格里菲斯论文代写:黑字母法

2017-03-29 12:53

有两个独立的正式“黑字母法”的规则有关的合同和侵权的偏远。法律政策在这两方面的发展中发挥了巨大的作用。首先，在合同的规则和侵权之间的形式差异将出发，其次，在这二者之间的非常有限的实际差异进行分析，然后将表明，法律政策有着复杂的法律适用问题，具有里程碑意义的情况下，哈德利五世被1854 [ 1 ]，Alderson B的开发合同法规则中的隔离“两肢”规则。第一肢体表明被告人是损失自然而然地从事物的通常过程分公司的责任，而第二肢高度对被告损失不在事物的通常过程产生的，但损失是双方合理的思考（或应该是这样的，维多利亚洗衣诉纽曼行业[ 2 ]）。然而在合同可预见规则不明确，甚至在正式的，法律明文规定的水平。目前有两个竞争和如何哈德利V被应采用不同的定义。
格里菲斯论文代写:黑字母法
There are two separate formal ‘black letter law’ sets of rules relating to remoteness in contract and tort. The legal policy has played a large role in the development of both areas. Firstly, the formal differences between the rules in contract and tort will be set out, secondly, the very limited actual difference between the two will be analyzed and thirdly it will be shown that legal policy has complicated the application of the law.In the landmark case Hadley v Baxendale 1854[1], Alderson B developed a ‘two limb’ rule for remoteness in the rule in the law of contract. The first limb states that the defendant is liable for losses which flow naturally from the branch ‘in the usual course of things,’ whereas the second limb attaches to the defendant where losses did not arise ‘in the usual course of things’, but the loss is in the reasonable contemplation of both parties (or ought to have been so, Victoria Laundry v. Newman Industries[2]).The rules of remoteness in the contract are not clear, however, even at the formal ‘black letter law’ level. There are currently two competing and different definitions of how Hadley v Baxendale ought to be applied.