The case of the Borough of Bradford v Pickles was the first to establish the principle that it is not unlawful for a property owner to exercise his or her property rights maliciously and to the detriment of others or the public interest. This book explores why the common law developed in this way.

Authors from 13 countries come together in this edited volume, Common Law and Civil Law Today: Convergence and Divergence, to present different aspects of the relationship and intersections between common and civil law. Approaching the relationship between common and civil law from different perspectives and from different fields of law, this book offers an intriguing insight into the similarities, differences and connections between these two major legal traditions. This volume is divided into 3 parts and consists of 22 articles. The first part discusses the common law/civil law dichotomy in the international legal systems and theory. The second focuses on case-law and arbitration, while the third part analyses elements of common and civil law in various legal systems. By offering such a variety of approaches and voices, this book allows the reader to gain an invaluable insight into the historical, comparative and theoretical contexts of this legal dichotomy. From its carefully selected authors to its comprehensive collection of articles, this edited volume is an essential resource for students, researchers and practitioners working or studying within both legal systems.

Presents a moral argument, grounded in natural law, for private property and the limits of rights.

Water resources were central to England's precocious economic development in the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries, and then again in the industrial, transport, and urban revolutions of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Each of these periods saw a great deal of legal conflict over water rights, often between domestic, agricultural, and manufacturing interests competing for access to flowing water. From 1750 the common-law courts developed a large but unstable body of legal doctrine, specifying strong property rights in flowing water attached to riparian possession, and also limited rights to surface and underground waters. The new water doctrines were built from older concepts of common goods and the natural rights of ownership, deriving from Roman and Civilian law, together with the English sources of Bracton and Blackstone. Water law is one of the most Romanesque parts of English law, demonstrating the extent to which Common and Civilian law have commingled. Water law stands as a refutation of the still-common belief that English and European law parted ways irreversibly in the twelfth century. Getzler also describes the economic as well as the legal history of water use from early times, and examines the classical problem of the relationship between law and economic development. He suggests that water law was shaped both by the impact of technological innovations and by economic ideology, but above all by legalism.

In this collection, one of the key commentators on the modern law of tort presents 12 of his most important articles and book chapters. These are accompanied by an introductory chapter in which the author comments on the impact and reception of the pieces that make up the collection, and by a provocative new essay in which he argues against strict product liability in the law of tort. A coherent and compelling exploration of topical issues in core areas of tort law, the collection is divided into 3 parts, dealing with negligence; nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher; and tort in general. The essays in this collection are a significant contribution to debates about the limits and scope of tortious liability in common law systems. Students, scholars and practitioners alike will find it an invaluable resource for understanding tort law in the early 21st century.

Should businessmen who commit fraud go to prison? This question has been asked repeatedly since 2008. It was also raised in nineteenth-century Britain when the spread of corporate capitalism created enormous new opportunities for dishonesty. Historians have presented Victorian Britain as a haven for white-collar criminals, beneficiaries of a prejudiced criminal justice system which only dealt harshly with offences by the poor. Boardroom Scandal challenges these beliefs. Based on an unparalleled sample of legal cases - many examined here for the first time - James Taylor presents a radical new interpretation of the relationship between capitalism and the law. Initially, there were no criminal sanctions against publishing false prospectuses, concealing losses in balance sheets, and even misappropriating company money. But parliament became convinced of the need to criminalize these practices to protect the culture of stock market investment on which mid-Victorian prosperity increasingly rested. Persuading judges to play along was harder, with many invoking the principle of caveat emptor to exonerate defendants. But by the end of the century, successful prosecutions of company executives were commonplace. These trials performed multiple functions: they stabilized confidence in times of crisis; they dramatized the class blindness of the law; and they were increasingly seen as essential as faith in a self-regulating economy ebbed. The criminalization of fraud, therefore, has far-reaching implications for our understanding of nineteenth-century Britain. It also has relevance today in light of the on-going economic crisis and the issues it raises regarding business ethics and the role of the state.

