between the parties broke The contract contained a duty to into agreements negotiated between two down and proceedings were brought cooperate in good faith at clause 3.5, commercial parties at arm’s length is well by Yam Seng for breach of contract and which provided: known and is based on the long-established misrepresentation. doctrine of freedom of contract. “The Trust and the Contractor will co- Yam Seng asserted that it was an implied operate with each other in good faith and That said, the courts are on occasion prepared term of the contract that the parties will take all reasonable action as is necessary to imply terms into contracts in circumstances would deal with each other in good faith. for the efficient transmission of information and instructions and to enable the Trust or, where the concluded contract is not clear. In Specifically, Yam Seng argued that ITC had as the case may be, any Beneficiary to derive such cases, the courts will consider what the (i) failed to act with an implied obligation of good faith by prejudicing Yam Seng’s the full benefit of the Contract.” contract would reasonably be understood sales by offering the same products for to mean as a whole against the relevant domestic sale below the duty free prices The question before the court was the contractual background, and in light of the that Yam Seng was permitted to offer; (ii) extent to which this clause provided an knowledge that was reasonably available to instructed or encouraged Yam Seng to overarching obligation on the parties to the parties at the time the contract was entered incur marketing expenses for products operate with each other in good faith into. that ITC was unable or unwilling to supply; even though there was no standalone and (iii) offered false information upon express term to this effect in the contract. Since February 2013, two High Court judgments which Yam Seng relied to its detriment. The contract as a whole was very detailed and one Court of Appeal judgment have been There were no express terms of the and the obligations of the parties and handed down that examine the role of good contract covering any of these points. the consequences of any failures were faith in English law and the extent to which spelt out in explicit detail. The obligation circumstances under which the English courts On the facts, only two obligations were to act in good faith specifically focused on the obligation to take all reasonable might recognise an overarching duty of good implied. Firstly, the court found there action as was necessary for the efficient faith. All these cases took as their starting point was an obligation not to undercut duty free prices, and secondly, there was an transformation of information and the fact that there is no legal principle of good obligation not to knowingly provide false instructions. faith under English contract law. information, and a duty of good faith was implied in both these respects. The first Accordingly, the Court of Appeal This twenty-fifth issue of Insight considers the obligation was contrary to usual standards overturned the decision of the first instance recent approach of the courts to good faith and of commercial dealing and the second court in finding that commercial common the implications for commercial practice. was implied into the agreement between sense did not favour the addition of an the parties as a matter of fact. overarching duty to cooperate in good Issue 25, July 2013 rights on the parties, contrary to the off on completely the wrong footing. parties’ intention. However, this is probably more of a concern than a reality. There are already The court did however accept that, in contracts founded on the concept of Insight principle, an express obligation to act good faith, for example the NEC form in good faith could be pervasive and, which obliges the parties to act in a “spirit depending on the nature and drafting of mutual trust and co-operation”. faith in circumstances where good faith of the clause, it may be possible for it to had been provided for in the contract affect all aspects of the contract. The key question is whether or not there in such a precise manner at clause 3.5. is an overarching duty of good faith? This However, this was not the case here as is something the courts have yet to find, The Trust was not therefore prevented the contract contained an unqualified although parties should bear in mind from awarding service failure points for right to terminate the contract for that the existence of an express good failures in performance as the contract convenience at sub-clause 13.3 to which faith clause may provide a standard expressly contained precise rules for the obligation to act in good faith could against which their own actions may be these matters. Further, it did not matter not possibly extend. SAH had an absolute measured. that the Trust deducted £84,540 for a entitlement to terminate the contract for one-day out-of-date chocolate mousse. any or no reason. The judge, Akenhead Placing the theory aside, if you think it The ability of the Trust to award service J, emphasised that the termination for would be advantageous to include an failure points for poor performance was convenience clause did not contain express obligation to act in good faith in an absolute contractual