Arguments of a Legal Historical Nature as Found in Judicial Decisions taken by the House of Lords at the turn of the 21st Century and Illustrated by References to the Case Moses v. MacFerlan 1760
cytuj
pobierz pliki
RIS BIB ENDNOTEChoose format
RIS BIB ENDNOTEPublication date: 07.09.2015
Cracow Studies of Constitutional and Legal History, Volume 8 (2015), Volume, 8 Issue 2, pp. 199 - 214
https://doi.org/10.4467/20844131KS.15.012.3818Authors
Argumentacja historyczno-prawna w orzecznictwie Izby Lordów przełomu XX i XXI wieku na przykładzie nawiązań do sprawy Moses v. MacFerlan z 1760 roku
Through an analysis of cases of unjust enrichment (law of restitution), and investigation of the lines along which the judges invoked the landmark case of Moses v. MacFerlan (1760), the author of the paper discusses the role played by legal history in disputes carried on in the House of Lords. After elaborating the details of the aforementioned case (2), he presents the doctrine of implied contract that prevailed in the 19th century (3), and discusses the opinions of the Lords articulated at the turn of the twenty-first century on the occasion of their discussing the meaning of the principle of unjust enrichment (4a). Likewise he discusses the introduction into English law of the change of position defense (4b), and comments on court decisions on interest (4c). Finally, the author investigates references to legal history as made in order to justify the overruling of precedent (5).
Raymond R., Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Courts of King’s Bench and Common Pleas, In the Reigns of The late King William, Queen Anne, King George the First, and His present Majesty, t. I, Savoy (London) 1743.
Strange J., Reports of Adjudged Cases In the Courts of Chancery, King’s Bench, Common Pleas and Exchequer, From Trinity Term in the Second Year of King George I To Trinity Term in the Twenty-first Year of King George II, t. II, Savoy (London) 1755.
Taunton W.P., Reports of Cases Argued and Determinded in the Court of Common Pleas and Other Courts, t. III, London 1814–1823.
The Law Commission Consultation Paper No. 120, Restitution of Payments Made Under a Mistake of Law, London 1991.
The Law Commission Consultation Paper No. 287, Pre-Judgment Interest on Debts and Damages, London 2004.
Baker J., The Law’s Two Bodies: Some Evidential Problems in English Legal History, Oxford 2001.
Baker J., The Use of Assumpsit for Restitutionary Money Claims 1600–1800 [w:] E. Schrage, Unjust Enrichment: The Comparative Legal History of the Law of Restitution, Berlin 1995.
Birks P., English and Roman Learning in Moses v. Macferlan, „Current Legal Problems” 1984, no. 37.
Birks P., Unjust Enrichment, Oxford 2004.
Buckland W., McNair A., Roman Law and Common Law: A Comparison in Outline, Cambridge 1965.
Burrows A., A Restatement of the English Law of Unjust Enrichment, Oxford 2012.
Dawson J., Unjust Enrichment: A Comparative Analysis, Boston 1951.
Edelman J., Money Had and Received: Modern Pleading of an Old Count, „Restitution Law Review” 2000, no. 8.
English Private Law, ed. A. Burrows, Oxford 2013.
Evans W., An Essay on the Action for Money Had and Received (Liverpool, 1802), reprint: „Restitution Law Review” 1998, no. 6.
Fifoot C., Lord Mansfield, Oxford 1936.
Goff R., Jones G., The Law of Restitution, London 2002.
Gummow W., Moses v. Macferlan 250 Years On, „Washington and Lee Law Review” 2011, no. 68.
Halberda J., Historia zobowiązań quasi-kontraktowych w common law, Kraków 2012.
Manchester A.H., Sources of English Legal History: Law, History and Society in England and Wales 1750–1950, London 1984.
McMeel G., Casebook on Restitution, London 1996.
Mitchell Ch., English Private Law, ed. A. Burrows, Oxford 2013.
Landmark Cases in the Law of Restitution, ed. Ch. Mitchell, P. Mitchell, London 2006.
Oldham J., English Common Law in the Age of Mansfield, Chapel Hill 2004.
Pollock F., Maitland F., The History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I, t. 2, Cambridge 1968.
Rhee C. van, English and Continental Civil Procedure: Similarities Today and in the Past [w:] Roman Law as Formative of Modern Legal Systems: Studies in Honour of Wiesław Litewski, Kraków 2003.
Shientag B., Lord Mansfield Revisited: A Modern Assessment, „Fordham Law Review” 1941, no. 10.
Stein P., Roman Law, Common Law, and Civil Law, „Tulane Law Review” 1992, no. 66.
Swain W., Cutter v. Powell and the Pleading of Claims of Unjust Enrichment, „Restitution Law Review” 2003, no. 11.
Swain W., Moses v Macferlan (1760) [w:] Landmark Cases in the Law of Restitution, ed. Ch. Mitchell, P. Mitchell, London 2006.
Teeven K., A History of the Anglo-American Common Law of Contract, New York 1990.
Virgo G., The Law of Unjust Enrichment in the House of Lords: Judging the Judges [w:] From House of Lords to Supreme Court: Judges, Jurists and the Process of Judging, ed. J. Lee, London 2011.
Information: Cracow Studies of Constitutional and Legal History, Volume 8 (2015), Volume, 8 Issue 2, pp. 199 - 214
Article type: Original article
Titles:
Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Gołębia 24, 31-007 Kraków, Poland
Published at: 07.09.2015
Article status: Open
Licence: None
Percentage share of authors:
Article corrections:
-Publication languages:
Polish