Pub Date : 2013-08-01DOI: 10.21153/DLR2013VOL18NO1ART62
G. Raitt
Legal theorists advance conflicting theories to explain judicial reasoning, for example, that judges' decisions are constrained but not determined by legal materials, that judges do not apply legal principles but make value judgments, and that they make pragmatic judgments based on an assessment of the consequences of their decisions. Like cases should be decided alike, but theorists disagree on the role of analogy in legal reasoning and how one determines which similarities and differences are relevant. Judicial decisions revise and adapt previously decided cases. The concept of fidelity to precedent in legal reasoning can be illuminated by recent research into fidelity to source in adaptation studies. Research into literary adaptations shows that similarity and difference are not mutually exclusive and that an analysis of differences may undermine determinations of relevant similarity. By reading decided cases as intertextually situated adaptations, underlying views of the world that might not otherwise be evident in judicial reasoning can be interrogated.
{"title":"Insights for Legal Reasoning from Studies of Literary Adaptation and Intertextuality","authors":"G. Raitt","doi":"10.21153/DLR2013VOL18NO1ART62","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21153/DLR2013VOL18NO1ART62","url":null,"abstract":"Legal theorists advance conflicting theories to explain judicial reasoning, for example, that judges' decisions are constrained but not determined by legal materials, that judges do not apply legal principles but make value judgments, and that they make pragmatic judgments based on an assessment of the consequences of their decisions. Like cases should be decided alike, but theorists disagree on the role of analogy in legal reasoning and how one determines which similarities and differences are relevant. Judicial decisions revise and adapt previously decided cases. The concept of fidelity to precedent in legal reasoning can be illuminated by recent research into fidelity to source in adaptation studies. Research into literary adaptations shows that similarity and difference are not mutually exclusive and that an analysis of differences may undermine determinations of relevant similarity. By reading decided cases as intertextually situated adaptations, underlying views of the world that might not otherwise be evident in judicial reasoning can be interrogated.","PeriodicalId":43081,"journal":{"name":"Deakin Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67650013","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-08-01DOI: 10.21153/DLR2013VOL18NO1ART63
A. Flynn, Kate Fitz‐Gibbon
Review(s) of: A second chance for justice: The prosecutions of Gabe Watson for the death of Tina Thomas, by Asher Flynn and Kate Fitz-Gibbon, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013, ISBN 10: 1-4438-4202-8 ISBN 13: 978-1-4438-4202-0.
{"title":"\"A Second Chance for Justice: The Prosecutions of Gabe Watson for the Death of Tina Thomas\" by Asher Flynn and Kate Fitzgibbon","authors":"A. Flynn, Kate Fitz‐Gibbon","doi":"10.21153/DLR2013VOL18NO1ART63","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21153/DLR2013VOL18NO1ART63","url":null,"abstract":"Review(s) of: A second chance for justice: The prosecutions of Gabe Watson for the death of Tina Thomas, by Asher Flynn and Kate Fitz-Gibbon, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013, ISBN 10: 1-4438-4202-8 ISBN 13: 978-1-4438-4202-0.","PeriodicalId":43081,"journal":{"name":"Deakin Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67649606","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-08-01DOI: 10.21153/DLR2013VOL18NO1ART55
A. Gray
This article considers the extent to which an Australian court might be willing to declare a contractual clause to be a ‘penalty’, and so not be enforceable. A recent High Court decision takes a broader view of the courts’ jurisdiction to relieve against ‘penalties’ than has previously been the case. This article has two purposes; first, it critically considers whether the Court’s position is correct, having regard to the long history and rationale for the rule. Secondly, it considers whether the doctrine forbidding penalties in contracts remains an appropriate stand-alone doctrine in contemporary contract law, or whether a recasting of the law in this area is desirable. It concludes that the High Court missed an opportunity to consider more thoroughly the reform of the penalty-liquidated damages distinction, and should have subsumed that principle within the organising principle of unconscionability.
