Having set express termination clauses (ETCs) in their legal context, this article's first aim is briefly to explain three significant points concerning their operation which have now been clarified. Other important questions remain unresolved, and the second aim is to explore four of them: the judicial “reading down” of ETCs; whether termination need be immediate; the recoverability of expectation damages; and the avoidance of an unintended repudiation. Respects in which the English law of contract on each of them would benefit from development or change are identified, and it is argued that the Canadian approach to the award of expectation damages following termination pursuant to an ETC is preferable to the established Anglo-Australian position.

Standard accounts of analogy in law picture it as reasoning from the past case (source) to a solution in the case at hand (target). This article argues that the normatively constraining invocations of similarity or likeness presupposed by standard accounts do not obtain. It then sketches an alternative account based on Michael Polanyi's idea of polycentricity (not Lon Fuller's) on which the orientation of analogical reasoning is reversed. A past case (here “target”) is picked and framed in certain ways to persuade the interlocutor about the decision independently reached in the present case (here “source”) through the guidance of tacit knowledge (involving anticipation of what is likely to pass muster with the legal community) which normatively constrains the process.

Students of the law of contract know that, because insurance contracts are contracts of “utmost good faith”, applicants for insurance must disclose “material facts” to the insurer concerned. Students may not know what the law says is material and might be surprised if they did. General contract law distinguishes a misrepresentation of fact from one of opinion. If facts are untrue, the contract may be rescinded, but unfounded opinions have no such effect. The prudent contractor must ignore mere gossip but not so, it seems, when contracting insurance.

Clearly, a medical opinion that an applicant for life or health insurance has cancer has to be disclosed: British Equitable Ins. Co. v. Great Western Ry. (1869) 20 L.T. 422. The opinion of Aunt Jane that the applicant looks peaky does not. Again, if the applicant has been charged with a criminal offence, he remains “innocent until proved guilty.

Two important themes in Ronald Dworkin's work have contributed much to an understanding of Anglo-American law. He has insisted on the inter-connection between law and morality, emphasising the role of the judge's political morality in his judgments about the law. He has also argued that individual rights should be understood as anti-utilitarian or anti-majoritarian in character: they operate as constraints on majority decisions about the public interest or general welfare. In combination, these theories have provided an explanation of the legitimacy, in a democracy, of leaving undeniably “political” questions to unelected judges. Judges determine legal rights by applying (legal and political) principle. Matters of policy—understood as raising questions of the general welfare or the public interest— are primarily the concern of the other branches of government. Though policy questions are of concern to judges in the context of statutory construction, where the courts must decide what the legislature has in its wisdom enacted, it is their creative and evaluative role in respect of principle—concerning the moral and legal rights of individuals—which is the hallmark of adjudication, properly understood.1

In its judgment of 8 April 1976, Defrenne v. Sabena, the Court of Justice of the European Communities gave an interpretation to the provisions of Article 119 of the E.E.C. Treaty, on equal pay of male and female workers, which caused some stir. The Court held that the equal pay rule had direct effect, in the sense that any female worker could appeal to it in proceedings against her employer before courts or tribunals of any of the Member States. This ruling embodied a novel interpretation of Article 119: not only because the Court itself had not yet applied its doctrine of direct effect to this article, but also because most of the authors on the subject had come to a different conclusion. The Court seems to have been aware of the practical problems which might result from such a situation; it added some considerations on what it called the “temporal effect” of its judgment. Its decision “might,” it said, result in the introduction of claims by female workers dating back to the time when the direct effect of Article 119 came about (1963 for the “old” Member States!); therefore, it developed a certain number of reasons for deciding that “important considerations of legal certainty affecting all the interests involved” made it impossible to reopen the question as regards the past. Only workers who had already brought legal proceedings at the date of the judgment could benefit from the direct effect.

IN 2000 the Employment Directive was enacted by the European Community, creating a framework for combating discrimination in employment on grounds not previously covered by Community law, namely religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation. To a large extent the definitions of discrimination are uniform in relation to the different grounds of discrimination. In accordance with the Directive, new Regulations have been introduced in the UK prohibiting discrimination on grounds of religion or belief (the Religion and Belief Regulations) and sexual orientation, and amendments have been made to some aspects of the law governing discrimination on grounds of race, sex and disability. Age discrimination is subject to regulations which came into force in October 2006. One common aspect of these new laws and amendments is that the concept of harassment is specifically defined, instead of being viewed as a form as discrimination.

