Suchergebnisse

This article considers the question of the capacity in which Crown agents enter into contracts - whether on behalf of the Crown or in an independent capacity - and examines the significance of this for questions such as the application of Crown immunities. It is argued that the courts' attempt to deal with these questions through the recognition of a dual capacity in Crown agents and the application of the private law of agency is highly unsatisfactory, and it is suggested that this area well illustrates the pressing need to reconsider the dual legal status of the administration.

This report examines selected issues of the federal government's liability depending on the mechanism of the levee failures, and analyzes legal defenses available to the federal government.

"Serial no. J-99-116." ; Bibliography: p. 113. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Issued in the series of Legislative documents. ; Mode of access: Internet.

On-going deterioration of the state of the environment and the continuous risk of an environmental disaster has forced society to reconsider its environmental and developmental objectives. For economic and environmental reasons, the costs of prevention and reparation of environmental harm should be channelled to the polluter. However, such channelling may run counter to legal principles. This work scrutinizes this field of tension between economic and legal principles at state level. It provides a unique analysis of traditional thinking on state liability for transboundary harm and the theories which have challenged it since the proliferation of hazardous activities in the 1960s. The author favours a return to traditional thinking, but has an eye for the theories that challenged it with the aim of safeguarding the compensation of victims of transboundary harm

Implications of recent statutory changes and judicial decisions.

The liability crisis of the mid-1980s has led to an extensive reexamination of the liability system. A number of explanations have been offered for the substantial increase in insurance premiums and, in some cases, a decline in the availability of insurance. These include stimulation of the underwriting cycle by a decline in interest rates, collusion among insurance firms, rising tort costs, and uncertainty with respect to the liability burden.' Most observers, however, also point to changes in tort law itself. For example, plaintiffs may now have a more favorable environment for obtaining an award and, if they are successful, they may receive a larger award than in earlier eras. In addition, changes in the legal environment may have fostered considerable uncertainty that itself increases the costs insurance companies face. The liability crisis has led to reassessments of the state of tort law and explorations of ways in which it can be improved. A variety of legal reform groups, a Department of Justice task force, and a recent spate of conferences have all addressed aspects of the liability crisis and ways in which the law can be restructured. A wide variety of states have also begun legislative initiatives to limit tort recoveries. Among the more popular measures are caps and restrictions on punitive damages, caps on pain and suffering damages, modifications in comparative negligence standards, limits on the application of joint and several liability, changes in collateral source rules, and limits on government liability. Most of these changes came in the late 1980s, and it is too early to assess their implications. It is, however, possible to explore the role that earlier statutory reforms have had. Not all states have products-liability statutes, and those statutes that have been enacted differ considerably. This article focuses on how the performance of products-liability insurance varies with the statutory regime by using the complete insurance files for the products-liability-bodily injury lines of the ...

This book explores the historical foundations of holding public authorities accountable for their acts, and discusses how and why the idea that the state should or should not be held liable became established in three significant jurisdictions. The issue of state liability for legislative acts is considered one of the most difficult and controversial problems in jurisprudence. This book analyses the development of concepts and institutions of liability for the acts of legislator pertaining to the general principles of state liability until the mid-20th century in the leading European legal systems: Germany, France and Great Britain. It is shown that, in contrast to the prevailing conviction, the lack of liability for law-making instruments was not an unassailable dogma, and that questions as to whether such liability was possible were being asked from the Middle Ages onwards. The book will be a valuable resource for academics and researchers in the areas of Constitutional Law, Public Law, History of Law, History of Legal and Political Thought, Philosophy of Law, and Comparative Legal Studies.