{"title":"Contractual penalties in Australian law after Andrews: An opportunity missed","authors":"A. Gray","doi":"10.21153/DLR2013VOL18NO1ART55","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21153/DLR2013VOL18NO1ART55","url":null,"abstract":"This article considers the extent to which an Australian court might be willing to declare a contractual clause to be a ‘penalty’, and so not be enforceable. A recent High Court decision takes a broader view of the courts’ jurisdiction to relieve against ‘penalties’ than has previously been the case. This article has two purposes; first, it critically considers whether the Court’s position is correct, having regard to the long history and rationale for the rule. Secondly, it considers whether the doctrine forbidding penalties in contracts remains an appropriate stand-alone doctrine in contemporary contract law, or whether a recasting of the law in this area is desirable. It concludes that the High Court missed an opportunity to consider more thoroughly the reform of the penalty-liquidated damages distinction, and should have subsumed that principle within the organising principle of unconscionability.","PeriodicalId":43081,"journal":{"name":"Deakin Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67649860","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-08-01DOI: 10.21153/DLR2013VOL18NO1ART59
J. Menzies, Lidia Xynas, S. Orr, M. Chung
Over the last 40 years, China has developed laws for the protection of intellectual property rights. Unfortunately, these laws have not been uniformly enforced, making such protection problematic for Australian and other foreign organisations wishing to do business in China. This article first scrutinises the current Chinese laws covering intellectual property protection. It then examines the outcomes of a qualitative study that addressed intellectual property protection issues faced by selected Australian organisations conducting business with Chinese counterparts located in China. Forty Australian business managers/owners from Australian companies having business relationships with Chinese firms were interviewed for this study. The findings show that protection issues are only relevant to certain types of businesses that have intellectual property to protect. Nevertheless, a number of the managers/owners interviewed believed that infringement threats were real and inevitable in China, and some had even experienced cases of copying. The study found that, despite such concerns, there was little evidence of organisations taking proactive and positive steps to adequately protect their intellectual property. In order to address this, the authors of this article have developed a protection strategy that incorporates the use of the law, together with firms' organisational designs, so that foreign firms can protect their rights when interacting with the Chinese market.
{"title":"Intellectual Property, Business and China: Taking a Stand","authors":"J. Menzies, Lidia Xynas, S. Orr, M. Chung","doi":"10.21153/DLR2013VOL18NO1ART59","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21153/DLR2013VOL18NO1ART59","url":null,"abstract":"Over the last 40 years, China has developed laws for the protection of intellectual property rights. Unfortunately, these laws have not been uniformly enforced, making such protection problematic for Australian and other foreign organisations wishing to do business in China. This article first scrutinises the current Chinese laws covering intellectual property protection. It then examines the outcomes of a qualitative study that addressed intellectual property protection issues faced by selected Australian organisations conducting business with Chinese counterparts located in China. Forty Australian business managers/owners from Australian companies having business relationships with Chinese firms were interviewed for this study. The findings show that protection issues are only relevant to certain types of businesses that have intellectual property to protect. Nevertheless, a number of the managers/owners interviewed believed that infringement threats were real and inevitable in China, and some had even experienced cases of copying. The study found that, despite such concerns, there was little evidence of organisations taking proactive and positive steps to adequately protect their intellectual property. In order to address this, the authors of this article have developed a protection strategy that incorporates the use of the law, together with firms' organisational designs, so that foreign firms can protect their rights when interacting with the Chinese market.","PeriodicalId":43081,"journal":{"name":"Deakin Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67649992","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-02-01DOI: 10.21153/DLR2012VOL17NO2ART88
B. Hayward
An appreciation of context is important in any area of law, but especially so in the case of international arbitration. Complaints are not infrequently made about those who treat international arbitration as equivalent to domestic litigation or even domestic arbitration. International arbitration is a specialised area. The International Arbitration Act 1974: A Commentary provides a contextualised and accessible insight into the operation of the key piece of federal legislation regulating international arbitration in Australia.
{"title":"Book review : The international arbitration act 1974 : a commentary","authors":"B. Hayward","doi":"10.21153/DLR2012VOL17NO2ART88","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21153/DLR2012VOL17NO2ART88","url":null,"abstract":"An appreciation of context is important in any area of law, but especially so in the case of international arbitration. Complaints are not infrequently made about those who treat international arbitration as equivalent to domestic litigation or even domestic arbitration. International arbitration is a specialised area. The International Arbitration Act 1974: A Commentary provides a contextualised and accessible insight into the operation of the key piece of federal legislation regulating international arbitration in Australia.","PeriodicalId":43081,"journal":{"name":"Deakin Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67649135","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-02-01DOI: 10.21153/DLR2012VOL17NO2ART83
E. Adeney
The borrowing and rearrangement of musical content, especially in the digital context, raises difficult questions for copyright law. There is significant community support for a loosening of the restrictions on the derivative (and particularly creative) use of copyright material. Law reform is called for. This paper discusses the possible introduction of a new exception to copyright infringement but notes that in the drafting of any such exception not only the economic rights but also the moral rights of the originating author need to be taken into account.
