The Hermeneutics of the Concept of Misrepresentation: Addressing the Quagmire of Damages and Compensation in Cases of Misrepresentation in Formation of a Contract Under Indian and English Law

In England, fraudulent misrepresentation is governed by English common law and damages are provided under the Tort of Deceit whereas negligent and innocent misrepresentation is governed by the Misrepresentation Act, 1967. In India, fraud is governed by s 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (ICA) and misrepresentation by s 18 of the ICA. Notably, unlike in England where the remedies for fraud and misrepresentation are provided at separate avenues, in India, the relief to the innocent party in both cases is provided under s 19 of the ICA. This article discusses fraudulent misrepresentation & negligent/innocent misrepresentation and the quantification of damages thereof in contracts under the two legal regimes mentioned above. To that extent, the authors attempt to illustrate certain nuanced differences between the two legal regimes while also highlighting the similarities between English law and Indian law. For the purposes of this article, the authors refer to the Misrepresentation Act, 1967 and the seminal judgments of Derry v Peek, Doyle v Olby, East v Maurer and Smith New Court Securities Ltd. v Scrimgeour Vickers and discuss the “date of transaction rule” as enunciated by Lord Steyn while juxtaposing it with the judgments of the High Court of Delhi, and the Supreme Court of India. In the Indian context, the authors highlight the position of law as is apparent from two recent judgments of the Delhi High Court in NHAI v Pune Sholapur Road Development and Daiichi Sankyo v Malvinder Mohan Singh and Ors and also focus on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Avitel Post Stuidoz v HSBC Holdings (Mauritius).

     

美国会计师第三人责任研究

就会计师第三人责任而言,数美国法最为发达,但关于会计师第三人责任的三种责任标准也存在多数意见与少数意见的纷争。会计师得为可以合理预见的第三人的信赖损害负责。理由之一,会计师第三人责任,系属职业过失责任,如果没有可充权衡的否决因素,责任成立;理由之二,可充权衡的否决因素,即被告责任负担轻重程度以及对共同体的影响、遏制重犯模型、损害和被告行为之间的因果关系,这三种权衡因素都支持而不是否决。     

论行政诉讼第三人的诉讼权利——从两起行政确认争讼案件说开去

我国行政诉讼法律规范虽然赋予诉讼第三人较多诉讼权利,但并不完善,如第三人是否享有主张并举证证明被诉具体行政行为合法或者主张原告起诉不合法的权利?若因被告怠于行使诉讼权利的行为导致其合法权益受损,其能否请求行政赔偿?立法对这些问题缺乏明确规定,导致实践中第三人权益得不到有效保护。我国应从公平、正义及利于平息争议等角度出发,肯定第三人的上述诉讼权利,充分保护第三人的合法权益。     

The antidepressant debate and the balanced placebo trial design: an ethical analysis

There is ongoing debate about whether randomized, placebo-controlled trials under a double-blind have reliably established the pharmacological efficacy of antidepressants. Numerous meta-analyses of antidepressant efficacy trials, e.g., Kirsch et al. [Kirsch, I., Moore, T. J., Scoboria, A., & Nicholls, S. (2002). The emperor's new drugs: An analysis of antidepressant medication data submitted to the U.S. food and drug administration. Prevention and Treatment, 5, Article 23. (Retrieved July 19, 2007 from http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume5)], have shown a modest drug-placebo difference but methodological problems with standard trial design preclude a definitive conclusion that this difference results from specific biological effects of antidepressants or the nonspecific factors that have not been adequately excluded. Standard trial design assumes the additivity thesis of pharmacological efficacy, being the assumption that the specific or "true" magnitude of the pharmacological effect is limited to the difference between the drug and placebo responses in a standard trial. If the drug effects are as small as these meta-analyses suggest, then their clinical effectiveness is questionable. If the drug effects are actually larger but masked by placebo effects, then the additivity thesis is not valid and we risk false negative results with standard trial design. Kirsch et al. propose an alternative, four arm balanced placebo trial design (BPTD) that can accurately test the additivity thesis. The BPTD uses antidepressants, active placebos and the intentional deception of research subjects. My focal question is whether the BPTD is ethically defensible. I will explore two objections that can be raised against it: 1) lying to BPTD research subjects violates their autonomy and exploits their illness and 2) the BPTD may not enable us to test the additivity thesis with accuracy, i.e., it may contribute to the masking of drug effects that it aims to avoid. I argue that these objections support the conclusion that the BPTD is ethically indefensible.     

