Medical Intervention and Incapax Patients: The Place of Negotiorum Gestio within Law’s “Fundamental Structural Language”

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW Edinburgh Law Review Pub Date : 2022-09-01 DOI:10.3366/elr.2022.0789
Jonathan Brown
{"title":"Medical Intervention and Incapax Patients: The Place of Negotiorum Gestio within Law’s “Fundamental Structural Language”","authors":"Jonathan Brown","doi":"10.3366/elr.2022.0789","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A. INTRODUCTION In 2017, Professor Martin Hogg published a magisterial monograph on the subject of Obligations: Law and Language. From the outset of that work, the author notes that the words used by the parties to obligational relationships―even obligational relationships which are constituted ex voluntate―do not need to, and indeed do not generally, map on to the “fundamental structural language” of the law. This “fundamental structural language” can be understood as the lexicon comprised of those basic terms which are used by “external observers” of obligational relationships―most often being lawyers, legislators and jurists―to “make sense” of the law of obligations conceptually, as well as of specific undertakings in particular. Words such as ‘promise’, ‘offer’ and ‘unqualified acceptance’, to take some basic examples not directly examined by Hogg for “constraints of space”, might be applied by the parties to a (potentially) obligational relationship. However, the subjective understanding that the parties themselves have of these terms, or their respective intentions in using them, will not necessarily correspond with the objective legal understanding of the relevant words. Within the field of ex lege obligations―that is, those obligations which are imposed by law, or arise juridically―there is less (indeed, usually no) opportunity for the parties to demonstrate their own understanding of the words habitually employed to describe the obligational nexus. It does not matter how a negligent driver who is sued for causing injury to another road user would describe their relationship to the pursuer: the institutional position is that they are delictually liable to repair the damnum [loss] that they wrongfully caused. A party to a frustrated agreement might not think or believe themselves to be ‘unjustifiably enriched’ by possessing something given to them in the expectation of their performance of","PeriodicalId":43268,"journal":{"name":"Edinburgh Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Edinburgh Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3366/elr.2022.0789","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A. INTRODUCTION In 2017, Professor Martin Hogg published a magisterial monograph on the subject of Obligations: Law and Language. From the outset of that work, the author notes that the words used by the parties to obligational relationships―even obligational relationships which are constituted ex voluntate―do not need to, and indeed do not generally, map on to the “fundamental structural language” of the law. This “fundamental structural language” can be understood as the lexicon comprised of those basic terms which are used by “external observers” of obligational relationships―most often being lawyers, legislators and jurists―to “make sense” of the law of obligations conceptually, as well as of specific undertakings in particular. Words such as ‘promise’, ‘offer’ and ‘unqualified acceptance’, to take some basic examples not directly examined by Hogg for “constraints of space”, might be applied by the parties to a (potentially) obligational relationship. However, the subjective understanding that the parties themselves have of these terms, or their respective intentions in using them, will not necessarily correspond with the objective legal understanding of the relevant words. Within the field of ex lege obligations―that is, those obligations which are imposed by law, or arise juridically―there is less (indeed, usually no) opportunity for the parties to demonstrate their own understanding of the words habitually employed to describe the obligational nexus. It does not matter how a negligent driver who is sued for causing injury to another road user would describe their relationship to the pursuer: the institutional position is that they are delictually liable to repair the damnum [loss] that they wrongfully caused. A party to a frustrated agreement might not think or believe themselves to be ‘unjustifiably enriched’ by possessing something given to them in the expectation of their performance of
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
医疗干预与失智患者:无因手势在法律“基本结构语言”中的地位
A.引言2017年,Martin Hogg教授出版了一本关于义务:法律与语言的权威专著。从这项工作的一开始,作者就指出,义务关系的当事方使用的词语——甚至是根据自愿构成的义务关系——不需要,事实上,通常也不符合法律的“基本结构语言”。这种“基本结构语言”可以理解为由义务关系的“外部观察者”——通常是律师、立法者和法学家——使用的基本术语组成的词典,以在概念上“理解”义务法,特别是具体承诺的法律。“承诺”、“要约”和“无条件接受”等词语,举一些霍格没有直接审查过的“空间限制”的基本例子,可能会被当事人应用于(潜在的)义务关系。然而,当事人本身对这些术语的主观理解,或他们各自使用这些术语的意图,不一定与对相关词语的客观法律理解相一致。在法外义务领域——即法律规定的或法律上产生的义务——当事方很少(事实上,通常没有)机会表明他们自己理解习惯性地用来描述义务关系的词语。一个因对另一名道路使用者造成伤害而被起诉的疏忽大意的司机会如何描述他们与追捕者的关系并不重要:机构的立场是,他们有责任修复他们错误造成的损失。受挫协议的一方可能不会认为或相信自己通过拥有为履行义务而给予的东西而“不合理地致富”
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
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
33.30%
发文量
72
期刊最新文献
The One Year Time Limit in Cohabitation Claims: Knight v Henderson Front matter Peter Webster, Leasehold Conditions Private Purpose Trusts in Scotland Lorna J MacFarlane, Privity of Contract and its Exceptions
×
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