英国北部第45号判例与惩罚性赔偿的理论渊源

IF 1.5 2区社会学 Q1 LAW Cambridge Law Journal Pub Date : 2023-06-09 DOI:10.1017/S000819732300020X

N. Sinanis

{"title":"英国北部第45号判例与惩罚性赔偿的理论渊源","authors":"N. Sinanis","doi":"10.1017/S000819732300020X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The companion 1763 tort cases of Huckle v Money and Wilkes v Wood hold a mythical status in the Anglo-American common law imagination. Few modern accounts of the doctrinal origins of exemplary (or punitive) damages omit reference to them. This article contends that the assumption that these two cases combined to provide damages above and beyond compensation a positive basis at English common law is misconceived. Set back into their historical context, it shows that their true significance is at odds with the decidedly lawmaking significance often ascribed to them by modern judges and scholars alike.","PeriodicalId":46389,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Law Journal","volume":"82 1","pages":"321 - 349"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"THE NORTH BRITON NO. 45 AND THE DOCTRINAL ORIGINS OF EXEMPLARY DAMAGES\",\"authors\":\"N. Sinanis\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S000819732300020X\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The companion 1763 tort cases of Huckle v Money and Wilkes v Wood hold a mythical status in the Anglo-American common law imagination. Few modern accounts of the doctrinal origins of exemplary (or punitive) damages omit reference to them. This article contends that the assumption that these two cases combined to provide damages above and beyond compensation a positive basis at English common law is misconceived. Set back into their historical context, it shows that their true significance is at odds with the decidedly lawmaking significance often ascribed to them by modern judges and scholars alike.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46389,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cambridge Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"82 1\",\"pages\":\"321 - 349\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-09\",\"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/S000819732300020X\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cambridge Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S000819732300020X","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

摘要1763年的Huckle诉Money案和Wilkes诉Wood案在英美法系的想象中具有神话般的地位。关于惩戒性（或惩罚性）损害赔偿的理论起源，现代的描述很少省略对它们的提及。本文认为，在英国普通法中，认为这两个案件结合起来提供了高于赔偿的损害赔偿是一个积极的基础的假设是错误的。回到它们的历史背景中，它表明它们的真正意义与现代法官和学者通常赋予它们的决定性立法意义不一致。

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

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

THE NORTH BRITON NO. 45 AND THE DOCTRINAL ORIGINS OF EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

Abstract The companion 1763 tort cases of Huckle v Money and Wilkes v Wood hold a mythical status in the Anglo-American common law imagination. Few modern accounts of the doctrinal origins of exemplary (or punitive) damages omit reference to them. This article contends that the assumption that these two cases combined to provide damages above and beyond compensation a positive basis at English common law is misconceived. Set back into their historical context, it shows that their true significance is at odds with the decidedly lawmaking significance often ascribed to them by modern judges and scholars alike.

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

Cambridge Law Journal LAW-

CiteScore

1.10

自引率

6.70%

发文量

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