{"title":"The Sampling and Remix Dilemma: What is the Role of Moral Rights in the Encouragement and Regulation of Derivative Creativity?","authors":"E. Adeney","doi":"10.21153/DLR2012VOL17NO2ART83","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21153/DLR2012VOL17NO2ART83","url":null,"abstract":"The borrowing and rearrangement of musical content, especially in the digital context, raises difficult questions for copyright law. There is significant community support for a loosening of the restrictions on the derivative (and particularly creative) use of copyright material. Law reform is called for. This paper discusses the possible introduction of a new exception to copyright infringement but notes that in the drafting of any such exception not only the economic rights but also the moral rights of the originating author need to be taken into account.","PeriodicalId":43081,"journal":{"name":"Deakin Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67649282","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-02-01DOI: 10.21153/DLR2012VOL17NO2ART77
J. Plessis, Ingo Saenger, Richard M. Foster
Board diversity has been a hot topic for several years. However, it is only in recent years that pertinent questions have been asked about what is actually meant by board diversity and what would constitute a board with an ideal diversity. In the past the debate on board diversity has always been dominated by the lack, or very low numbers, of females on boards. This has been a fact in most countries with sophisticated corporate law and corporate governance systems in place. The issue of female representation on boards still dominates the board diversity debate, but other forms of diversity, including age, cultural, nationality and race have also become part of the debate. The quest is to find answers to questions like whether a diversified board would be better, and whether diversified boards will ensure a better return for investors; in other words, whether there is a ‘business case’ to be made out to have diversity on a board. Many studies have been done, but the answer is still evasive. This is not totally unexpected as the criteria used for these studies differ and the circumstances and complexities of business are such that a final conclusion will probably never be reached. In this article we focus on the board diversity debate in Europe, Australia and South Africa – three completely different parts of the world. In addition we devote Part V to put the topic of board diversity in a broader context, but paying particular attention to gender diversity.
{"title":"Board Diversity or Gender Diversity? Perspectives from Europe, Australia and South Africa","authors":"J. Plessis, Ingo Saenger, Richard M. Foster","doi":"10.21153/DLR2012VOL17NO2ART77","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21153/DLR2012VOL17NO2ART77","url":null,"abstract":"Board diversity has been a hot topic for several years. However, it is only in recent years that pertinent questions have been asked about what is actually meant by board diversity and what would constitute a board with an ideal diversity. In the past the debate on board diversity has always been dominated by the lack, or very low numbers, of females on boards. This has been a fact in most countries with sophisticated corporate law and corporate governance systems in place. The issue of female representation on boards still dominates the board diversity debate, but other forms of diversity, including age, cultural, nationality and race have also become part of the debate. The quest is to find answers to questions like whether a diversified board would be better, and whether diversified boards will ensure a better return for investors; in other words, whether there is a ‘business case’ to be made out to have diversity on a board. Many studies have been done, but the answer is still evasive. This is not totally unexpected as the criteria used for these studies differ and the circumstances and complexities of business are such that a final conclusion will probably never be reached. In this article we focus on the board diversity debate in Europe, Australia and South Africa – three completely different parts of the world. In addition we devote Part V to put the topic of board diversity in a broader context, but paying particular attention to gender diversity.","PeriodicalId":43081,"journal":{"name":"Deakin Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67649287","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-02-01DOI: 10.21153/DLR2012VOL17NO2ART86
D. Thampapillai
The absence of the doctrine of fair use from Australian copyright law has been a bone of contention in Australia after the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (FTA). As the Australian government reformed the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) in the aftermath of the FTA it eschewed the option of adopting fair use. Instead, Australia chose to incorporate a version of fair use into its existing fair dealing framework. Accordingly, the Copyright Amendment Act 2006 (Cth) inserted ss 41A and 103AA into the Copyright Act. These provisions provide that a fair dealing with a copyright protected work does not constitute an infringement if it is done for the purposes of parody or satire. These provisions codify part of the ratio of the United States Supreme Court in the seminal case of Campbell v Acuff Rose Music. However, the parameters of these new provisions are unexplored and the sparse nature of fair dealing jurisprudence means that the true meaning of the provisions is unclear. Moreover, two cases from the United States, SunTrust Bank v Houghton Mifflin and Salinger v Colting, underline just how important it is to have legal rules that protect literary ‘re-writes’. Both cases involved authors using an original novel to ‘write back’ to the original author and the broader culture. ‘Writing back’ or the ‘re-write’ has a firm basis in literature. It adds something invaluable to our culture. The key question is whether our legal landscape can allow it to flourish. This paper examines the interaction between fair use and literary re-writes.
