{"title":"怀特和卡特原则:重申","authors":"Qiao Liu","doi":"10.1111/j.1468-2230.2011.00842.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article reviews the English courts' approach to the controversial decision in White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor and suggests a systematic reformulation of the principle to be derived from that case. It argues that the notion of ‘legitimate interest’, at the core of that principle, suffers from severe obscurity as it stands. The critical issue in White & Carter is whether the wastefulness of a party's continuing performance outweighs its performance interest in earning the contract price. Three tests currently employed to determine the existence of a ‘legitimate interest’, namely, the adequacy of damages, the duty to mitigate and the concept of wholly unreasonable, are assessed and dismissed as either misdirecting or unsatisfactory in other ways. Finally, it articulates a new test based on a reappraisal of existing case law and summarises the key reasons for the courts to exercise their equitable jurisdiction against wasteful performance.","PeriodicalId":426546,"journal":{"name":"Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review","volume":"48 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The White & Carter Principle: A Restatement\",\"authors\":\"Qiao Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/j.1468-2230.2011.00842.x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article reviews the English courts' approach to the controversial decision in White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor and suggests a systematic reformulation of the principle to be derived from that case. It argues that the notion of ‘legitimate interest’, at the core of that principle, suffers from severe obscurity as it stands. The critical issue in White & Carter is whether the wastefulness of a party's continuing performance outweighs its performance interest in earning the contract price. Three tests currently employed to determine the existence of a ‘legitimate interest’, namely, the adequacy of damages, the duty to mitigate and the concept of wholly unreasonable, are assessed and dismissed as either misdirecting or unsatisfactory in other ways. Finally, it articulates a new test based on a reappraisal of existing case law and summarises the key reasons for the courts to exercise their equitable jurisdiction against wasteful performance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":426546,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-03-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2011.00842.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":"Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2011.00842.x","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
本文回顾了英国法院对White & Carter (Councils) Ltd诉McGregor一案中有争议的判决的处理方法,并建议对该案件衍生的原则进行系统的重新制定。它认为,“合法利益”的概念,在该原则的核心,遭受了严重的模糊,因为它的立场。怀特&卡特案的关键问题是,一方持续绩效的浪费是否超过了其获得合同价格的绩效利益。目前用于确定"合法利益"是否存在的三种检验标准,即损害赔偿是否充足、减轻责任和完全不合理的概念,经评估后被视为误导或在其他方面不令人满意而不予考虑。最后,它在重新评估现有判例法的基础上阐明了一种新的检验标准,并总结了法院对浪费绩效行使公平管辖权的主要原因。
This article reviews the English courts' approach to the controversial decision in White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor and suggests a systematic reformulation of the principle to be derived from that case. It argues that the notion of ‘legitimate interest’, at the core of that principle, suffers from severe obscurity as it stands. The critical issue in White & Carter is whether the wastefulness of a party's continuing performance outweighs its performance interest in earning the contract price. Three tests currently employed to determine the existence of a ‘legitimate interest’, namely, the adequacy of damages, the duty to mitigate and the concept of wholly unreasonable, are assessed and dismissed as either misdirecting or unsatisfactory in other ways. Finally, it articulates a new test based on a reappraisal of existing case law and summarises the key reasons for the courts to exercise their equitable jurisdiction against wasteful performance.