票据犯罪若干问题研究

票据犯罪主体因罪而异 ,有的票据犯罪一般个人主体、一般单位主体不能实施 ,只有特殊个人主体、特殊单位主体才能实施。有的票据犯罪主体必须具有票据当事人身份 ,非票据当事人不能成为该项犯罪主体。票据犯罪罪过形式是故意和过失 ,模糊罪过和混合罪过的观点并不适用刑法所要求的票据犯罪。银行结算凭证虽然不是票据 ,但是应该归属票据犯罪对象范畴。我国刑法应当承认票据无形伪造。     

证明负担动态论研究

当事人如果要求法院依其主张为裁判时,必须就其所主张的特定、重要、有关联的事实,负有主张和提出证据以为证明的负担,如果有不能提出证据或提出的证据不足以证明其主张事实成立的情形时.则负担事实审理者不能依其主张作出裁判的结果;如果提出的证据,导致事实审理者对案件事实认定存在真伪不明的情形时,即有不能依其主张的事实作出裁判的危险的负担。证明负担(burden of proof)的内容包括事实主张项下的证据方法的主张负担(behauptungs last,burden of pleading)、提出该证据方法的负担即举证负担(the burden of producing evidence)以及对证据进行辩论的负担即心证负担(the burden ofpersuasion)。     

The Legal Analog of the Principle of Bivalence

The principle of bivalence is the assertion that every statement is either true or else false. Its legal analog, however, must be formulated relative to particular legal systems and in terms of validity rather than truth. It asserts that every statement of law that can be formulated in the vocabulary of a given legal system is valid (correct) or else invalid (incorrect) in that system. A line of New York cases is traced, beginning with Thomas v. Winchester (1852). This case, which involved a poison mislabeled as a medicine, established an exception to the rule that a manufacturer or supplier is never liable for negligence to a remote purchaser. The court made an exception because a poison is an “imminently dangerous” thing. How far may this exception be applied to other fact‐situations? Some subsequent cases are examined, and it is considered whether there is no correct answer in these instances and, more dramatically, whether more than one correct answer is tenable. In either event the legal analog of bivalence would seem to fail.     

不能犯的判断方法——危险概念的理性探析

不能犯的认定过程就是危险的破译过程 ,而危险说之主观的未遂论和客观的未遂论 ,分别只就某个片面来看待危险 ,客观的未遂论又从片面之片面展开分析 ,把行为的危险和作为结果的危险之一个问题的两个方面对立起来 ,未能统一地、总体地对待各部分的危险性 ,以至于各说均不同程度地面临顾此失彼的选择困境 ,因而不能得出共识的结论。本文紧紧围绕行为的性质这个核心问题 ,归纳了不能犯认定上的“八字法” ,即“质量、有无、是否、真假”。对于手段不能的情况 ,采取“质量判断法” ,即看行为人所采用的手段与未能达成的危害结果之间 ,是属性不妥还是数量不够 ,前者是不能犯 ,后者则为未遂犯 ;对于客体不能的情况 ,采取“有无判断法” ,即看行为人所指向的客体是否存在 ,不存在是不能犯 ,存在则是未遂犯 ;对于主体不能的情况 ,采取“是否判断法” ,即看行为人是否具备刑法所规定的意图之罪的主体资格 ,不具备的是不能犯 ,具备的则是未遂犯 ;对于状况不能的情况 ,采取“真假判断法” ,即看行为人实施行为时 ,刑法所规定的构成该罪的特定情景状态是否真实 ,不真实的是不能犯 ,真实的则是未遂犯。     

How the probability of a false positive affects the value of DNA evidence

Errors in sample handling or test interpretation may cause false positives in forensic DNA testing. This article uses a Bayesian model to show how the potential for a false positive affects the evidentiary value of DNA evidence and the sufficiency of DNA evidence to meet traditional legal standards for conviction. The Bayesian analysis is contrasted with the "false positive fallacy," an intuitively appealing but erroneous alternative interpretation. The findings show the importance of having accurate information about both the random match probability and the false positive probability when evaluating DNA evidence. It is argued that ignoring or underestimating the potential for a false positive can lead to serious errors of interpretation, particularly when the suspect is identified through a "DNA dragnet" or database search, and that ignorance of the true rate of error creates an important element of uncertainty about the value of DNA evidence.     