right. an element of responsibility. The your contract, you should ensure that it is entitlement to terminate the contract drafted carefully so that the extent of the The Court of Appeal emphasised that was absolute and it was obvious to each obligation, particularly in relation to the if the parties had wished to impose an party that they were entitled to terminate rest of the contract, is clear. overarching duty of good faith, they at any time. The court also followed the should have done so expressly. Court of Appeal in Compass in refusing Conclusion to find that there was an implied duty of TSG - May 2013 good faith. We are not yet at the stage where the English courts are ready to imply upon TSG Building Services plc v South Anglia Everything turned on the drafting of the contracting parties a duty to act in good Housing Ltd [2013] EWHC 1151 (TCC) good faith clause. If the good faith clause faith, as is the case in most civil codes. is probably the most important of the had involved an element of discretion, But this is not unexpected as the current three cases to the construction industry it would have been much easier for the approach of the courts is consistent with because it concerns the implication of court to conclude that good faith should the general principle of English contract terms into an ACA Standard Form of apply to the exercise of that discretion. law that a term will not be implied into a Contract for Term Partnering (TPC 2005, But that was not the case here.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Choice of Law and the Covenant of Good Faith and Fa
    RETAIL AND HOSPITALITY When—or Should We Say Where— Choice of Law and Is Compliance with a Contract also a Breach? the Covenant of By Leon Silver Good Faith and Fair Dealing Carelessness in drafting In my practice, my national and regional retail clients contract language can most often opt for the company’s headquarters’ home state result in your client’s as both the exclusive forum and the source for the control- company undertaking ling law in their master vendor agreements as well as any number of other contracts. While the prac- implies the duty of good faith and fair obligations and becoming tical realities of having to manage litigation dealing in every contract, and because the that could conceivably occur anywhere in states apply the duty differently, if you and exposed to liabilities the country make the forum choice a seem- your clients have not become aware of the ingly straightforward decision, I have often how the controlling jurisdiction treats the that the company never found that contract drafters do not give covenant of good faith and fair dealing, you the choice of law provision enough criti- can find your client’s sober and reasoned anticipated because the cal thought. This is particularly so because business decisions turned on their heads. the choice of controlling law may have the law implies duties that unintended and completely surprising con- Arizona: The Broadest View sequence of making conduct that complies Arizona sits at the broadest end of the good you cannot otherwise with the terms of a contract still actionable faith and fair dealing spectrum.
    [Show full text]
  • Lucarell V. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 152 Ohio St.3D 453, 2018-Ohio-15.]
    [Cite as Lucarell v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 152 Ohio St.3d 453, 2018-Ohio-15.] LUCARELL, APPELLEE, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT. [Cite as Lucarell v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 152 Ohio St.3d 453, 2018-Ohio-15.] Contracts—Breach of contract—Punitive damages—Implied duty of good faith and fair dealing—Release of liability—Prevention-of-performance doctrine— Fraud—Punitive damages are not recoverable in a breach-of-contract action—When a breach of contract involves conduct that also constitutes a tort, punitive damages may be awarded only for the tort, not for the breach, and any punitive damages awarded are subject to the statutory limitations on punitive damages imposed in R.C. 2315.21—A party to a contract does not breach the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by seeking to enforce the agreement as written or by acting in accordance with its express terms, nor can there be a breach of the implied duty unless a specific obligation imposed by the contract is not met—An unconditional release of liability becomes effective upon execution and delivery and bars any claims encompassed within it unless it was procured by fraud, duress, or other wrongful conduct—A party seeking to avoid a release of liability on the basis that it was procured under duress is required to prove duress by clear and convincing evidence—The prevention-of-performance doctrine, which states that a party who prevents another from performing a contractual obligation may not rely on that failure of performance to assert a claim for breach of contract, is not a defense to a release of liability and therefore cannot be asserted as a defense to a release—A fraud claim cannot be predicated on predictions or projections relating to future performance or on misrepresentations made to third parties.
    [Show full text]
  • Good Faith and Fair Dealing - Alive and Well Or Is It a Matter of Business Judgment?
