浪费规律与破败规律的比较史

IF 0.6 Q2 LAW

Comparative Legal History Pub Date : 2021-07-03 DOI:10.1080/2049677X.2021.1997375

R. Helmholz

{"title":"浪费规律与破败规律的比较史","authors":"R. Helmholz","doi":"10.1080/2049677X.2021.1997375","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article compares the origins and later development of two related remedies – one from the canon law, the other from the English common law. Neither has attracted the sustained attention of legal historians, but both played a part in the growth of English law. Although the evidence is insufficient to show that the relationship between the two was that of a ‘legal transplant’, it does produce both significant parallels and differences between them. The comparison also opens a window on the attitudes and habits characteristic of the lawyers on both sides of the divide between the two legal systems.","PeriodicalId":53815,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Legal History","volume":"9 1","pages":"154 - 176"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The law of waste and the law of dilapidations: A comparative history\",\"authors\":\"R. Helmholz\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/2049677X.2021.1997375\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article compares the origins and later development of two related remedies – one from the canon law, the other from the English common law. Neither has attracted the sustained attention of legal historians, but both played a part in the growth of English law. Although the evidence is insufficient to show that the relationship between the two was that of a ‘legal transplant’, it does produce both significant parallels and differences between them. The comparison also opens a window on the attitudes and habits characteristic of the lawyers on both sides of the divide between the two legal systems.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53815,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Comparative Legal History\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"154 - 176\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Comparative Legal History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/2049677X.2021.1997375\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative Legal History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2049677X.2021.1997375","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

本文比较了两种相关救济的起源和后来的发展——一种来自教会法，另一种来自英国普通法。两者都没有引起法律史学家的持续关注，但它们都在英国法律的发展中发挥了作用。尽管证据不足以证明两者之间的关系是一种“法律移植”，但它确实在它们之间产生了显著的相似之处和差异。这一比较也为我们打开了一扇窗口，让我们了解两种法系分歧双方律师的态度和习惯特征。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

The law of waste and the law of dilapidations: A comparative history

This article compares the origins and later development of two related remedies – one from the canon law, the other from the English common law. Neither has attracted the sustained attention of legal historians, but both played a part in the growth of English law. Although the evidence is insufficient to show that the relationship between the two was that of a ‘legal transplant’, it does produce both significant parallels and differences between them. The comparison also opens a window on the attitudes and habits characteristic of the lawyers on both sides of the divide between the two legal systems.

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

Comparative Legal History LAW-

CiteScore

1.70

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Comparative Legal History is an international and comparative review of law and history. Articles will explore both ''internal'' legal history (doctrinal and disciplinary developments in the law) and ''external'' legal history (legal ideas and institutions in wider contexts). Rooted in the complexity of the various Western legal traditions worldwide, the journal will also investigate other laws and customs from around the globe. Comparisons may be either temporal or geographical and both legal and other law-like normative traditions will be considered. Scholarship on comparative and trans-national historiography, including trans-disciplinary approaches, is particularly welcome.