Proprietary Estoppel and Responsibility for Omissions

The ‘acquiescence’ category of proprietary estoppel is a rare example of responsibility for pure omissions in private law. On liberal‐individualistic theories of ownership, the policy considerations against liability for nondoing are exceptionally powerful in the context of rights over land. Nevertheless, I argue that in proprietary estoppel the law is justified in imposing a duty on the right‐holder to alert a stranger when his actions are based on a mistake. Owners of property rights are under what Honoré termed a ‘special duty’ to contribute to the social good of efficient market for land by publicising their rights. This ‘duty to speak’ is however relatively weak and cannot completely suppress considerations against liability for omission. While liability in the acquiescence category can be justified in principle, the current law, in which owners who failed to correct the mistake of the relying party incur similar liability to owners who actively encouraged the other party to rely, is untenable.     

Promises,Rights and Claims

The paper argues that promise rights presuppose independently existing (if not pre-existing) claims. The argument relies on the Bifurcation Thesis, according to which all claims, and all rights, can be exhaustively divided into two categories: capacity based and exercise based.     

Promises,Rights, and Deontic Control

Law and Philosophy - This article argues that the notion of a promissory right captures a central feature of the morality of promising which cannot be explained by the notion of promissory...     

Rights, Performatives, and Promises in Karl Olivecrona's Legal Theory

Abstract.  Karl Olivecrona (1971 ) maintains that "right" is a "hollow word," and so also for some other legal terms. "Right," he says, "has no conceptual background." He arrives at this position after an examination of metaphysical and naturalistic accounts, including American legal realism. Some of Olivecrona's arguments will be evaluated here. His position is influenced by Hägerström's theory of legal language, but he argues that Hägerström fails to account for how such terms as "right,""duty," etc. function in legal discourse and why they are useful. A parallel approach is also found in Olivecrona's book The Problem of the Monetary Unit (1957 ). Olivecrona is left with the problem of how such "hollow" terms function. His explanation is largely psychological. Going beyond J. L. Austin's notion of performatory language, he introduces the idea of performatory imperatives. I propose to submit Olivecrona's approach to a critical examination. It is suggested that had he started from everyday, nonlegal promises and commitments he might well have ended up with a different theory of legal language.     

可撤销行政协议的价值与认定

司法解释创设了可撤销行政协议制度,其既能处理行政协议无效以外的其他效力瑕疵,又能保障当事人的自主权,有利于行政协议效力体系的完善。可撤销行政协议的认定可遵循如下标准:行政协议中缔约行政机关不具有法定职权的,应以无法定职权为由撤销;程序违法超过轻微程度应以程序违法为由撤销;不具备缔结前提或内容违反效力性强制性规范的,应以适用法律法规错误为由撤销;缺乏必备条款的协议不宜撤销;行政机关无正当理由课予相对人对待给付义务或对待给付义务无助于行政任务履行的,应以滥用职权为由撤销;双方给付义务失衡或无正当合理关联的,应以明显不当为由撤销。撤销行政协议会给国家利益、社会公共利益造成重大损害的,不予撤销。     

英国法上的允诺禁反悔

英国学者经常提及的允诺禁反悔制度(规则或学说)由该国著名法官艾尔弗雷德·汤普森·丹宁(Alfred Thompson Denning,1899-1999)在Central London Property TrustLtd.v.High Trees House Ltd(1947)案(以下简称High Trees案)中所确立。英国当代合同法学者乔治·阿普尔比(George A     

The Liability Rule,Proprietary Remedies and Body Parts

Sometimes courts and commentators disavow a proprietary approach to excised body parts in the belief that non-proprietary remedies are adequate to the task. A belief of this sort, this type of conceptual resistance to the application of property law to body parts, is allegedly captured in the compendious expression known as the liability rule. Moore v Regents of the University of California clearly illustrates this type of opposition. Some recent scholarship has also tried to ground this sort of exclusive non-proprietary approach to body parts in the liability rule component of the analytical framework developed by Calabresi and Melamed. This piece interrogates the idea that nonproprietary causes of action should exclusively furnish the applicable theory of liability in relation to body parts; it suggests an understanding of the theoretical framework of Calabresi and Melamed which facilitates a proprietary approach to body parts along with current non-proprietary approaches. I argue that property, liability and inalienability rules basically serve the same purpose (protection of an entitlement in the nature of a property interest) and that the difference amongst them is one of degree rather than nature; also, none of the triad applies separately and independently of one another. Thus, I suggest that the liability rule is not essentially non-proprietary and could be used to protect a proprietary entitlement. I tested my understanding of Calabresi and Melamed’s framework against a case that involved damaged kidney in order to show the difference the framework, as conceived by me, could make to the remedial fortunes of a claimant in body parts’ litigation.     

专利诉讼中禁止反悔原则的理解与适用

一、禁止反悔原则的概念禁止反悔原则是英美法司法实践中常见的一项原则,既有公法上的禁止反悔,也有合同法上的禁止反悔,同样也有合伙法上的禁止反悔等。但是,究竟何为禁止反悔原则,英美法中尚无定论。英国学者鲍尔给禁止反悔原则所下的定义为:“假如某人(声明人)以言语或行为向别人(受声明人)做声明, 又或声明人有义务说话或采取行为而不履行义务,因     

论表见代理在行政法领域之导入与适用

表见代理源于私法,一直为行政法学界所忽视。行政权行使过程中出现的众多现象与问题,非仅处理内部关系的委托所能解决。代理与委托相伴而生,唇齿相依。代理制度,特别是表见代理制度引入行政法,既能从理论上补充委托之不足,亦在实践中解决行政管理领域无权代理、越权代理情况下行政责任的承担问题,进而确定行政诉讼的被告,化解行政诉讼中存在的现实困难。     

美国法上的允诺禁反悔制度研究

根据《合同法重述》第90条的规定,被引诱的合理信赖可以作为强制执行允诺的基础。《合同法重述》的正式评论将该规定称为“允诺禁反悔”,这种允诺禁反悔在规则起源上看似受到霍姆斯交易性对价理论的根本影响,实质上是交易性对价理论和美国判例法传统相冲突的结果。与属于同一法系的英国和澳大利亚合同法上的允诺禁反悔相比,美国法上的允诺禁反悔在制度构成、法律效果以及适用范围上都具有独特之处。     

专利无效过程中的修改是否都导致禁止反悔——从一起专利纠纷中禁止反悔原则的适用谈起

为了限制等同原则的适用,衡平法中的禁止反悔原则被适用到专利侵权判断中。专利侵权中的禁止反悔原则不再强调传统禁止反悔中的“被他人所信赖”,但“为了获得专利”和“被放弃的内容”仍是很多国家适用禁止反悔原则时的条件。我国最高人民法院的司法解释对于禁止反悔原则的适用所设置的条件较为宽松,使所有在审查和无效过程的修改都成为禁止反悔的理由。在专利无效过程中,专利权人的修改方式有三种,其中放弃权利要求的修改因为不是为了获得专利,不应当导致禁止反悔原则的适用;权利要求合并的修改,因为在判断等同时不涉及放弃的技术方案,也不应当适用等同原则。     

论所有权的保护与所有权社会功能之实现

所有权社会化是一种自视新潮的观点,并被奉为现代民法发展的三大趋势之一。所有权社会化要求在当代中国只有加 大对私有财产的保护力度才能实现所有权的社会功能,促进社会财富的利用与增值。