退出协议的兴衰

IF 1.8 2区社会学 Q1 LAW

Duke Law Journal Pub Date : 2013-03-28 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.2242225

Keegan S. Drake

{"title":"退出协议的兴衰","authors":"Keegan S. Drake","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2242225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Exit consents have long been considered permissible so long as they met the standards of Katz v. Oak Industries. Then, in Assenagon v. IBRC, an English court called the legal device into question. This paper examines the controversy, gives background on the exit consent, examines the import of Assenagon, then closes an interpretation toward a true transatlantic standard for exit consents.","PeriodicalId":47625,"journal":{"name":"Duke Law Journal","volume":"63 1","pages":"1589-1624"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2013-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Fall and Rise of the Exit Consent\",\"authors\":\"Keegan S. Drake\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2242225\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Exit consents have long been considered permissible so long as they met the standards of Katz v. Oak Industries. Then, in Assenagon v. IBRC, an English court called the legal device into question. This paper examines the controversy, gives background on the exit consent, examines the import of Assenagon, then closes an interpretation toward a true transatlantic standard for exit consents.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47625,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Duke Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"63 1\",\"pages\":\"1589-1624\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-03-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Duke Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2242225\",\"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":"Duke Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2242225","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: 3

摘要

长期以来，只要符合卡茨诉橡树工业案(Katz v. Oak Industries)的标准，退出许可就被认为是允许的。然后，在阿森纳贡诉IBRC案中，一家英国法院对这种法律手段提出了质疑。本文考察了这一争议，给出了退出同意的背景，考察了阿森纳贡的进口，然后对退出同意的真正跨大西洋标准进行了解释。

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 Fall and Rise of the Exit Consent

Exit consents have long been considered permissible so long as they met the standards of Katz v. Oak Industries. Then, in Assenagon v. IBRC, an English court called the legal device into question. This paper examines the controversy, gives background on the exit consent, examines the import of Assenagon, then closes an interpretation toward a true transatlantic standard for exit consents.

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

Duke Law Journal LAW-

CiteScore

1.90

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The first issue of what was to become the Duke Law Journal was published in March 1951 as the Duke Bar Journal. Created to provide a medium for student expression, the Duke Bar Journal consisted entirely of student-written and student-edited work until 1953, when it began publishing faculty contributions. To reflect the inclusion of faculty scholarship, the Duke Bar Journal became the Duke Law Journal in 1957. In 1969, the Journal published its inaugural Administrative Law Symposium issue, a tradition that continues today. Volume 1 of the Duke Bar Journal spanned two issues and 259 pages. In 1959, the Journal grew to four issues and 649 pages, growing again in 1970 to six issues and 1263 pages. Today, the Duke Law Journal publishes eight issues per volume. Our staff is committed to the purpose set forth in our constitution: to publish legal writing of superior quality. We seek to publish a collection of outstanding scholarship from established legal writers, up-and-coming authors, and our own student editors.