英国和澳大利亚雇佣合同中法律隐含条款的起源

G. Golding
{"title":"英国和澳大利亚雇佣合同中法律隐含条款的起源","authors":"G. Golding","doi":"10.1080/14729342.2020.1763597","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT One of the most significant ways that the common law regulates employment contracts is through the implication of terms by law to fill gaps. This article traces the origins and current status of a selection of key terms implied by law into both English and Australian employment contracts. The majority of those terms have been derived from a combination of equity, tort, and the former master and servant regime. At their inception in English employment law, most were recognised as ‘norms’ in the master and servant regime. Only after the employment relationship was recognised as contractual did these norms become accepted as ‘terms implied by law’, both in England and Australia, yet they lacked proper justification as to why. This re-characterisation is problematic: it avoids adequate consideration of whether such terms are truly necessary in all modern employment situations.","PeriodicalId":35148,"journal":{"name":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14729342.2020.1763597","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The origins of terms implied by law into English and Australian employment contracts\",\"authors\":\"G. Golding\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14729342.2020.1763597\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT One of the most significant ways that the common law regulates employment contracts is through the implication of terms by law to fill gaps. This article traces the origins and current status of a selection of key terms implied by law into both English and Australian employment contracts. The majority of those terms have been derived from a combination of equity, tort, and the former master and servant regime. At their inception in English employment law, most were recognised as ‘norms’ in the master and servant regime. Only after the employment relationship was recognised as contractual did these norms become accepted as ‘terms implied by law’, both in England and Australia, yet they lacked proper justification as to why. This re-characterisation is problematic: it avoids adequate consideration of whether such terms are truly necessary in all modern employment situations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35148,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14729342.2020.1763597\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2020.1763597\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2020.1763597","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要普通法规范雇佣合同最重要的方式之一是通过法律条款的含义来填补空白。本文追溯了英国和澳大利亚雇佣合同中法律隐含的一些关键条款的起源和现状。这些术语大多来源于衡平法、侵权法和前主仆制度的结合。在英国就业法成立之初,大多数都被视为主仆制度中的“规范”。只有在雇佣关系被承认为合同关系后,这些规范才被英国和澳大利亚接受为“法律隐含的条款”,但它们缺乏适当的理由来解释原因。这种重新定性是有问题的:它避免了充分考虑这些术语在所有现代就业情况下是否真的必要。
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
The origins of terms implied by law into English and Australian employment contracts
ABSTRACT One of the most significant ways that the common law regulates employment contracts is through the implication of terms by law to fill gaps. This article traces the origins and current status of a selection of key terms implied by law into both English and Australian employment contracts. The majority of those terms have been derived from a combination of equity, tort, and the former master and servant regime. At their inception in English employment law, most were recognised as ‘norms’ in the master and servant regime. Only after the employment relationship was recognised as contractual did these norms become accepted as ‘terms implied by law’, both in England and Australia, yet they lacked proper justification as to why. This re-characterisation is problematic: it avoids adequate consideration of whether such terms are truly necessary in all modern employment situations.
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
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊最新文献
Blurring boundaries on ‘taking part’ in an unlawful assembly: HKSAR v Choy Kin Yue (2022) 25 HKCFAR 360 ‘The law has taken all my rights away’: on India’s conundrum of able-normative death with dignity ‘Delicate plants’, ‘loose cannons’, or ‘a marriage of true minds’? The role of academic literature in judicial decision-making Legal transplantation of minors’ contracts in India and Malaysia: ‘Weak’ Watson and a ‘misfitted’ transplant Corruption and the constitutional position of the Overseas Territories
×
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