{"title":"澳大利亚普通法与英国普通法的趋同","authors":"Man Yip, Yihan Goh","doi":"10.1177/1473779516682445","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This note discusses the High Court of Australia decision of Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Bank Group Limited on the rule against penalty clauses and situates its importance in light of the UK Supreme Court decision of Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi and Beavis v ParkingEye Ltd. It compares the analytical frameworks laid down in the two cases and points out some unresolved issues in this area of law even following these cases.","PeriodicalId":87174,"journal":{"name":"Common law world review","volume":"46 1","pages":"61 - 68"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1473779516682445","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Convergence between Australian common law and English common law\",\"authors\":\"Man Yip, Yihan Goh\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1473779516682445\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This note discusses the High Court of Australia decision of Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Bank Group Limited on the rule against penalty clauses and situates its importance in light of the UK Supreme Court decision of Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi and Beavis v ParkingEye Ltd. It compares the analytical frameworks laid down in the two cases and points out some unresolved issues in this area of law even following these cases.\",\"PeriodicalId\":87174,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Common law world review\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"61 - 68\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1473779516682445\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Common law world review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1473779516682445\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Common law world review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1473779516682445","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本说明讨论了澳大利亚高等法院Pacioco诉澳大利亚和新西兰银行集团有限公司关于处罚条款规则的裁决，并根据英国最高法院Cavendish Square Holding BV诉Talal El Makdessi和Beavis诉ParkingEye有限公司的裁决，阐述了其重要性。它比较了这两个案件中制定的分析框架，并指出了即使在这些案件之后，这一法律领域仍存在一些尚未解决的问题。
Convergence between Australian common law and English common law
This note discusses the High Court of Australia decision of Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Bank Group Limited on the rule against penalty clauses and situates its importance in light of the UK Supreme Court decision of Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi and Beavis v ParkingEye Ltd. It compares the analytical frameworks laid down in the two cases and points out some unresolved issues in this area of law even following these cases.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
