Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:47:19.732Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What is in an Index? A View from a European Orientated Lawyer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2017

Geoffrey Samuel
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Anyone familiar with French legal education will know that what a common lawyer would call the contents page to be found at the beginning (often in summary form) or at the end (often in detail) of a French textbook or monograph on law is more than a mere guide for browsers and readers. It forms le plan, that is to say the epistemological framework the intellectual importance of which is equal to the substance of the work. It is what endows the book with its scientific credibility and any thesis or textbook lacking a coherent cartesian plan will by definition lack intellectual credibility. But what of the other guide provided in many academic books, namely the index? Is this guide nothing but a guide, never to be allowed to aspire to an epistemological status like that accorded to le plan? Or is an index, with its strictly alphabetical ordering, capable of having an epistemological role?

Type
Research Article
Information
Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies , Volume 13 , 2011 , pp. 333 - 363
Copyright
Copyright © Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge 2011

References

1 Watson, A, ‘The Importance of “Nutshells”’ (1994) 42 American Journal of Comparative Law 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 See, eg Birks, P, ‘Definition and Division: A Meditation on Institutes ’ 3.13 in Birks, P (ed), The Classification of Obligations (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1997) 1 Google Scholar. See also Birks, P, ‘Roman Law in Twentieth-century Britain’ in Beatson, J and Zimmermann, R (eds), Jurists Uprooted: German-speaking Émigré Lawyers in Twentieth-century Britain (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004) 249, 260–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Karl Popper developed his falsification test as a means of determining whether or not an assertion was a scientific statement (as opposed to a non-scientific statement such as ‘God loves man’). A scientific statement is one that was capable of being falsified by experience: Popper, K, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (London, Hutchinson & Co, 1959) (reprint London, Routledge, 2002) 18 Google Scholar. Thus the statement ‘all swans are white’ (Popper’s own example) is a scientific one because it can be falsified by the appearance of a black swan.

4 See Birks, ‘Definition and Division’, above n 2.

5 Nothing in this contribution should be taken as suggesting that taxonomy in law is not of importance; consequently the present author has no difficulty in endorsing the late Professor Birks’ views in ‘Roman Law in Twentieth-century Britain’, above n 2. What is being suggested is that different epistemological schemes can reveal different types of knowledge (or at least different perspectives on knowledge).

6 Another example might be government contracts which now seems to be a subject capable of being separated from general contract courses: see, eg Vincent-Jones, P, The New Public Contracting (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006)Google Scholar; Davies, A, The Public Law of Government Contracts (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Kasirer, N, ‘Pothier from A to Z’ in Mélanges Jean Pineau (Montreal, Thémis, 2003) 387 Google Scholar.

8 Ibid, 388.

9 See eg Rudden, B, ‘Torticles’ (1991–92) 6/7 Tulane Civil Law Forum 105 Google Scholar. For a good example of this approach to liability see Denning LJ in Esso Petroleum Ltd v Southport Corporation [1954] 2 QB 182 (CA).

10 Kasirer, N, ‘“K” as a Structure of Anglo-American Legal Knowledge’ (1997) 22 Canadian Law Libraries 159 Google Scholar.

11 Kasirer, above n 7, 388.

12 Birks, ‘Definition and Division’, above n 2, 1.

13 Ibid, 34.

14 Ibid.

15 In other words Birks is advocating scientific reductionism. This term has been described as an epistemological strategy consisting of the application of concepts and methods designed to reunify an area of knowledge that previously had had to be broken up and diversified in order to understand its objects: Besnier, J-M, Les théories de la connaissance (Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 1996) 102 Google Scholar.

16 Samuel, G, ‘Can the Common Law be Mapped?’ (2005) 55 University of Toronto Law Journal 271 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 In fairness Professor Birks does not dismiss the importance of contextual categories; they serve as a ‘factual focus on a particular aspect of life identified as any layman would identify it’: Birks, ‘Definition and Division’, above n 2, 34.

18 Jonsen, A and Toulmin, S, The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1988)Google Scholar.

19 Kasirer, above n 10, 159.

20 On which see Bramwell LJ in Bryant v Herbert (1877) 3 CPD 389.

21 Weir, T, An Introduction to Tort Law 2nd edn (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006) ix CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 On the history of contract in Europe see, eg Gordley, J, The Philosophical Origins of Modern Contract Doctrine (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1991)Google Scholar; Gordley, J, ‘Contract in Pre-Commercial Societies and in Western History’ in International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, Vol VII, Ch 2 (JCB Mohr, 1997)Google Scholar.