论过失犯形态的原因自由行为

相对于认定故意犯形态的原因自由行为有诸多疑难而言,在过失犯形态的原因自由行为之中承认原因行为的实行行为性并没有太多争议。但无论如何,过失犯形态的原因自由行为至少在表象上有别于一般的过失犯,其特点就在于可以划分为原因行为和结果行为这两个阶段,而在结果行为阶段又的确是丧失了责任能力甚至是行为能力。相关判例印证了在自陷无责的情形中构成要件模式的正确性,即原因自由行为实质上并不是一种需要特殊归责的构造,而只是一种现象上有独特之处,但完全可以被包括在一般的归责形态(无论是过失犯还是故意犯)之中的说明形式(说明实行行为到底在何处)而已。要成立过失犯形态的原因自由行为,关键在于如何在具体情况下认定行为人的过失心理,它可能有三种表现形式。     

New developments in the law of passing off: misrepresentation by silence

The High Court recently held that misrepresentation by silencecan constitute an actionable misrepresentation. A trader maymake a misrepresentation by failing to correct a self-inducedmistaken belief of a customer, where the trader takes advantageof that mistaken belief. Failure of a trader to disabuse customersof the impression that they are dealing with the brand ownermay be sufficient to constitute passing off. Brand owners welcomethis decision as it provides protection against new entrantsto the market who seek to piggyback on the success of theirbrand or trade mark.     

虚假陈述的监管与信息披露担保--基于虚假陈述民事赔偿责任的若干思考

信息披露制度是现代证券市场的重要基石,而虚假陈述则是发行人对信息披露义务的严重违反.为能有效地将虚假陈述拒于证券市场之外,除了由证券监管机关在各个环节层层把关,要求发行人严格履行信息披露义务之外,更应引入虚假陈述担保制度,由虚假陈述担保人就信息披露文件的虚假陈述与发行人承担连带赔偿责任,同时引入推定过错和推定因果关系理论,实现投资者追究信息披露担保人虚假陈述赔偿责任的可行性和合理性.     

释明的理论逻辑

释明有时会使案件结果发生逆转,所以必须有逻辑可循。释明不得背离保护权利、维护实质正义的释明主旨和其他正当目的,不能超出当事人主张的事实和已呈现的事实。此为释明的目的边界和事实边界。时效制度与释明制度之主旨相悖,所以不能就时效释明。在事实边界内,法官应进行一切合目的的释明,包括对当事人未主张的权利和重要事实的释明,原告的请求额不足时也应释明。法官就事实无法形成心证时应告知当事人追加证据。遵循逻辑的释明不会使法官丧失中立性。辩论主义并非绝对不可突破,也不能以尊重处分权为名漠视权利之丧失。     

器官移植涉及的刑法问题

医生为移植而摘取活人的器官,不构成故意伤害罪的根本理由是有供者的承诺。任何人不能为移植而摘取无承诺能力的未成年人的器官,也不能以紧急避险为由,强行摘取不同意捐献器官者的器官,否则,就有可能构成故意伤害罪。医生为移植而摘取尸体器官,一般不构成盗窃、侮辱尸体罪,但如果无死者生前的承诺,也未经死者近亲属同意,又无其他法定的特殊事由,则是非法行为,应受民事或行政处罚。器官移植诱发了买卖人体器官、非法摘取人体器官以及进行人体试验等新型犯罪。我国应尽快立法,增设这些新的罪名及其处罚规定。     

错误的刑事羁押与国家的赔偿责任

刑事诉讼中的错误羁押与刑事错案常常相伴而生,但二者并非同一概念。错误羁押以刑事程序法为认定依据,即使没有错案发生,羁押行为违反《刑事诉讼法》的规定亦照样构成错误羁押。与错案相联系的错误羁押或合法羁押都应当导致刑事司法机关的国家赔偿责任,而未构成错案但构成错误羁押并因此导致当事人合法权益损害的,国家也应当有条件地承担赔偿责任。国家对无错案条件下错误羁押承担赔偿责任,有利于增强刑事司法机关的程序公正意识和人权保障意识,防止和减少羁押的滥用。     

