Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/3987
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorJaffey, P-
dc.date.accessioned2009-12-17T10:37:30Z-
dc.date.available2009-12-17T10:37:30Z-
dc.date.issued2008-
dc.identifier.citationLegal Theory. 14: 233–255en
dc.identifier.urihttp://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/3987-
dc.identifier.urihttp://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=2925196en
dc.description.abstractThis article elaborates upon and defends the distinction between “primary duty” claims and “primary liability” claims in private law introduced in a previous article. In particular, I discuss the relevance of the distinction to the debates over fault and strict liability and “duty skepticism” and to the relationship between primary and remedial rights. I argue that the tendency to assume that all claims in private law arise from a breach of duty is a source of error and confusion. As a prelude to the discussion, I set out an analysis of a claim or remedial right in private law as a Hohfeldian power correlated with a remedial liability. I also consider whether primary-liability claims can be formulated in terms of the legal relations found in Wesley Hohfeld’s scheme, and I make some general comments about Hohfeldian analysis.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherCambridge University Pressen
dc.rights© 2008 Cambridge University Press-
dc.titleLiabilities in private lawen
dc.typeResearch Paperen
Appears in Collections:Law
Dept of Politics, History and Law Research Papers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Jaffey Liabilities in private law.pdf151.55 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.