Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T04:03:23.135Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The impact of European integration on private law — a comment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Geoffrey Samuel
Geoffrey Samuel*
Affiliation:
University of Kent
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 1998 , pp. 167 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Joerges, C ‘European challenges to private law: on false dichotomies, time conflicts and the need for a constitutional perspective; (1990) 18 LS 146; DeWitte, B ‘The Convergence Debate’ (1996) 3 MJ 105.Google Scholar

2. See eg van de Kerchove, M and Ost, F Legal System Between, Order and Disorder (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994; trans I Stewart)Google Scholar; Atias, C Épistémologie du droit (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1994)Google Scholar.

3. P Legrand ‘The Presence of English Law in Europe’ (SPTL Conference Paper, 1997). See also Legrand ‘European Legal Systems are not Converging’ (1996) 45 ICLQ 52; Legrand ‘Against a European Code’ (1997) 60 MLR 44.

4. G Bachelard La formation de l'esprit scientific (Paris: Vrin, 1938; 1989 reprint) pp 13–22.

5. Bryant v Herbert (1877) 3 CPD 389 at 390.

6. See generally Szladits, C ‘The Civil Law System’, in International Encyclopedia of Comparative law (Tübingen: Mohr) vol 11, ch 2, Pt 11 Google Scholar.

7. See Weir, T ‘The Common Law System’ in International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law (above n 6) vol II, ch 2, Pt III.Google Scholar

8. Re State of Norway's Application [1990] 1 AC 123.

9. See eg Blackpool & Fylde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool BC [1990] 1 WLR 1195.

10. Jacquemin, A and Schrans, G Le droit économique (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 3rd edn, 1982), pp 34–51 Google Scholar.

11. On which see Samuel, G The Foundations of Legal Reasoning (Antwerp: Maklu, 1994) pp 171–190 Google Scholar.

12. van de Kerchove, M and Ost, F Le droit ou les paradoxes du jeu (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1992) p 102 Google Scholar.

13. Stamatis, C M ‘La concrétisation pragmatique des normes juridiques’ (1993-No 4) XVIII–55 Revue de la Recherche Juridique 1091.Google Scholar

14. Delacour, J Le cerveau et l'esprit (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1995) pp 32–34 Google Scholar.

15. Samuel above n 11. See also Samuel, G ‘Classification of Obligations and the Impact of Constructivist Epistemologies’ (1997) 17 LS 448.Google Scholar

16. Bengoetxea, J The Legal Reasoning of the European Court of Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993) pp 40–42, 129–130Google Scholar. The distinction between rules and norms, so important to German legal thought, is not easily appreciated by the common lawyer. On the distinction in general see Stamatis above n 13 and Bengoetxea, op cit, pp 59–80.

17. Bengoetxea, above n 16, p 181.Google Scholar

18. Ost, F Droit et intérêt: volume 2 entre droit et non-droit: l'intérêt (Brussels: facultés universitaires Saint-Louis, 1990)Google Scholar. And see generally Samuel, above n 11.

19. Samuel, G and Rinkes, J Law of Obligations and Legal Remedies (London: Cavendish, 1996) pp 352–356 Google Scholar.

20. Samuel and Rinkes, above n 19, pp 322–325.

21. Lamb v Camden London BC [1981] QB 330.

22. See eg X(minors) v Bedfordshire CC [1995] 2 AC 633; cf Guardian 27 May 1998, p 7.

23. Supreme Court Act 1981, s 49(1).Google ScholarPubMed

24. National Westminster Bank v Morgan [1985] AC 686 at 709, per Lord Scarman.

25. Bell v Lever Brothers [1932] AC 161.

26. See eg Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671.

27. See eg Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966; Samuel and Rinkes, above n 19, pp 85–88, 105–107.

28. FA & AB Ltd v Lupton [1972] AC 634 at 658, per Lord Simon.

29. Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd [1947] AC 156.

30. Leaf v International Galleries Ltd [1950] 2 KB 86.

31. See generally Samuel, G Sourcebook on Obligations and Legal Remedies (London: Cavendish, 1994) pp 61–109Google Scholar.

32. This term is developed out of the observations and analysis of Dubouchet, P Sémiotique juridigue: introduction à une science du droit (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1990) pp 144–145 Google Scholar.

33. See eg Samuel, above n 11, pp 232–237. See also G Samuel ‘Entre les mots et les choses: les raisonnements et les méthodes en tant que sources du droit’ [1995] Revue Internationale de Droit Comparé 511.

34. Granger, G-G la science et les sciences (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2nd edn, 1995) p 92 Google Scholar.

35. Blanché, R L'épistémologie (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 3rd edn, 1983) p 65 Google Scholar.

36. Ibid.

37. Stein, P Regulae Iuris: From Juristic Rules to Legal Maxims (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1966) pp 7–8 Google Scholar.

38. D.2.14.1.3.

39. D.9.2.44pr.

40. Villey, M La formation de la pensée juridique moderne (Paris: Monchrestien, 4th edn, 1975) pp 507–538 Google Scholar.

41. Blanché, R Le raisonnement (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1973) p 220 Google Scholar.

42. Wieacker, F A History of Private Law in Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995; trans T Weir) p 343 Google Scholar.

43. Dubouchet, P La pensée juridique avant et après le Code civil (Lyon: L'Hermès, 2nd edn, 1991) p 127 Google Scholar, quoting L Liard.

44. Samuel, G ‘Der Einfluss des Civil Law auf das englische Recht des 19. Jahrhunderts’ in Schulze, R (ed) Französisches Zivilrecht in Europa während des 19. Jahrhunderts (Berlin: Dunker & Humblot, 1994) pp 287–313Google Scholar.

45. See generally Hartkamp, A S et al Towards a European Civil Code (Nijmegen: Ars Aequi Libri, 1994)Google Scholar.

46. Legrand (1997) 60 MLR 44, above n 3.

47. Weir, T A Casebook on Tort (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 8th edn, 1996) p 3 Google Scholar.

48. See eg Legrand (1996) 45 ICLQ, above n 3.

49. G Samuel ‘Existe-t-il une procédure de codification du droit anglais?’ (1997) 82 Revue franqçaise d'administration publique 209.

50. Samuel and Rinkes, above n 19, pp 343–344.

51. See eg Perelman, C Logique juridique: Nouvelle rhétorique (Paris: Dalloz, 2nd edn, 1979)Google Scholar; Alexy, R A Theory of Legal Argumentation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989, trans R Adler and N MacCormick)Google Scholar.

52. Bergel, J-L Théorie générale du droit (Paris: Dalloz, 2nd edn, 1989) para 252 Google Scholar.

53. See van de Kerchove and Ost, above n 2, pp 67–72.

54. On inductive approaches and systems see Samuel, above n 11, pp 35–37; on axiomatic approaches and systems see van de Kerchove and Ost, above n 2, pp 46–49.

55. See eg Samuel and Rinkes, above n 19, pp 360–364.