    American Bar Association 39th Annual Forum on Franchising ____________________________________________________________ GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING - ALIVE AND WELL OR IS IT A MATTER OF BUSINESS JUDGMENT? Erica L. Calderas Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP Cleveland, Ohio and Jason M. Murray Murray Law, P.A. Miami, FL November 2-4, 2016 Miami Beach, FL ____________________________________________________________ ©2016 American Bar Association Table of Contents Page I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1 II. THE DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING IN THE FRANCHISE CONTEXT .......................................................................................................................1 A. Source and Nature of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing ............................ 1 B. What Does It Mean To Act With Good Faith and Fair Dealing? ............................ 3 C. Express Contract Terms and the Waiver of the Implied Covenant ....................... 4 D. The Tension Between Franchisors and Franchisees When It Comes To The Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing ......................................... 6 III. THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE IN THE FRANCHISE CONTEXT ........................... 8 A. The Nature of the Business Judgment Rule From Corporate Law ........................ 8 B. Translating the Business Judgment Rule to Franchise Law ................................. 8 C. The Developing Law on the Business Judgment Rule ......................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
    The Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Go to: Recognition of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing | Application of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing | Drafting Contract Terms to Address the Covenant | Related Content Reviewed on: 05/23/2019 It is well established that every contract has an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing with respect to the parties’ performance and enforcement of the agreement. The covenant imposes an obligation on parties to act in good faith and deal fairly with other parties to the contract, even though this duty is not specifically stated in the agreement. Most contracts, especially complex agreements, cannot address every conceivable scenario nor provide detailed terms regarding every aspect of each party’s obligations. Performance may entail or necessitate actions that are not expressly set forth in the agreement and/or involve discretion on a party as to how to go about performing its obligations. The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing prevents parties from exercising discretion and performing their contractual obligations in bad faith and in a manner that denies the other party the benefit of its bargain. The covenant can provide judges with a legal basis to fill gaps that may exist in contracts, as well as to restrict unreasonable or bad faith performance of contractual obligations when warranted by the circumstances. Despite its broad application to all contracts, the meaning of and requirements imposed by the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing are often not adequately understood by parties to commercial agreements.
    [Show full text]
  • Good Faith and Reasonable Expectations
    Good Faith and Reasonable Expectations Jay M. Feinman* I. INTRODUCTION The recognition that there is an obligation of good faith in every contract has been regarded as one of the most important advances in contract law in the twentieth century. Nevertheless, a half-century after the doctrine’s incorporation into the Restatement (Second) of Contracts and the Uniform Commercial Code, great controversy and confusion remain about it. Recent articles describe the doctrine as “a revered relic,” “a (nearly) empty vessel,” and “an underenforced legal norm.”1 A scholarly dispute about the nature of the doctrine framed more than thirty years ago has hardly been advanced, much less resolved.2 More importantly, although nearly every court has announced its support of the doctrine, often using similar language and familiar sources, many judicial opinions are confusing or confused.3 The controversy and confusion stem from a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the good faith obligation. That misunderstanding is a belief that good faith is a special doctrine that does not easily fit within the structure of contract law. Indeed, the doctrine is seen as potentially dangerous, threatening to undermine more fundamental doctrines and the transactions that they are designed to uphold. As a result, good * Distinguished Professor of Law, Rutgers School of Law‒Camden. The author thanks David Campbell and especially Danielle Kie Hart for their comments. This article is for Arkansas lawyer David Solomon and his son, Ray. 1. See generally Harold Dubroff, The Implied Covenant of Good Faith in Contract Interpretation and Gap-Filling: Reviling a Revered Relic, 80 ST.
    [Show full text]
  • The Meaning of Contractual Good Faith
    DELAWARE BUSINESS COURT INSIDER September 11, 2013 The Meaning of Contractual Good Faith Joel Feuer and Benyamin Ross Delaware Business Court Insider Since the Delaware General Background and the Court of Chancery presumed that the parties Assembly made it clear that de- Chancery Decision intended to adopt Delaware’s com- fault fiduciary duties apply to man- In Policemen’s Annuity, the lim- mon-law definition of good faith as agers and controlling members of ited partners (LPs) of a Delaware applied to contracts. The court ad- limited liability companies, the limited partnership sought a dec- opted the definition of good faith attention of the Delaware courts laration that their removal of the in Section 1-201(20) of the Dela- has returned to a set of related partnership’s general partner (GP) ware Uniform Commercial Code questions for both partnerships was valid. The partnership’s lim- (UCC), which defines good faith as and LLCs: ited partnership agreement (LPA) “honesty in fact and the observance • How are fiduciary duties dis- granted the GP broad discretion to of reasonable commercial standards claimed and how are they displaced? manage the everyday affairs of the of fair dealing.” The court reasoned • When fiduciary duties are partnership. The LPA required the that because the UCC definition is contractually displaced by other GP to distribute audited financial at least as broad as the definition of standards, how are those standards statements on a timely basis. The good faith applicable to contracts at to be interpreted? GP repeatedly failed to do so. common law, if the LPs could sat- • Who bears the burden of proof? The GP argued that the LPs did isfy the UCC definition, then the In DV Realty Advisors LLC v.
