私法分类学——文本与潜台词中的愤怒

Peter G. Watts
{"title":"私法分类学——文本与潜台词中的愤怒","authors":"Peter G. Watts","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2359820","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article starts with an overview of the debates over classification in private law that took place in the latter period of Peter Birks’s career. It does so by setting out the Birksian taxonomy and by collecting various extracts from Birks’s voluminous output, then contrasts those extracts with the views of a selection of his most prominent critics. The article next turns to a defence of Birks’s project and its aims of promoting rationality, the confinement of discretion, and modesty of function in the common law. The greater part of the article is devoted to showing how, in tort law particularly, New Zealand common law has lost its modesty and is intruding on personal freedoms. Instead of requiring an undertaking before a party becomes liable for nothing more than causing damage to another’s wealth, liability is being imposed from without by fudging the boundaries between contract and tort, and by using as tools nothing much sharper than “justice and fairness”. The final section of the article then turns to criticise, on similar grounds, the concept of unjust enrichment as promoted by Birks himself.","PeriodicalId":151036,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Other Law & Society: Private Law - Torts (Topic)","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Taxonomy in Private Law — Furor in Text and Subtext\",\"authors\":\"Peter G. Watts\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2359820\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article starts with an overview of the debates over classification in private law that took place in the latter period of Peter Birks’s career. It does so by setting out the Birksian taxonomy and by collecting various extracts from Birks’s voluminous output, then contrasts those extracts with the views of a selection of his most prominent critics. The article next turns to a defence of Birks’s project and its aims of promoting rationality, the confinement of discretion, and modesty of function in the common law. The greater part of the article is devoted to showing how, in tort law particularly, New Zealand common law has lost its modesty and is intruding on personal freedoms. Instead of requiring an undertaking before a party becomes liable for nothing more than causing damage to another’s wealth, liability is being imposed from without by fudging the boundaries between contract and tort, and by using as tools nothing much sharper than “justice and fairness”. The final section of the article then turns to criticise, on similar grounds, the concept of unjust enrichment as promoted by Birks himself.\",\"PeriodicalId\":151036,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Other Law & Society: Private Law - Torts (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-11-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Other Law & Society: Private Law - Torts (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2359820\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Other Law & Society: Private Law - Torts (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2359820","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

本文首先概述了发生在彼得·伯克斯职业生涯后期的关于私法分类的争论。书中列出了伯克的分类法,并从伯克的大量著作中收集了各种摘录,然后将这些摘录与他最著名的批评家的观点进行了对比。接下来,文章转而为Birks的计划及其促进理性、限制自由裁量权和普通法功能谦虚的目标进行辩护。这篇文章的大部分都致力于展示新西兰普通法是如何,尤其是在侵权法方面,失去了谦逊,侵犯了个人自由。在一方仅仅对另一方的财富造成损害而承担责任之前,不是要求一个承诺,而是通过模糊合同和侵权行为之间的界限,以及使用比“正义和公平”更尖锐的工具,从外部强加责任。文章的最后一部分转而以类似的理由批评了伯克斯本人提出的不正当致富的概念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Taxonomy in Private Law — Furor in Text and Subtext
This article starts with an overview of the debates over classification in private law that took place in the latter period of Peter Birks’s career. It does so by setting out the Birksian taxonomy and by collecting various extracts from Birks’s voluminous output, then contrasts those extracts with the views of a selection of his most prominent critics. The article next turns to a defence of Birks’s project and its aims of promoting rationality, the confinement of discretion, and modesty of function in the common law. The greater part of the article is devoted to showing how, in tort law particularly, New Zealand common law has lost its modesty and is intruding on personal freedoms. Instead of requiring an undertaking before a party becomes liable for nothing more than causing damage to another’s wealth, liability is being imposed from without by fudging the boundaries between contract and tort, and by using as tools nothing much sharper than “justice and fairness”. The final section of the article then turns to criticise, on similar grounds, the concept of unjust enrichment as promoted by Birks himself.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信