The common law, despite procedural divisions, has only ever had one class of civil wrongs. The civilians, by contrast, have typically split their law of wrongs in two, one group being called delicts and the other quasi-delicts. Yet this division, which originated in Roman law, remains mysterious: it is clear neither where the line was drawn nor why a separation was made along this line.
This book does two things. In the first two parts, it investigates the origins of the division and its development in a modern civilian jurisdiction, France. What is argued for is that the Roman dichotomy was originally one between fault (culpa)-based and situational liability, which was prompted by a historical contraction of the Roman concept of a wrong (delictum). French law, building on medieval interpretations of the division, redrew the line one level higher, between deliberate and negligent wrongdoing. By doing so, it involved itself in severe taxonomical difficulties, which the book explores.
The third part of the work concerns itself with the significance of the civilian division of wrongs according to degrees of blameworthiness (dolus, culpa, casus) for the common law. A provocative thesis is developed, in effect, that there is a strong case for the adoption of a similar trichotomy as the first-level division of the English law of civil wrongs. From its formulary age, English law has inherited an unstable taxonomy where wrongs intersect. The existence of these mismatched categories continues to cause significant difficulties, which a realignment of causes of action along the above lines could rectify.
Les informations fournies dans la section « Synopsis » peuvent faire référence à une autre édition de ce titre.
Eric Descheemaeker is a Lecturer in Law at the University of Bristol; previously, Fellow and Tutor in Law at St Catherine's College, Oxford.
Les informations fournies dans la section « A propos du livre » peuvent faire référence à une autre édition de ce titre.
Vendeur : Brook Bookstore On Demand, Napoli, NA, Italie
Etat : new. Questo è un articolo print on demand. N° de réf. du vendeur 686c42c8a0cb5c8e7de5e56ae04b0832
Quantité disponible : Plus de 20 disponibles
Vendeur : GreatBookPrices, Columbia, MD, Etats-Unis
Etat : As New. Unread book in perfect condition. N° de réf. du vendeur 6515001
Quantité disponible : Plus de 20 disponibles
Vendeur : GreatBookPrices, Columbia, MD, Etats-Unis
Etat : New. N° de réf. du vendeur 6515001-n
Quantité disponible : Plus de 20 disponibles
Vendeur : Grand Eagle Retail, Bensenville, IL, Etats-Unis
Hardcover. Etat : new. Hardcover. The common law, despite procedural divisions, has only ever had one class of civil wrongs. The civilians, by contrast, have typically split their law of wrongs in two, one group being called delicts and the other quasi-delicts. Yet this division, which originated in Roman law, remains mysterious: it is clear neither where the line was drawn nor why a separation was made along this line. This book does two things. In the first twoparts, it investigates the origins of the division and its development in a modern civilian jurisdiction, France. What is argued for is that the Roman dichotomy was originally one between fault (culpa)-based and situationalliability, which was prompted by a historical contraction of the Roman concept of a wrong (delictum). French law, building on medieval interpretations of the division, redrew the line one level higher, between deliberate and negligent wrongdoing. By doing so, it involved itself in severe taxonomical difficulties, which the book explores. The third part of the work concerns itself with the significance of the civilian division of wrongs according to degrees of blameworthiness (dolus,culpa, casus) for the common law. A provocative thesis is developed, in effect, that there is a strong case for the adoption of a similar trichotomy as the first-level division of the English law ofcivil wrongs. From its formulary age, English law has inherited an unstable taxonomy where wrongs intersect. The existence of these mismatched categories continues to cause significant difficulties, which a realignment of causes of action along the above lines could rectify. Civilian Law, in contrast to common law, structures its law of wrongs according to degree of blameworthiness. This book explores the history of this structure from Roman law to modern French law, and argues that adopting such a division would clarify confusions in the common law of torts. This item is printed on demand. Shipping may be from multiple locations in the US or from the UK, depending on stock availability. N° de réf. du vendeur 9780199562794
Quantité disponible : 1 disponible(s)
Vendeur : GreatBookPricesUK, Woodford Green, Royaume-Uni
Etat : New. N° de réf. du vendeur 6515001-n
Quantité disponible : Plus de 20 disponibles
Vendeur : GreatBookPricesUK, Woodford Green, Royaume-Uni
Etat : As New. Unread book in perfect condition. N° de réf. du vendeur 6515001
Quantité disponible : Plus de 20 disponibles
Vendeur : CitiRetail, Stevenage, Royaume-Uni
Hardcover. Etat : new. Hardcover. The common law, despite procedural divisions, has only ever had one class of civil wrongs. The civilians, by contrast, have typically split their law of wrongs in two, one group being called delicts and the other quasi-delicts. Yet this division, which originated in Roman law, remains mysterious: it is clear neither where the line was drawn nor why a separation was made along this line. This book does two things. In the first twoparts, it investigates the origins of the division and its development in a modern civilian jurisdiction, France. What is argued for is that the Roman dichotomy was originally one between fault (culpa)-based and situationalliability, which was prompted by a historical contraction of the Roman concept of a wrong (delictum). French law, building on medieval interpretations of the division, redrew the line one level higher, between deliberate and negligent wrongdoing. By doing so, it involved itself in severe taxonomical difficulties, which the book explores. The third part of the work concerns itself with the significance of the civilian division of wrongs according to degrees of blameworthiness (dolus,culpa, casus) for the common law. A provocative thesis is developed, in effect, that there is a strong case for the adoption of a similar trichotomy as the first-level division of the English law ofcivil wrongs. From its formulary age, English law has inherited an unstable taxonomy where wrongs intersect. The existence of these mismatched categories continues to cause significant difficulties, which a realignment of causes of action along the above lines could rectify. Civilian Law, in contrast to common law, structures its law of wrongs according to degree of blameworthiness. This book explores the history of this structure from Roman law to modern French law, and argues that adopting such a division would clarify confusions in the common law of torts. This item is printed on demand. Shipping may be from our UK warehouse or from our Australian or US warehouses, depending on stock availability. N° de réf. du vendeur 9780199562794
Quantité disponible : 1 disponible(s)
Vendeur : preigu, Osnabrück, Allemagne
Buch. Etat : Neu. Division of Wrongs | A Historical Comparative Study | Eric Descheemaeker | Buch | Gebunden | Englisch | 2009 | Oxford University Press(UK) | EAN 9780199562794 | Verantwortliche Person für die EU: Libri GmbH, Europaallee 1, 36244 Bad Hersfeld, gpsr[at]libri[dot]de | Anbieter: preigu Print on Demand. N° de réf. du vendeur 108623501
Quantité disponible : 5 disponible(s)
Vendeur : Revaluation Books, Exeter, Royaume-Uni
Hardcover. Etat : Brand New. 300 pages. 9.50x6.50x1.00 inches. In Stock. N° de réf. du vendeur x-0199562792
Quantité disponible : 2 disponible(s)
Vendeur : Books Puddle, New York, NY, Etats-Unis
Etat : New. Print on Demand pp. xxv + 300. N° de réf. du vendeur 26676249
Quantité disponible : 4 disponible(s)