{"title":"The novel as social satire: 60 years later, the wind done gone and the limitations of fair use","authors":"D. Thampapillai","doi":"10.21153/DLR2012VOL17NO2ART86","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21153/DLR2012VOL17NO2ART86","url":null,"abstract":"The absence of the doctrine of fair use from Australian copyright law has been a bone of contention in Australia after the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (FTA). As the Australian government reformed the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) in the aftermath of the FTA it eschewed the option of adopting fair use. Instead, Australia chose to incorporate a version of fair use into its existing fair dealing framework. Accordingly, the Copyright Amendment Act 2006 (Cth) inserted ss 41A and 103AA into the Copyright Act. These provisions provide that a fair dealing with a copyright protected work does not constitute an infringement if it is done for the purposes of parody or satire. These provisions codify part of the ratio of the United States Supreme Court in the seminal case of Campbell v Acuff Rose Music. However, the parameters of these new provisions are unexplored and the sparse nature of fair dealing jurisprudence means that the true meaning of the provisions is unclear. Moreover, two cases from the United States, SunTrust Bank v Houghton Mifflin and Salinger v Colting, underline just how important it is to have legal rules that protect literary ‘re-writes’. Both cases involved authors using an original novel to ‘write back’ to the original author and the broader culture. ‘Writing back’ or the ‘re-write’ has a firm basis in literature. It adds something invaluable to our culture. The key question is whether our legal landscape can allow it to flourish. This paper examines the interaction between fair use and literary re-writes.","PeriodicalId":43081,"journal":{"name":"Deakin Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67649486","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-02-01DOI: 10.21153/DLR2012VOL17NO2ART80
D. Meagher
{"title":"Digital Sampling/Remix Culture Forum: Papers from the Forum Held on Friday 6 July 2012 at the Deakin Waterfront Campus, Geelong","authors":"D. Meagher","doi":"10.21153/DLR2012VOL17NO2ART80","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21153/DLR2012VOL17NO2ART80","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43081,"journal":{"name":"Deakin Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67649109","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-02-01DOI: 10.21153/DLR2012VOL17NO2ART78
K. C. Liyanage
Regulation of online dispute resolution (ODR) has become an important element in the conceptualisation of its role as an appropriate dispute resolution mechanism. Given the lack of specific legislation regarding ODR nationally and internationally, there is a growing tendency towards seeking appropriate regulatory models for its regulation in the ODR literature, international organisations, governments and the private sector. While recognising the valuable contributions made in all these fields, this article maps the regulatory approaches for ODR adopted by governments in the Guidelines for Consumer Protection in the Context of Electronic Commerce developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 1999 and the Australian Guidelines for Electronic Commerce in 2006. In addition, the viability of the regulatory approaches of these instruments is explored in the context of online consumer arbitration used for the resolution of cross-border business-to-consumer electronic commerce disputes. In the course of the discussion, some insights on further improvements to these guidelines are also provided.
{"title":"The Regulation of Online Dispute Resolution: Effectiveness of Online Consumer Protection Guidelines","authors":"K. C. Liyanage","doi":"10.21153/DLR2012VOL17NO2ART78","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21153/DLR2012VOL17NO2ART78","url":null,"abstract":"Regulation of online dispute resolution (ODR) has become an important element in the conceptualisation of its role as an appropriate dispute resolution mechanism. Given the lack of specific legislation regarding ODR nationally and internationally, there is a growing tendency towards seeking appropriate regulatory models for its regulation in the ODR literature, international organisations, governments and the private sector. While recognising the valuable contributions made in all these fields, this article maps the regulatory approaches for ODR adopted by governments in the Guidelines for Consumer Protection in the Context of Electronic Commerce developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 1999 and the Australian Guidelines for Electronic Commerce in 2006. In addition, the viability of the regulatory approaches of these instruments is explored in the context of online consumer arbitration used for the resolution of cross-border business-to-consumer electronic commerce disputes. In the course of the discussion, some insights on further improvements to these guidelines are also provided.","PeriodicalId":43081,"journal":{"name":"Deakin Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67649357","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：