转换范围:财产和合同

S. Douglas
{"title":"转换范围:财产和合同","authors":"S. Douglas","doi":"10.1111/j.1468-2230.2011.00850.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article asks whether the tort of conversion should be expanded so as to protect contractual rights. The suggestion, found in recent case law and academic texts, that conversion should protect contractual rights because such rights belong to the law of property is rejected. It is argued that this approach is purely semantic and ignores the fact that contractual rights have different characteristics to other kinds of rights that we typically class as ‘property rights’. The better approach, it is argued, is to ask whether it is actually possible to protect contractual rights through the tort of conversion. The article attempts to show that the absence of certain features from contractual rights, in particular the fact that such rights do not relate to a physical object and are not exigible against the world, makes the expansion of conversion extremely difficult.","PeriodicalId":129207,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Private Law - Contracts eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Scope of Conversion: Property and Contract\",\"authors\":\"S. Douglas\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/j.1468-2230.2011.00850.x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article asks whether the tort of conversion should be expanded so as to protect contractual rights. The suggestion, found in recent case law and academic texts, that conversion should protect contractual rights because such rights belong to the law of property is rejected. It is argued that this approach is purely semantic and ignores the fact that contractual rights have different characteristics to other kinds of rights that we typically class as ‘property rights’. The better approach, it is argued, is to ask whether it is actually possible to protect contractual rights through the tort of conversion. The article attempts to show that the absence of certain features from contractual rights, in particular the fact that such rights do not relate to a physical object and are not exigible against the world, makes the expansion of conversion extremely difficult.\",\"PeriodicalId\":129207,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law & Society: Private Law - Contracts eJournal\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law & Society: Private Law - Contracts eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2011.00850.x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Private Law - Contracts eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2011.00850.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

本文探讨了转换侵权是否应该扩大,以保护合同权利。在最近的判例法和学术文献中发现的建议,即转换应该保护合同权利,因为这种权利属于财产法,这一建议被拒绝了。有人认为,这种方法纯粹是语义上的,忽略了这样一个事实,即合同权利与我们通常归类为“财产权”的其他类型的权利具有不同的特征。有人认为,更好的方法是问,是否真的有可能通过转换侵权来保护合同权利。该条试图表明,由于合同权利缺乏某些特征,特别是这些权利与实物无关,无法从世界上获得,这使得扩大转换极为困难。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Scope of Conversion: Property and Contract
The article asks whether the tort of conversion should be expanded so as to protect contractual rights. The suggestion, found in recent case law and academic texts, that conversion should protect contractual rights because such rights belong to the law of property is rejected. It is argued that this approach is purely semantic and ignores the fact that contractual rights have different characteristics to other kinds of rights that we typically class as ‘property rights’. The better approach, it is argued, is to ask whether it is actually possible to protect contractual rights through the tort of conversion. The article attempts to show that the absence of certain features from contractual rights, in particular the fact that such rights do not relate to a physical object and are not exigible against the world, makes the expansion of conversion extremely difficult.
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信