23 Wightman, J, Contract: A Critical Commentary (London, Pluto Press, 1996) 37 Google Scholar.

24 Lord Hailsham LC in Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd [1972] AC 1027, 1070.

25 Zakrzewski, R, Remedies Reclassified (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005) 108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Ibbetson, D, A Historical Introduction to the Law of Obligations (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999) 87 Google Scholar.

27 Ibid, 31.

28 Gava, J, ‘Judges, Commerce and Contract Law’ (2010) 84 Amicus Curiae 4 Google Scholar.

29 Even if a company does not itself enforce the debt through legal proceedings it might well sell a package of debts to a third party who might well be prepared to sue.

30 Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2010] 1 WLR 785.

31 D & C Builders Ltd v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617.

32 Attica Sea Carriers Corporation v Ferrostaal [1976] 1 Ll Rep 250.

33 Ibid, 255.

34 Ibid.

35 The index should, then, list ‘Specific performance’ with two sub-entries of ‘in equity’ and ‘in common law’.

36 Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores Ltd [1998] AC 1.

37 Cass.3e ch.civ 11.6.2005; D.2005.IR.1504. A translation of this can be found in Graziano, T, Comparative Contract Law: Cases, Materials and Exercises (Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 2009) 236–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 s 1. Besides being classified under E, should the concept of an ‘estate’ be classed under Persons or Things (or both)?

39 Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58.

40 White v Jones [1995] 2 AC 207.

41 Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465. Should ‘misstatement’ and ‘misrepresentation’ be listed separately in the index? Certainly ‘reliance’ should be listed.

42 The index is thus able to connect particular cases with particular reasoning concepts and devices.

43 Jackson v Horizon Holidays [1975] 1 WLR 1468.

44 See eg Pickett v British Rail Engineering Ltd [1980] AC 126.

45 See Code civil Art 1384.

46 Zenati, F and Revet, T, Les biens 2nd edn (Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 1997) 103 Google Scholar.

47 See Lazenby Garages Ltd v Wright [1976] 1 WLR 459.

48 See, eg DCFR III-3:103; Taylor v Caldwell (1863) 122 ER 309.

49 See, eg DCFR III-3:103 (‘beyond the debtor’s control’); Maritime National Fish Ltd v Ocean Trawlers Ltd [1935] AC 524.

50 RG 3 February 1914 RGZ 84.125; an English translation of this case can be found in Beale, H, Fauvarque-Cosson, B, Rutgers, J et al (eds), Cases, Materials and Text on Contract Law 2nd edn (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2010) 1105 Google Scholar.

51 Code civil Arts 1147–48.

52 Constantine (Joseph) SS Ltd v Imperial Smelting Corporation [1942] AC 154.

53 Pichonnaz, P, Impossibilité et exorbitance (Fribourg, Éditions Universitaires Fribourg Suisse, 1997) 172–73Google Scholar; Cas.civ.18.5.2009 no 07-21.260; D.2009 AJ 950; Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham UDC [1956] AC 696.

54 Pichonnaz, ibid, 71–72; Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham UDC [1956] AC 696. But see Fages, RTDciv. 2010, 782–83.

55 Pichonnaz, above n 53, 29–34, 174–75.

56 PECL Art 6.111; UNIDROIT Arts 6.2.1–6.2.3. See now Draft Common Frame of Reference art III-1:110.

57 CE 30.3.1916, D 1916.3.25 (the famous Gaz de Bordeaux case).

58 But cf Fages, above n 54.

59 Ost, F, Droit et intérêt: volume 2: Entre droit et non-droit: l’intérêt (Bruxelles, Facultés universitaires Saint-Louis, 1990)Google Scholar.

60 See Samuel, G, ‘The Notion of an Interest as a Formal Concept in English and in Comparative Law’ in Canivet, G, Andenas, M and Fairgrieve, D (eds), Comparative Law Before the Courts (London, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2004) 263 Google Scholar.

