Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/3987Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Jaffey, P | - |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2009-12-17T10:37:30Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2009-12-17T10:37:30Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2008 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | Legal Theory. 14: 233–255 | en |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/3987 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=2925196 | en |
| dc.description.abstract | This 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.iso | en | en |
| dc.publisher | Cambridge University Press | en |
| dc.rights | © 2008 Cambridge University Press | - |
| dc.title | Liabilities in private law | en |
| dc.type | Research Paper | en |
| Appears in Collections: | Law Brunel Law School Research Papers | |
Files in This Item:
| File | Description | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jaffey Liabilities in private law.pdf | 151.55 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.