cearta.ie

Vote NO to the 29th and 30th Amendments

A forum for opposition to the 2011 Irish Referendums

Abstract

The evolution of rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has in recent years engendered the question of
how far national supreme courts ought to go in interpreting the Convention standards evolutively. Should national courts,
in other words, play an active role in the development of the Convention, or must they defer this development to the Court?
Examining the jurisprudence of national supreme courts in the U.K., France, and Germany, the present article examines this
question both “normatively,” by way of looking at the external exigencies of the Strasbourg jurisprudence, and “descriptively,”
by way of looking at what in point of fact the national courts have done in this regard. The three national judiciaries studied
here have approached this in various ways. The common theme is that all three systems have gone very far in taking onboard
a national concept of the ECHR precept of “evolutive interpretation.”

… use shall only to impose an obligation on the subject of the sentence, as in Acme shall purchase the Shares. A contract can, for better or (usually) worse, articulate obligations in other ways.

.. it’s best to use will only with respect to future contingencies, but there’s nothing uncommon about that. Language of policy relating to future contingencies is an utterly routine component of contract language. Here’s one example: Any attempted transfer of Shares of violation of this agreement will be void. Here’s another: This agreement will terminate if the Market Price falls below $1.00. …

Everyone knows the McDonald’s coffee case. It has been routinely cited as an example of how citizens have taken advantage of America’s legal system, but is that a fair rendition of the facts? Hot Coffee reveals what really happened to Stella Liebeck, the Albuquerque woman who spilled coffee on herself and sued McDonald’s

In a highly important decision, the Tel Aviv District Court annulled this week a forum selection clause in a clickwrap contract, holding the user was not sufficiently aware of the choice of foreign forum nor of the fact he was contracting with a foreign company; and has not clearly consented to such choice.

In Civ. (Tel Aviv) 1963-05-11 Malka v. Ava Financial, .. the court (Judge Ruth Ronen) stated that … [i]n an online setting, a party’s intent to enter into a contract can be established by showing that such party was informed of (i.e., read) the terms of the agreement and actively expressed his consent to be bound by them.

The court held that clickwrap agreements better evidence a consumer’s consent than browsewrap agreements. If clicking on a link is required to view the terms of the contract, such link must be featured prominently for consumers to see.

Steve says this about his Private Law Theory blog:

It is mainly an updater and point of contact for those working in the area.

Private Law Theory is an emerging discipline in law schools and elsewhere. Private law itself is a core set of disciplines within law, and can roughly be divided between Property Law (whether land, personal property, intellectual property …) and the Law of Obligations (Contract, Tort, Restitution …). Each different jurisdiction has its own version of these disciplines. Private Law Theory looks for theoretical perspectives to describe, explain and unify these areas. In doing so, theorists typically draw on a number of the surrounding disciplines, such as Comparative Law, Jurisprudence, Philosophy, Economics, History and Sociology.

I think this is a great idea; I wish I’d thought of it myself. Well done, Steve. I’m really delighted at this initiative.