    [Show full text]
  • The Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in Leases (Use Provisions)
    THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING IN LEASES (USE PROVISIONS) Mark A. Senn, Esq. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 1 II. IMPLIED COVENANTS .................................................................................................. 1 III. IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING ..........................1 IV. WHERE THE COVENANT APPEARS ......................................................................... 2 V. SCHOLARLY VIEWS...................................................................................................... 3 VI. CASE LAW ........................................................................................................................ 4 A. CONTINUOUS OPERATION......................................................................................................................... 4 1. There is no implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing................................................................... 4 2. There is no covenant where there is a contrary provision ...................................................................... 4 3. When there is no implied covenant of continuous operation, the covenant of good faith and fair dealing will not support it ........................................................................................ 5 4. The covenant does not apply when there is a change in the manner of use ............................................ 5
    [Show full text]
  • Revision of Uniform Commercial Code Article 1 – General Provisions
    D R A F T FOR DISCUSSION ONLY REVISION OF UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE ARTICLE 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS MEETING IN ITS ONE-HUNDRED-AND-SIXTH YEAR SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA JULY 25 – AUGUST 1, 1997 REVISION OF UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE ARTICLE 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS WITH PREFATORY NOTE AND COMMENTS Copyright 1997 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE and NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS The ideas and conclusions set forth in this draft, including the proposed statutory language and any comments or reporter’s notes, have not been passed upon by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, the American Law Institute, or the Drafting Committee. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Conference and its Commissioners, the Institute and its Members, and the Drafting Committee and its Members and Reporters. Proposed statutory language may not be used to ascertain the intent or meaning of any promulgated final statutory proposal. DRAFTING COMMITTEE TO REVISE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE ARTICLE 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS BORIS AUERBACH, 332 Ardon Lane, Wyoming, OH 45215, Chair MARION W. BENFIELD, JR., Wake Forest University, School of Law, P.O. Box 7206, Winston-Salem, NC 27109 AMELIA H. BOSS, Temple University School of Law, 1719 North Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA 19122, The American Law Institute Representative CURTIS R. REITZ, University of Pennsylvania, School of Law, 3400 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104 CARLYLE C. RING, JR., Atlantic Research Corporation, 5945 Wellington Road, Gainesville, VA 20155 NEIL B. COHEN, Brooklyn Law School, Room 904A, 250 Joralemon Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, Reporter EX OFFICIO BION M.
    [Show full text]
  • Drafting Around Good Faith
    EDITED BY BO LINKS SELF-STUDY mCLE Drafting Around Good Faith BY ALLEN B. GRODSKY Court has explained, the covenant discretion? Courts have addressed cannot be read “to prohibit a party this issue in a number of cases. from doing that which is expressly permitted by an agreement.” (Carma CASE LAW Developers, 2 Cal. 4th at 374.) How- Plaintiffs in three particular disputes ever, the courts are very particular tried unsuccessfully to invoke the about the specificity required for a implied covenant to impose a good contract to avoid the implied cov- faith limitation on conduct specifi- n California, every contract enant of good faith and fair dealing. cally described and expressly permit- Icontains an implied covenant of good faith ted by the contract. In one instance, and fair dealing, which prevents one party TWO-PRONGED TEST an employment contract provided from unfairly frustrating the other party’s In general, California courts will that when a Lockheed employee right to receive contractual benefits. The interpret a contract to allow a party created an invention during his implied covenant is particularly important to use its sole discretion—unlimited or her employment, the inven- in situations where an agreement invests one by the covenant of good faith and fair tion belonged to the company; the party with a discretionary power affecting the dealing—if two conditions are met. employee, however, could request rights of the other party; under the implied l The express purpose of the con- from Lockheed a “special invention covenant, such power must be exercised in tract is to grant unfettered discre- award” of up to $20,000.
