THE PENALTY RULE: A MODERN INTERPRETATION

K. K. Leung
{"title":"THE PENALTY RULE: A MODERN INTERPRETATION","authors":"K. K. Leung","doi":"10.5750/dlj.v29i1.1257","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper focuses on the common law doctrine of the penalty rule and the recent Supreme Court decision in Cavendish Square Holding v Makdessi and ParkingEye v Beavis . The state of the penalty rule prior to the judgment was unsatisfactory and criticized by both commentators and practitioners alike. Its indiscriminate application and unclear criteria was a needless source of uncertainty for both contracting parties and lawyers. Nevertheless, their Lordships in Cavendish refused to abolish the penalty rule but acknowledged its limited application in the modern commercial context. This paper accordingly aims to justify the continued existence of the doctrine on theoretical grounds within the English private law framework despite its practical obsolescence.","PeriodicalId":382436,"journal":{"name":"The Denning Law Journal","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Denning Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5750/dlj.v29i1.1257","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This paper focuses on the common law doctrine of the penalty rule and the recent Supreme Court decision in Cavendish Square Holding v Makdessi and ParkingEye v Beavis . The state of the penalty rule prior to the judgment was unsatisfactory and criticized by both commentators and practitioners alike. Its indiscriminate application and unclear criteria was a needless source of uncertainty for both contracting parties and lawyers. Nevertheless, their Lordships in Cavendish refused to abolish the penalty rule but acknowledged its limited application in the modern commercial context. This paper accordingly aims to justify the continued existence of the doctrine on theoretical grounds within the English private law framework despite its practical obsolescence.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
判罚规则:现代诠释
本文主要关注普通法中刑罚规则的原则以及最近最高法院对卡文迪什广场控股诉马克德西案和帕克眼诉比维斯案的判决。在判决之前,处罚规则的状态令人不满意,并受到评论员和从业者的批评。它不分青红皂白的适用和不明确的标准对缔约双方和律师来说都是不必要的不确定因素。然而,卡文迪什法官拒绝废除刑罚规则,但承认其在现代商业环境中的应用有限。因此,本文旨在从理论上证明该原则在英国私法框架内的继续存在,尽管它在实践中已经过时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
What Are the Legal Mechanisms for Seeking Solutions to Disparities in the Delivery of Care in the NHS and Where Does Liability Lie? Beneficial Ownership of the Family Home Apologies and the Legacy of an Unlawful Application of Terra Nullius in Terra Australis Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy: A Contemporary Asian Reading of a Seminal Text ‘Not My Employee, Not My Liability’
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1