In principle, the law relating to the termination of bare (or gratuitous) licences should be relatively simple. Bare licences do not enjoy statutory protection and a bare licence cannot impose contractual obligations on the licensor. There are, however, four elements which complicate the law. First, through the operation of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel, the licensor may be estopped from revoking a bare licence. Second, a licence which has been acted upon is not revocable. Third, on revocation of a bare licence, the licensee must be given a reasonable “period of grace” or “packing-up period”. Fourth, it is sometimes said that a bare licence may be revoked only “on reasonable notice.” These four elements overlap (in part) and, in the case law and academic literature, there is some degree of confusion. The difficulties which exist can be resolved by more rigorous analysis.

The literature on the identification of rules of customary international law is extensive. Commentators have focused on isolating the methodologies by which international courts and tribunals identify customary international law, with most of the debate revolving around the use of induction, or deduction and assertion as methods of custom identification. However, the existing literature has overlooked that the choice among custom identification methodologies takes place behind closed doors, during confidential deliberation processes. When all that scholars see may be deduction or assertion, international courts and tribunals may have ascertained the existence of customary rules by induction, but induction may not have made it into the final text of the decision. This article elaborates on the impact of judicial deliberations at the International Court of Justice on the choice among custom identification methodologies. It argues that individual-driven stages of deliberations favour custom identification by induction, while collegial stages promote custom identification by non-inductive methodologies.

Contemporary liberal accounts of free expression are almost exclusively preoccupied with the permissible exercises of state power. Influenced by this framing, free expression guarantees under the ECHR, as well as the US and German Constitutions, focus on protecting a private sphere from state interference: what happens within that sphere is only of peripheral concern. This approach is deeply unsatisfactory, especially given the significant threats emanating from private social media platforms that shape the conditions under which individuals may express themselves online. The article argues that we should take private platforms seriously as a source of significant threats, without abandoning the distinction between private actors and the state. Private platforms that are generally open to the public should have obligations to uphold free speech in their contractual relationship to users under certain conditions: if they are structurally dominant, make arbitrary decisions or significantly impact a user's societal participation.

The headline recommendation of Jonathan Hill's 2021 UK Listing Review was that dual-class shares structures be permitted on the London Stock Exchange's premium tier. The aspiration was to encourage more high-quality UK equity listings, particularly of high-growth tech-companies, for which dual-class shares are especially beneficial. Dual-class shares allow founders to list their companies, and retain majority-control, while holding significantly less of the cash-flow rights in the company. However, in the UK, dual-class shares are usually discussed in qualified terms, in an attempt to placate sceptical institutional shareholders. Using the UK Listing Review as a platform, this article explores the constraints commonly proposed to be attached to dual-class shares, and argues that, although it is important to protect public shareholders, constraints must not be too severe. A balance must be respected, otherwise UK initiatives to relax rules on dual-class shares could deter the very companies they are intended to attract.

This article argues that the idea of conscience can play a useful, albeit limited and highly general, explanatory role in private law, if we have regard to two distinctive contexts in which it is used. First, it tells us something about how equitable obligations arise and reminds us that they directly enforce moral duties. Second, it conveys the message that the courts are reluctant to impose primary liabilities which restrict the exercise of legal rights absent a past or prospective breach of moral duty by the defendant. Without further explanation, the indiscriminate invocation of conscience in both contexts can lead to confusion and uncertainty, but if the distinction between obligation and liability is observed, the explanatory force of conscience in relation to each becomes clearer, and it plays a valuable role in bolstering the authority of private law.

The English Court of Appeal decided With v. O’Flanagan in 1936. The case concerns the interesting phenomenon of “supervening falsification” within the law of pre-contractual misrepresentation. Such a phenomenon occurs when a representation, though perfectly true when made, and unknown to representee throughout, has nevertheless become substantially false by the time it induces the representee to enter into the contract in question. The problem of supervening falsification potentially arises whenever there is an (appreciable) interval of time between the moment when a representation is made and the time when the party to whom it was made (reasonably) altered his position on the faith of it.

WELLS was struggling to sell some flats. He mentioned this to a neighbour, who put Wells in touch with Devani. Wells and Devani spoke over the telephone. The trial judge found that Devani told Wells that he was an estate agent, and his usual commission was 2% + VAT. Wells agreed to this, but the parties did not expressly agree upon what was to trigger the commission. Devani subsequently introduced a purchaser to Wells who bought the flats. Was there a binding contract between Wells and Devani? Lewison and McCombe L.JJ. answered “No” (Wells v Devani [2016] EWCA Civ 1106, [2017] Q.B. 959). The trial judge and Arden L.J., dissenting in the Court of Appeal, answered “Yes”. The Supreme Court has granted permission to appeal. It is to be hoped that the Justices will clarify the important issues of contract law raised by these simple facts and allow the appeal.

Toby Milsom was the most original English legal historian of the twentieth century. This paper gives a preliminary assessment of the importance of his work. charting the ways in which it has changed our thinking about the subject.