    [Show full text]
  • To a Merchant Under the Uniform Commercial Code: Section 2-403
    Indiana Law Journal Volume 38 Issue 4 Article 6 Summer 1963 The Good Faith Purchase of Goods and "Entrusting" to a Merchant Under the Uniform Commercial Code: Section 2-403 Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Commercial Law Commons Recommended Citation (1963) "The Good Faith Purchase of Goods and "Entrusting" to a Merchant Under the Uniform Commercial Code: Section 2-403," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 38 : Iss. 4 , Article 6. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol38/iss4/6 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES limit damages2 9 and modify or limit the damages in their agreement.' It is submitted, therefore, that the most rational way for the seller and the buyer to agree on the quality risk is not by raising complicated issues of warranties and disclaimers, but by negotiating the amount of damages the buyer may recover. With a conscientious agreement between the parties and a resultant clause in the written agreement, commercial sellers and buyers can give the courts something with which to work. For the seller it is well worth the risk of having to pay something than the risk of having to pay everything. For the buyer it gives him an opportunity to negotiate the risk that he may have to incur.
    [Show full text]
  • A Cautionary Tale About Contractual Good Faith in Texas
    A Cautionary Tale About Contractual Good Faith in Texas Mark Gergen* The history of the doctrine of good faith in Texas offers a cautionary tale about legal change. In the last decade, Texas has gone through a rev- olution and a counter revolution as its supreme court created a new tort for bad faith breach of contract for which emotional and sometimes exemplary damages could be awarded1 and then struggled to limit the scope and ef- fects of the tort.2 The new tort of bad faith breach of contract has had explosive effects on insurance litigation in Texas. The battle over the limits of the tort has sharply divided the supreme court, and it has had corrosive effects on the quality and tenor of the court's opinions, which are flimsily reasoned and often acrimonious. Quieter developments in contract law parallel these noisy developments in tort. When the supreme court created the tort of bad faith breach, it also held that the doctrine of good faith could not be used in contract to supplement or alter the express terms of a contract.' This Paper traces these developments and argues that both are wrong from their inception. These developments originate in the same case, English v. Fischer,4 in which the Texas Supreme Court rejected a compelling good faith argu- ment and stated the general principle that the doctrine of good faith could not be used to supplement or alter the express terms of a contract.5 In the same case, the concurring opinion states that the doctrine of good faith remains a basis for treating breach of contract as a tort in certain special * Joseph C.
    [Show full text]
  • “Good Faith” in Criminal Law
    Ceza Hukuku ve Kriminoloji Dergisi-Journal of Penal Law and Criminology 2019; 7(2):255-274 ISSN: 2148-6646 / E-ISSN: 2602-3911 http://jplc.istanbul.edu.tr Research Article / Araştırma Makalesi DOI: 10.26650/JPLC2018-0011 The Concept of “Good Faith” in Criminal Law İyiniyet Kavramının Ceza Hukukundaki Yeri Yusuf YAŞAR1 , Zafer İÇER2 1Assoc. Prof. Dr., Marmara University, Faculty of Law, Istanbul, Turkey 2Asst. Prof. Dr., Marmara University, Faculty of Law, Istanbul, Turkey ORCID: Y.Y. 0000-0001-9010-1371; Z.İ. 0000-0002-2628-9055 ABSTRACT Good faith is unfamiliar to criminal law because it is a private law-based concept. In criminal law, the concept of good faith has no normative counterpart in crime theory. Moreover, the doctrine of criminal law does not include the notion of goodwill within the theory of crime. However, since the concept of good faith does not have a normative counterpart in crime theory, it is not possible to accept it as a form of appearance of the moral element of the crime or as a form of view of the moral element, nor it is able to substitute intention. Because the intention is the deliberate and desired realization of the objective elements of the crime, it has a completely different meaning and function to the concept of good faith. Keywords: Good faith, criminal law, moral element Submitted: 12.11.2018 • Revision Requested: 15.01.2019 • Last Revision Received: 02.08.2019 • Accepted: 02.09.2019 • Published Online: 27.09.2019 Corresponding author: Zafer İçer, E-mail: [email protected] Citation: Yasar Y, Icer Z, ‘The concept of “good faith” in criminal law’ (2019) 7(2) Ceza Hukuku ve Kriminoloji Dergisi-Journal of Penal Law and Criminology, 255.
    [Show full text]