IF 1.5 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Cambridge Law Journal Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.1017/S0008197323000028
John Murphy
{"title":"Economic Torts and Economic Wrongs. Edited by John Eldridge, Michael Douglas and Claudia Carr. [Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2021. xiv + 344 pp. Hardback £85.00. ISBN 978-1-50993-475-1.]","authors":"John Murphy","doi":"10.1017/S0008197323000028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Writing extrajudicially, just a few years after delivering his leading speech in OBG Ltd. v Allan [2008] 1 A.C. 1, Lord Hoffmann suggested that, in the wake of that decision it was now fair to say that “the economic torts have run their course”. But despite their Lordships’ best endeavours in OBG to render the economic torts an area of interest to legal historians alone, cases involving these torts have continued to trouble courts all over the Commonwealth. Accordingly, in spite of what Lord Hoffmann hoped for in the wake of OBG, there is still a good deal of life left in these torts; and they continue to pose puzzles a-plenty. Against this background, a new book dealing with these actions was always destined to be eye-catching, especially when one bears in mind that the economic torts have been largely overlooked by most torts scholars. Furthermore, an especially attractive feature of this book is that it offers a collection of essays that is properly representative of the makeup of the private law community: there is none of the familiar dominance of contributions from male scholars based in England and Wales. However, as Shakespeare warned us several centuries ago, “all that glisters is not gold”. And that, I am afraid, is my overwhelming view of Economic Torts and Economic Wrongs. To be clear: the book is by no means a disaster. It comprises a collection of essays written by academics and practitioners located in various different jurisdictions and it undoubtedly contains some very worthwhile contributions. The problem, however, is that these are outnumbered by others that, for all their novelty, seem somehow to be misplaced. Before addressing the particular merits of some of the key essays in this volume, I think it is worth flagging up from the start what I take to be a serious omission in the editors’ introductory chapter. For this, instead of supplying a road map to the essays that follow, and a brief account of the arguments they advance, provides the reader with, in essence, a very swift (and therefore not very detailed) account of the way the economic torts have developed over the last century or so. Reference is made to a number of the landmark cases, and this is all well and good. But the reader is offered no guide to the particular conception of “economic torts” adopted by the editors. This is a great pity because, without such a guide, it is hard to fathom why quite a few of the essays that appear in this book should be thought to belong here. For all that there is well-known disagreement around the margins about just which torts comprise this particular family of actions, most torts scholars would consider some of the essays in this book as being fish out of water. There is, for example, an essay on defamation; and there are two on private nuisance. There is an essay concerned with “an award of equitable compensation against a defaulting fiduciary” (p. 232) and a related one entitled “Misfeasance by Directors”. There is also a contribution dealing with lawful act duress (which many readers would doubtless consider a topic associated with contract, not tort, law). True: some of the authors responsible for these far-from-obvious inclusions offer explanations of why they think their essays belong in this volume – a book that the editors repeatedly describe in their “Introduction” as being about the economic torts. But this only reinforces the case for their provision (and preferably defence) of a particular conception of “the economic torts”. For them merely to assert (but not unpack) the claim that “‘the economic torts’ is a wider and more diverse legal category than has heretofore been acknowledged” (p. 7) is plainly not enough. Cambridge Law Journal, 82(1), March 2023, pp. 174–177 © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge doi:10.1017/S0008197323000028","PeriodicalId":46389,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Law Journal","volume":"82 1","pages":"174 - 177"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cambridge Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197323000028","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在发表OBG Ltd. v Allan [2008] 1 A.C. 1案的主要演讲仅仅几年之后,Hoffmann勋爵在法外写作中表示,在那个决定之后,现在可以说“经济侵权已经走到了尽头”。但是,尽管他们在OBG中尽了最大的努力,使经济侵权成为法律历史学家唯一感兴趣的领域,但涉及这些侵权的案件继续困扰着整个英联邦的法院。因此,尽管霍夫曼勋爵在OBG之后所希望的那样,这些侵权行为仍有很大的生命力;而且他们继续给我们带来很多难题。在这种背景下,一本讨论这些行为的新书注定会引人注目,尤其是当人们考虑到大多数侵权行为学者在很大程度上忽视了经济侵权行为时。此外,这本书的一个特别吸引人的特点是,它提供了一组论文,这些论文恰当地代表了私法社区的构成:没有人们所熟悉的英格兰和威尔士男性学者的主导贡献。然而,正如几个世纪前莎士比亚警告我们的那样,“闪光的不一定都是金子”。恐怕这就是我对经济侵权和经济错误的压倒性观点。需要说明的是:这本书绝不是一场灾难。它收录了来自不同司法管辖区的学者和从业人员撰写的论文,其中无疑包含了一些非常有价值的贡献。然而,问题是,这些人的数量远远超过了其他的人,尽管这些人很新颖,但似乎在某种程度上是错位的。在讨论本卷中一些关键文章的特殊优点之前,我认为有必要从一开始就指出,我认为编辑们的引言章节中有一个严重的遗漏。因此,本书没有为后面的文章提供一个路线图,也没有对它们提出的论点做一个简短的说明,而是在本质上为读者提供了一个非常迅速(因此不是非常详细)的关于经济侵权行为在上个世纪左右发展方式的说明。参考了一些具有里程碑意义的案例,这一切都很好。但是读者并没有被告知编辑们所采用的“经济侵权”的具体概念。这是一个很大的遗憾,因为没有这样的指导,很难理解为什么这本书中出现的许多文章应该被认为属于这里。众所周知,关于哪些侵权行为构成了这一特定行为家族,在书的边缘存在着分歧,但大多数侵权学者会认为本书中的一些文章是离开水的鱼。例如,有一篇关于诽谤的文章;还有两个是私人滋扰。有一篇文章是关于“对违约受托人的公平赔偿”(第232页)和一篇相关的文章,题为“董事的不当行为”。还有一篇关于合法行为胁迫的文章(许多读者无疑会认为这是一个与合同法有关的话题,而不是侵权法)。没错:一些作者对这些远不明显的内容负责,他们解释了为什么他们认为自己的文章属于这本书——编辑们在“引言”中反复描述这本书是关于经济侵权的。但这只会强化他们对“经济侵权”这一特定概念的规定(最好是辩护)。对于他们来说,仅仅断言(而不是展开)“‘经济侵权’是一个比迄今为止所承认的更广泛、更多样化的法律范畴”(第7页)的主张显然是不够的。剑桥法律杂志,82(1),2023年3月,第174-177页©作者,2023。剑桥大学出版社代剑桥大学法学院出版,doi:10.1017/S0008197323000028
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Economic Torts and Economic Wrongs. Edited by John Eldridge, Michael Douglas and Claudia Carr. [Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2021. xiv + 344 pp. Hardback £85.00. ISBN 978-1-50993-475-1.]
