| Preface |
|
v | |
|
|
|
xiii | |
|
|
|
xxv | |
| Notes on Contributors |
|
xxix | |
|
|
|
|
1 Revolution and Evolution in Private Law |
|
|
3 | (8) |
|
|
|
2 Revolutions in Private Law? |
|
|
11 | (20) |
|
|
|
|
|
11 | (2) |
|
|
|
13 | (6) |
|
|
|
19 | (5) |
|
|
|
24 | (5) |
|
|
|
29 | (2) |
|
3 Private Law's Revolutionaries: Authors, Codifiers and Merchants? |
|
|
31 | (20) |
|
|
|
|
|
31 | (1) |
|
II Berman's Law and Revolutions |
|
|
32 | (3) |
|
III Roman Law in the Western Legal Tradition |
|
|
35 | (6) |
|
IV Civil Codes and Revolutions |
|
|
41 | (2) |
|
V Revolutions in the Law of Obligations: Scotland and Stair |
|
|
43 | (4) |
|
|
|
47 | (4) |
|
4 Paradigms Lost or Paradigms Regained? Legal Revolutions and the Path of the Law |
|
|
51 | (24) |
|
|
|
I Introduction: The Revolutionary Turn in Private Law |
|
|
51 | (4) |
|
II The Limits of Legal Revolutions |
|
|
55 | (4) |
|
A (Mis)interpreting the Past: A Revolutionary Problem |
|
|
55 | (3) |
|
B Normative Choices and Legal Change |
|
|
58 | (1) |
|
III Scientific Revolutions and Legal Revolutions |
|
|
59 | (3) |
|
|
|
59 | (1) |
|
|
|
60 | (2) |
|
IV Paradigms, Theories and Black-Letter Law |
|
|
62 | (9) |
|
A Revolutions and Paradigms |
|
|
62 | (3) |
|
B Theoretical Revolutions and Black-Letter Law |
|
|
65 | (6) |
|
V Conclusion: The Failure of Legal Revolutions |
|
|
71 | (4) |
|
|
|
|
5 Risk Revolutions in Private Law |
|
|
75 | (24) |
|
|
|
|
|
75 | (2) |
|
II Risk Revolutions and Private Law |
|
|
77 | (5) |
|
A Security and Responsibility |
|
|
77 | (1) |
|
B Risk Revolutions: A Brief Overview |
|
|
77 | (2) |
|
|
|
79 | (2) |
|
D Risk and Regulatory Change |
|
|
81 | (1) |
|
III A Recognised `Security' Revolution |
|
|
82 | (5) |
|
A Security Revolution and the Context of Private Law |
|
|
85 | (1) |
|
|
|
86 | (1) |
|
IV Backwards or Forwards with a New Risk Revolution |
|
|
87 | (5) |
|
V Tort, Security, Responsibility and Risk |
|
|
92 | (4) |
|
VI Conclusions: Revolution upon Revolution? |
|
|
96 | (3) |
|
6 The Unacknowledged Revolution in Liability for Negligence |
|
|
99 | (22) |
|
|
|
|
|
99 | (1) |
|
|
|
100 | (2) |
|
III Bringing in the Modern World |
|
|
102 | (1) |
|
IV Modern Irrelevance of Asocial Theories? |
|
|
103 | (3) |
|
|
|
106 | (1) |
|
VI Tort from the Government's Point of View |
|
|
107 | (6) |
|
VII Modern Theories about Tort |
|
|
113 | (4) |
|
A Tort as Compensation or Insurance |
|
|
113 | (1) |
|
|
|
114 | (1) |
|
|
|
115 | (2) |
|
VIII Symbolic Action: Current Debates |
|
|
117 | (2) |
|
IX Bureaucratic Action: Prospects for the Future |
|
|
119 | (1) |
|
|
|
120 | (1) |
|
7 A Revolution in Vicarious Liability: Lister, the Catholic Child Welfare Society Case and Beyond |
|
|
121 | (20) |
|
|
|
|
|
121 | (2) |
|
II Tracing the Need for Change: Sexual Abuse and Vicarious Liability |