61 German Civil Code § 823.

62 French New Code of Civil Procedure Art 31.

63 Ulpian used the word utilitas: see D.1.1.1.2.

64 See Ost, above n 59.

65 Lloyd, D and Freeman, M, Lloyd’s Introduction to Jurisprudence 8th edn (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 2008) 850–51Google Scholar; Ionescu, O, La notion de droit subjectif dans le droit privé (Brussels, Bruylant, 1978) 120–24, 143, 148–49Google Scholar.

66 Leroux, A and Marciano, A, La philosophie économique (Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 1998) 15–18Google Scholar.

67 Ibid, 17.

68 So the argument goes, but such a thesis might not stand up to scrutiny: see very generally Lloyd and Freemen, above n 65, 620–27.

69 Staffs Area Health Authority v South Staffs Waterworks Co [1978] 1 WLR 1387.

70 Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores Ltd [1998] AC 1.

71 Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham UDC [1956] AC 696, 728.

72 Ibid.

73 Upjohn LJ in Financings Ltd v Baldock [1963] 2 QB 104 at 115.

74 Constantine (Joseph) SS Ltd v Imperial Smelting Corporation [1942] AC 154.

75 Cf, Code civil Art 1147 with Arts 1382 and 1383.

76 D.4.4.16.4; D.19.2.22.3.

77 Deroussin, D, Histoire du droit des obligations (Paris, Economica, 2007) 438–40Google Scholar.

78 Ramparany-Ravololomiarana, H, Le raisonnable en droit des contrats (Paris, LJDG, 2009) 387–94Google Scholar.

79 Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co [2008] 1 AC 281.

80 See Lord Hope and Lord Scott in Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co [2008] 1 AC 281, paras 59 and 74.

81 Chaplin v Hicks [1911] 2 KB 786.

82 Barker v Corus UK Ltd [2006] 2 AC 572.

83 Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co [2008] 1 AC 281.

84 See Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc [2009] 1 AC 61.

85 For a discussion in English see Beale, Fauvarque-Cosson, Rutgers et al, above n 50, 721–25.

86 Unidroit Principles for International Commercial Contracts Art 5.1.4.

87 Ibid Art 5.1.4(2).

88 Ibid, Art 5.1.4(1).

89 Raineri v Miles [1981] AC 1050, 1086.

90 See, eg Sale of Goods Act 1979 s 14; Frost v Aylesbury Dairy Co Ltd [1905] 1 KB 608.

91 Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 s 13.

92 Platform Funding Ltd v Bank of Scotland [2009] QB 426.

93 Giliker, P, ‘A “New” Head of Damages: Damages for Mental Distress in the English Law of Torts’ (2000) 20 Legal Studies 19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

94 See generally Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310.

95 Farley v Skinner [2002] 2 AC 732.

96 Ruxley Electronics Ltd v Forsyth [1996] 1 AC 344.

97 Lazenby Garages Ltd v Wright [1976] 1 WLR 459.

98 See Women’s Own, 31 October 1987.

99 D.5.1.76.

100 See, eg Birks, Classification of Obligations, above n 2.

101 J.3.13pr.

102 Beignier, B, ‘Droits (Classification)’ in Alland, D and Rials, S (eds), Dictionnaire de la culture juridique (Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 2003) 533 Google Scholar.

103 Graveson, R, Status in the Common Law (London, Athlone, 1953)Google Scholar; but cf Stevenson v Beverley Bentinck Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 483.

104 See, eg Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977.

105 Ibbetson, above n 26, 289.

106 Ibid, 264–93.

107 Although this is not to argue that the institutional scheme should be absent from any first year UK law syllabus: see Birks, ‘Law in Twentieth-century Britain’, above n 2, 260–63.

108 Maine, H, Early Law and Custom (London, John Murray, 1890 edition) 363 Google Scholar.

109 See, eg Lawson, F and Rudden, B, The Law of Property 3rd edn (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002) 46 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

110 See, eg County Courts Act 1984 s 89.

111 Goldschmidt, H, English Law from the Foreign Standpoint (London, Pitman and Sons, 1937) 154–75Google Scholar.

112 Zweigert, K and Kötz, H, An Introduction to Comparative Law 3rd edn, Weir, T (trans) (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1998) 70 Google Scholar.