The EU legal order sits above a diverse mix of 27 national legal systems, with some 23 different languages. Amongst such diversity, how can the unity and coherence of the European legal system be guaranteed? Is there a common understanding between lawyers from different national backgrounds as to the meaning and application of EU law? In addressing these issues the idea of 'common concepts' has played a crucial role - it is argued that the unity of the system is guaranteed by the consistent application of certain core principles shaping the law. To what extent can these concepts be trusted to provide a firm basis for the coherence of the EU legal order? Believers in common concepts argue that there is a relatively clear, shared and accepted framework of ideas, providing an understanding of the system that is ultimately unified in spite of all apparent divergence. Sceptics hold that there is no such framework; 'common concepts' turn out to be additional sources of misunderstanding, confusion and, subsequently, legal divergence. According to a third thesis, there is indeed no common conceptual core, but the necessary unity and coherence of EU law can be articulated and even reinforced through the use of divergent concepts. The contributors to this collection of essays address these issues from different disciplinary perspectives - legal sociology, linguistics, comparative law, European legal scholarship, legal theory and practical experience. The research group focused on the application of two general themes: the protection of rights and judicial discretion. In addition to the thematic research, case studies from core policy sectors are featured, including energy regulation and social policy.

How can the concept of abuse of European Union law – which can be defined as undesirable choice of law artificially made by a private citizen – generate so much disagreement among equally intelligent individuals? Seeking to transcend the classical debate between its supporters and adversaries, the present study submits that the concept of abuse of EU law is located on three major fault-lines of EU law, which accounts for the well-established controversies in the field. The first fault-line, which is common to all legal orders, opposes legal congruence (the tendency to yield equitable legal outcomes) to legal certainty (the tendency to yield predictable legal outcomes). Partisans of legal congruence tend to advocate the prohibition of abuses of law, whereas partisans of legal certainty tend to oppose it. The second fault-line is specific to EU law and divides two conceptions of the regulation of the internal market. If economic integration is conceived as the promotion of cross-border competition among private businesses (the paradigm of 'regulatory neutrality'), choices of law must be proscribed as abusive, for they distort business competition. But if economic integration is intended to promote competition among Member States (the paradigm of 'regulatory competition'), choices of law by EU citizens represent a desirable process of arbitrage among national laws. The third and final fault-line corresponds to the tension between two orientations of the economic constitution of the European Union, namely the fear of private power and the fear of public power. Those who fear private power most tend to endorse the prohibition of abuses of law, whereas those who fear public power most tend to reject it. Seen in this way, the concept of abuse of EU law offers a forum in which fundamental questions about the nature and function of EU law can be confronted and examined in a new light. In May 2013, the thesis that this book was based on won the First Edition of the European Law Faculties Association Award for Outstanding Doctoral Thesis.

The language of duress and necessity is found in crime, tort and contract. This book explores those pleas, in both case law and theory, across the subject boundaries, and across jurisdictions. In doing so, it seeks to identify the lessons which each area of law can learn from the others, and to tease out common themes while demarcating important differences. The overall outcome is a law more coherent and understood in sharper detail. This book considers the law of England and Wales, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong and Canada, as well as the American tortious defence of necessity.

Some of the most exciting and innovative legal scholarship has been driven by historical curiosity. Legal history today comes in a fascinating array of shapes and sizes, from microhistory to global intellectual history. Legal history has expanded beyond traditional parochial boundaries to become increasingly international and comparative in scope and orientation. Drawing on scholarship from around the world, and representing a variety of methodological approaches, areas of expertise, and research agendas, this timely compendium takes stock of legal history and methodology and reflects on the various modes of the historical analysis of law, past, present, and future. Part I explores the relationship between legal history and other disciplinary perspectives including economic, philosophical, comparative, literary, and rhetorical analysis of law. Part II considers various approaches to legal history, including legal history as doctrinal, intellectual, or social history. Part III focuses on the interrelation between legal history and jurisprudence by investigating the role and conception of historical inquiry in various models, schools, and movements of legal thought. Part IV traces the place and pursuit of historical analysis in various legal systems and traditions across time, cultures, and space. Finally, Part V narrows the Handbooks focus to explore several examples of legal history in action, including its use in various legal doctrinal contexts.