Information and Human Liberty

Abstract. Political and juristic enquiry must be conceived of as an action theoretical approach. On the basis of his formal and finalistic action theory as well as his neo-institutionalist view, the author sketches the role of information in modern democracy. He holds the view that democratic institutions are always in danger of being misused. The complex role of mass media, party propaganda and the detrimental effects of state propaganda are analyzed. The author deals with some general features of information processes in the realm of political practice: Information has to be considered in relation to action; the message by itself does not show whether the information is true; there are two forms of reception of information, active and passive reception. Information processes have a deep influence on personal as well as on political liberty. The intrusion of marketing-methods of propaganda in political practice is a great danger for democratic life, particularly if realized by the state or central institutions. It can destroy intellectual freedom, which is a prerequisite of discursive democracy. Democracy and human liberty can flourish only in an open society.     

Cable television and telephony in the telecommunications act of 1996: Economics,law, regulation and politics

Though reasonable people may argue about whether cable television and local telephone services are natural monopolies in theory, historically they have developed with infrastructures that make them more likely to have important declining cost characteristics in reality. Additionally, common carriage issues, especially for telephones, may necessitate regulatory oversight. Though touted as deregulation, and certainly eliminating many cross‐industry barriers, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is better understood as reregulation. The act maintains a common carriage philosophy while attempting to promote competition. However, evidence indicates it is unlikely that the new regulatory regime will result in efficient prices or true competition. Instead, duopoly in cable and oligopoly in telephony are probably the best that can be achieved under the act.     

医责险承保方能否成为仲裁第三人

采用仲裁模式处理矛盾突出又没有太多经济效益的医患纠纷初期,必须要有当地政府的参与并在财力上对仲裁机构予以支持,但长久如此既不利于仲裁模式处理医患纠纷的推广,也不利于仲裁的公正性及仲裁员回避制度的有效落实。如何不依靠政府的财政支持,通过裁决纠纷本身获得合理的报酬维持运行是亟待破解的难题。从制度设计层面看,医患纠纷仲裁模式若能与正在推行的医疗损害责任保险制度进行有效的整合,可能是解决仲裁长期运转费用的一个重要途径。但这种审理与理赔模式的整合,实际上涉及到医患纠纷仲裁是否存在第三人、承保方能否成为仲裁第三人的问题。本文以深圳市医患纠纷仲裁为切入点,对上述问题进行探讨。     

论虚假陈述民事案件的诉讼方式

在民众的强烈期盼下,最高人民法院终于做出司法解释宣布受理虚假陈述民事赔偿案件,但是由于其固守传统民事诉讼模式,难以有效地解决人数众多的虚假陈述民事赔偿问题。笔者认为应当借鉴美国的集团诉讼机制以及德、法两国的团体诉讼的先进经验,改造我国已有的代表人诉讼制度,以解决虚假陈述民事案件的诉讼方式问题。     

Detecting the True Nature of Allegations of Rape

A study was conducted to test whether it is possible to build a model to distinguish true and false allegations of rape based on the theory of fabricated rape. The theory is based on the principle that a false complainant of rape has not been raped and has to fabricate a story while the story of a true victim is based on recollections of the event. Consequently, false complainants will behave as liars do, construct their story based on their own sexual experiences and on mental representations, beliefs of how such a crime would happen (De Zutter et al. in Eur J Psychol Appl Leg Context. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpal.2016.02.002, 2016). To test the theory and to build a model to discriminate between true and false allegations of rape, a police sample of true and false allegations was studied. A total of 129, 72 true and 57 false, allegations of rape fulfilled the stringent criteria of the current study, among others on ground truth. Fifty-four allegations of rape, 27 true and 27 false, were used to build a prediction model based on the theory of bounded rationality by Gigerenzer (2002). The remaining 75 cases, 45 true and 30 false, were blindly categorised as either true or false based on the model. The model was able to predict the true nature of the majority of allegations with an accuracy rate of 91 %. Thus, it seems possible to discriminate to a considerable extend between true and false allegations of rape.