IP事故。帕特里克·戈德著。剑桥大学出版社,2022。xvi + 133页,精装本85.00英镑。ISBN 978-1-10-884148-1。)

IF 1.5 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Poorna Mysoor
{"title":"IP事故。帕特里克·戈德著。剑桥大学出版社,2022。xvi + 133页,精装本85.00英镑。ISBN 978-1-10-884148-1。)","authors":"Poorna Mysoor","doi":"10.1017/S0008197322000551","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"connected? Both are cases of merely notional attribution with much in common. The authors note this is an open question (p. 245) but do not evaluate the normative merits of each position or the possible outcomes. Chapter 8 sets out the bars to tracing. Most are uncontroversial so the treatment is short, but the book is an end-to-end treatment. The most controversial question is whether change of position ought to be a bar. This is left for another work since the authors, through their justifications for tracing, reject the applicability of the principles of unjust enrichment. The new Law of Tracing certainly achieves its goal to set out just that. In doing so, it strikes a balance between having a grand explanatory theory from which all the rules and principles deductively flow and a more flexible theory formed inductively from the authorities. My criticism that it could have been pushed further towards the former is tempered by the advantages of the latter. Indeed, the law of tracing is not fully formed, so characterising it as precisely as possible, but not too precisely, is a fine objective. And in Chapter 5 this compromise was deployed to particularly good effect. This leads us to the final questions: Will the new Law of Tracing be the last word on the subject? Plainly no. Will it assist our understanding of the law and drive it forward? Plainly yes. Its clarity, attention to detail and insightful analysis makes it a valuable addition both to the academic debate and the practitioner’s toolbox.","PeriodicalId":46389,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Law Journal","volume":"81 1","pages":"687 - 690"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"IP Accidents. By Patrick Goold. [Cambridge University Press, 2022. xvi + 133 pp. Hardback £85.00. ISBN 978-1-10-884148-1.]\",\"authors\":\"Poorna Mysoor\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0008197322000551\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"connected? Both are cases of merely notional attribution with much in common. The authors note this is an open question (p. 245) but do not evaluate the normative merits of each position or the possible outcomes. Chapter 8 sets out the bars to tracing. Most are uncontroversial so the treatment is short, but the book is an end-to-end treatment. The most controversial question is whether change of position ought to be a bar. This is left for another work since the authors, through their justifications for tracing, reject the applicability of the principles of unjust enrichment. The new Law of Tracing certainly achieves its goal to set out just that. In doing so, it strikes a balance between having a grand explanatory theory from which all the rules and principles deductively flow and a more flexible theory formed inductively from the authorities. My criticism that it could have been pushed further towards the former is tempered by the advantages of the latter. Indeed, the law of tracing is not fully formed, so characterising it as precisely as possible, but not too precisely, is a fine objective. And in Chapter 5 this compromise was deployed to particularly good effect. This leads us to the final questions: Will the new Law of Tracing be the last word on the subject? Plainly no. Will it assist our understanding of the law and drive it forward? Plainly yes. Its clarity, attention to detail and insightful analysis makes it a valuable addition both to the academic debate and the practitioner’s toolbox.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46389,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cambridge Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"81 1\",\"pages\":\"687 - 690\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cambridge Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197322000551\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cambridge Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197322000551","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

连接?这两种情况都只是名义上的归因,有很多共同点。作者指出,这是一个悬而未决的问题(第245页),但没有评估每个立场的规范优点或可能的结果。第8章列出了追踪的障碍。大多数都没有争议,所以治疗时间很短,但这本书是一种端到端的治疗。最具争议的问题是立场的改变是否应该成为一个障碍。这是留给另一项工作的,因为作者通过其追查的理由,拒绝适用不当得利原则。新的《追查法》无疑实现了规定这一点的目标。在这样做的过程中,它在拥有一个宏大的解释理论和一个由权威归纳形成的更灵活的理论之间取得了平衡。我的批评是,它本可以进一步推向前者,但后者的优势缓和了这种批评。事实上,追踪定律还没有完全形成,因此尽可能精确但不太精确地描述它是一个很好的目标。在第五章中,这一折衷方案得到了特别好的运用。这就引出了最后一个问题:新的《追踪法》会成为这个问题的最后决定吗?显然没有。它会帮助我们理解法律并推动它向前发展吗?很明显是的。它的清晰性、对细节的关注和富有洞察力的分析使它成为学术辩论和从业者工具箱中的一个宝贵补充。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
IP Accidents. By Patrick Goold. [Cambridge University Press, 2022. xvi + 133 pp. Hardback £85.00. ISBN 978-1-10-884148-1.]
connected? Both are cases of merely notional attribution with much in common. The authors note this is an open question (p. 245) but do not evaluate the normative merits of each position or the possible outcomes. Chapter 8 sets out the bars to tracing. Most are uncontroversial so the treatment is short, but the book is an end-to-end treatment. The most controversial question is whether change of position ought to be a bar. This is left for another work since the authors, through their justifications for tracing, reject the applicability of the principles of unjust enrichment. The new Law of Tracing certainly achieves its goal to set out just that. In doing so, it strikes a balance between having a grand explanatory theory from which all the rules and principles deductively flow and a more flexible theory formed inductively from the authorities. My criticism that it could have been pushed further towards the former is tempered by the advantages of the latter. Indeed, the law of tracing is not fully formed, so characterising it as precisely as possible, but not too precisely, is a fine objective. And in Chapter 5 this compromise was deployed to particularly good effect. This leads us to the final questions: Will the new Law of Tracing be the last word on the subject? Plainly no. Will it assist our understanding of the law and drive it forward? Plainly yes. Its clarity, attention to detail and insightful analysis makes it a valuable addition both to the academic debate and the practitioner’s toolbox.
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
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
6.70%
发文量
56
期刊介绍: The Cambridge Law Journal publishes articles on all aspects of law. Special emphasis is placed on contemporary developments, but the journal''s range includes jurisprudence and legal history. An important feature of the journal is the Case and Comment section, in which members of the Cambridge Law Faculty and other distinguished contributors analyse recent judicial decisions, new legislation and current law reform proposals. The articles and case notes are designed to have the widest appeal to those interested in the law - whether as practitioners, students, teachers, judges or administrators - and to provide an opportunity for them to keep abreast of new ideas and the progress of legal reform. Each issue also contains an extensive section of book reviews.
×
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