113 See, eg D.50.17.1.

114 D.3.45.10.1.

115 D.47.2.36.3.

116 Blackpool & Fylde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool BC [1990] 1 WLR 1195, at 1201.

117 Ibid.

118 Ibid.

119 See further Legrand, P and Samuel, G, ‘Brèves épistémologiques sur le droit anglais tel qu’en lui-même’ (2005) 54 Revue Interdisciplinaire d’Études Juridiques 1 Google Scholar.

120 But cf Goldschmidt, above n 111, 65–80.

121 Cownie, F, Legal Academics (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2004)Google Scholar.

122 Jestaz, P and Jamin, C, La doctrine (Paris, Dalloz, 2004) 171–74Google Scholar.

123 See eg, the discussion on this question in Gray, K and Gray, S, ‘The Rhetoric of Reality’, in Getzler, J (ed), Rationalizing Property, Equity and Trusts (London, Butterworths, 2003) 204 Google Scholar.

124 Jestaz and Jamin, above n 122, 172.

125 Ibid, 173.

126 For an interesting comparison between mathematics and theology see Puddefoot, J, ‘Mathématiques’ in Lacoste, J-Y (ed), Dictionnaire critique de théologie 2nd edn (Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 2007) 860 Google Scholar.

127 Ibid, 11. See further Samuel, G, ‘Interdisciplinarity and the Authority Paradigm: Should Law Be Taken Seriously by Scientists and Social Scientists?’ (2009) 36 Journal of Law and Society 431 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

128 See further Samuel, G, ‘Can Gaius Really be Compared to Darwin?’ (2000) 49 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 297 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Samuel, G, ‘English Private Law: Old and New Thinking in the Taxonomy Debate’ (2004) 24 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 335 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

129 See, eg Descheemaeker, E, The Division of Wrongs: A Historical Comparative Study (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

130 See, eg Lawson, F, The Rational Strength of English Law (London, Stevens & Sons, 1951)Google Scholar.

131 Rudden, ‘Torticles’, above n 9.

132 Ramparany-Ravololomiarana, above n 78, 6.

133 Even if the role of reasonableness can be compared functionally with the role of principles like good faith and abuse of rights in the civil law, this does not really affect the argument that the essence of reasonableness is better expressed in an index rather than in un plan. The argument is not that the index should present an epistemological challenge to le plan; the argument is that the index will reveal things that le plan will not reveal.

134 Boarini, S, ‘Collection, comparaison, concerntation: Le traitement du cas, de la casuis tique moderne aux conférences de consensus’ in Passeron, J-C and Revel, J (eds), Penser par cas (Paris, Éditions de l’école des hautes études en sciences sociales, 2005) 129, 133–36Google Scholar.

135 See in general Ramparany-Ravololomiarana, above n 78.

136 Ruxley Electronics Ltd v Forsyth [1996] 1 AC 344.

137 Granger, G-G, La science et les sciences 2nd edn (Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 1995) 49 Google Scholar.

138 Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1936] AC 85.

139 Rylands v Fletcher (1866) LR 1 Ex 265 (Ex); (1868) LR 3 HL 330 (HL).

140 Lupton v FA & AB Ltd [1972] AC 634, 658–59.

141 See Mirvahedy v Henley [2003] 2 AC 491.

142 Phillips v Britannia Hygienic Laundry Co [1923] 2 KB 832, 840.

143 Durgnat, R, Films and Feelings (London, Faber & Faber, 1967) 51 Google Scholar.

144 Ibid, 102 ff.

145 Ibid, 102.

146 Ibid, 41.

147 Heil v Hedges [1951] 1 TLR 512.

148 Zweigert and Kötz, above n 112, at 34.

149 See Cohen, F, ‘Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach’ (1935) 35 Columbia Law Review 809 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

150 See generally Lloyd and Freeman, above n 65, 835–80.

151 See, eg Legrand, P, Le droit comparé 3rd edn (Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 2009)Google Scholar.

152 See further Samuel, G, ‘Can Legal Reasoning Be Demystified?’ (2009) 29 Legal Studies 181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

153 Desjeux, D, Les sciences sociales (Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 2004) 91–92Google Scholar.

154 Ibid, 95.

155 On schemes of intelligibility and paradigm orientations in comparative law see Samuel, G, ‘Taking Methods Seriously (Part One)’ (2007) 2 Journal of Comparative Law 94 Google Scholar; ‘Taking Methods Seriously (Part Two)’ (2007) 2 Journal of Comparative Law 210.