Writing extrajudicially, just a few years after delivering his leading speech in OBG Ltd. v Allan [2008] 1 A.C. 1, Lord Hoffmann suggested that, in the wake of that decision it was now fair to say that “the economic torts have run their course”. But despite their Lordships’ best endeavours in OBG to render the economic torts an area of interest to legal historians alone, cases involving these torts have continued to trouble courts all over the Commonwealth. Accordingly, in spite of what Lord Hoffmann hoped for in the wake of OBG, there is still a good deal of life left in these torts; and they continue to pose puzzles a-plenty. Against this background, a new book dealing with these actions was always destined to be eye-catching, especially when one bears in mind that the economic torts have been largely overlooked by most torts scholars. Furthermore, an especially attractive feature of this book is that it offers a collection of essays that is properly representative of the makeup of the private law community: there is none of the familiar dominance of contributions from male scholars based in England and Wales. However, as Shakespeare warned us several centuries ago, “all that glisters is not gold”. And that, I am afraid, is my overwhelming view of Economic Torts and Economic Wrongs. To be clear: the book is by no means a disaster. It comprises a collection of essays written by academics and practitioners located in various different jurisdictions and it undoubtedly contains some very worthwhile contributions. The problem, however, is that these are outnumbered by others that, for all their novelty, seem somehow to be misplaced. Before addressing the particular merits of some of the key essays in this volume, I think it is worth flagging up from the start what I take to be a serious omission in the editors’ introductory chapter. For this, instead of supplying a road map to the essays that follow, and a brief account of the arguments they advance, provides the reader with, in essence, a very swift (and therefore not very detailed) account of the way the economic torts have developed over the last century or so. Reference is made to a number of the landmark cases, and this is all well and good. But the reader is offered no guide to the particular conception of “economic torts” adopted by the editors. This is a great pity because, without such a guide, it is hard to fathom why quite a few of the essays that appear in this book should be thought to belong here. For all that there is well-known disagreement around the margins about just which torts comprise this particular family of actions, most torts scholars would consider some of the essays in this book as being fish out of water. There is, for example, an essay on defamation; and there are two on private nuisance. There is an essay concerned with “an award of equitable compensation against a defaulting fiduciary” (p. 232) and a related one entitled “Misfeasance by Directors”. There is also a contribution dealing with lawful act duress (which many readers would doubtless consider a topic associated with contract, not tort, law). True: some of the authors responsible for these far-from-obvious inclusions offer explanations of why they think their essays belong in this volume – a book that the editors repeatedly describe in their “Introduction” as being about the economic torts. But this only reinforces the case for their provision (and preferably defence) of a particular conception of “the economic torts”. For them merely to assert (but not unpack) the claim that “‘the economic torts’ is a wider and more diverse legal category than has heretofore been acknowledged” (p. 7) is plainly not enough. Cambridge Law Journal, 82(1), March 2023, pp. 174–177 © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge doi:10.1017/S0008197323000028
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
6.70%
发文量
56
期刊介绍: The Cambridge Law Journal publishes articles on all aspects of law. Special emphasis is placed on contemporary developments, but the journal''s range includes jurisprudence and legal history. An important feature of the journal is the Case and Comment section, in which members of the Cambridge Law Faculty and other distinguished contributors analyse recent judicial decisions, new legislation and current law reform proposals. The articles and case notes are designed to have the widest appeal to those interested in the law - whether as practitioners, students, teachers, judges or administrators - and to provide an opportunity for them to keep abreast of new ideas and the progress of legal reform. Each issue also contains an extensive section of book reviews.
期刊最新文献
RECYCLED MALICE RELATIONAL TRADE NETWORKS SECTION 36 OF THE LIMITATION ACT 1980 THE UK INTERNAL MARKET: A GLOBAL OUTLIER? WEDNESBURY UNREASONABLENESS
×
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