{"title":"假定有不当行为","authors":"J. Baker","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198847809.003.0014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The principal species of action on the case in the fourteenth century was that brought for a non-forcible wrong causing physical damage, such as negligence by a carrier or surgeon. The cases in this chapter contain discussions of the distinction between such actions on the case for ‘misfeasance’, actions of trespass for battery with force, and actions of covenant for breaking a promise. The boundaries were important for practical reasons. Although the actions were seen to rest on undertakings – assumpsit means ‘he undertook’ - it was important for plaintiffs that they should be trespassory in form; this meant that the plaintiff did not have to produce a sealed document as proof, as in the action of covenant, and that the defendant could not wage his law.","PeriodicalId":197105,"journal":{"name":"Baker and Milsom Sources of English Legal History","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assumpsit for misfeasance\",\"authors\":\"J. Baker\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780198847809.003.0014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The principal species of action on the case in the fourteenth century was that brought for a non-forcible wrong causing physical damage, such as negligence by a carrier or surgeon. The cases in this chapter contain discussions of the distinction between such actions on the case for ‘misfeasance’, actions of trespass for battery with force, and actions of covenant for breaking a promise. The boundaries were important for practical reasons. Although the actions were seen to rest on undertakings – assumpsit means ‘he undertook’ - it was important for plaintiffs that they should be trespassory in form; this meant that the plaintiff did not have to produce a sealed document as proof, as in the action of covenant, and that the defendant could not wage his law.\",\"PeriodicalId\":197105,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Baker and Milsom Sources of English Legal History\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Baker and Milsom Sources of English Legal History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198847809.003.0014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Baker and Milsom Sources of English Legal History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198847809.003.0014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
The principal species of action on the case in the fourteenth century was that brought for a non-forcible wrong causing physical damage, such as negligence by a carrier or surgeon. The cases in this chapter contain discussions of the distinction between such actions on the case for ‘misfeasance’, actions of trespass for battery with force, and actions of covenant for breaking a promise. The boundaries were important for practical reasons. Although the actions were seen to rest on undertakings – assumpsit means ‘he undertook’ - it was important for plaintiffs that they should be trespassory in form; this meant that the plaintiff did not have to produce a sealed document as proof, as in the action of covenant, and that the defendant could not wage his law.