|
|
123 | (4) |
|
III The Lister Revolution: Replacing `Unauthorised Mode' with the `Close Connection' Test |
|
|
127 | (4) |
|
IV Lister Revisited: A Modern Theory of Vicarious Liability |
|
|
131 | (3) |
|
V Back to the Supreme Court: Cox, Mohamud and the Two-Stage Test |
|
|
134 | (4) |
|
|
|
138 | (3) |
|
8 Revolutions in Contractual Interpretation: A Historical Perspective |
|
|
141 | (20) |
|
|
|
|
|
141 | (1) |
|
|
|
142 | (3) |
|
III Contractual Interpretation in the Sixteenth Century |
|
|
145 | (9) |
|
|
|
145 | (2) |
|
B The Identification of Intentions |
|
|
147 | (1) |
|
|
|
148 | (2) |
|
D Conceptions of Contractual Intention |
|
|
150 | (2) |
|
E Interpretation and Equity |
|
|
152 | (2) |
|
IV Two Approaches to Interpretation |
|
|
154 | (3) |
|
V The Seventeenth Century and Beyond |
|
|
157 | (2) |
|
|
|
159 | (2) |
|
9 Revolutions and Counterrevolutions in Equitable Estoppel |
|
|
161 | (16) |
|
|
|
|
|
161 | (2) |
|
II Early Expansionism: Making Representations Good |
|
|
163 | (3) |
|
III The Nineteenth-Century Contraction |
|
|
166 | (3) |
|
IV Re-expansion: Proprietary and Promissory Estoppel |
|
|
169 | (3) |
|
|
|
169 | (2) |
|
|
|
171 | (1) |
|
V Contemporary Contractionary Turns |
|
|
172 | (3) |
|
|
|
175 | (2) |
|
10 Reflections on the Restitution Revolution |
|
|
177 | (1) |
|
|
|
177 | (16) |
|
|
|
|
|
177 | (1) |
|
II The First Edition of Goff and Jones |
|
|
178 | (3) |
|
A The Pre-existing Legal Landscape |
|
|
178 | (1) |
|
B Ambitions of the First Edition |
|
|
179 | (1) |
|
C Contemporary Critical Reception |
|
|
180 | (1) |
|
III The Development of the Subject Since 1966 |
|
|
181 | (6) |
|
|
|
182 | (1) |
|
(i) Tracking Evolution via Statistics |
|
|
182 | (1) |
|
(ii) Tracking Evolution via Substantive Developments |
|
|
183 | (1) |
|
|
|
184 | (3) |
|
IV The Place of Goff and Jones in the Subject's Intellectual Evolution |
|
|
187 | (3) |
|
A `But for' the Publication of Goff and Jones in 1966 |
|
|
187 | (1) |
|
B Viewing the Precise Contribution of Goff and Jones, with the Benefit of Hindsight |
|
|
188 | (1) |
|
(i) Stages in the Subject's Intellectual Evolution |
|
|
188 | (1) |
|
(ii) The Place of Goff and Jones in the Evolutionary Process |
|
|
189 | (1) |
|
(iii) Evaluating this Mode of Intellectual Evolution |
|
|
189 | (1) |
|
V The Future (R)evolution of the Subject |
|
|
190 | (3) |
|
A Some Micro-level Concerns |
|
|
190 | (1) |
|
B Some Macro-level Concerns |
|
|
191 | (1) |
|
|
|
192 | (1) |
|
|
|
193 | (9) |
|
|
|
I A Potted History of Unjust Enrichment in Australia pre-AFSL v Hills Industries |
|
|
193 | (1) |
|
II AFSL v Hills Industries |
|
|
194 | (2) |
|
III The Future of Unjust Enrichment and Restitution Law in Australia |
|
|
196 | (5) |
|
A Evolution and Refinement of the Fourfold Inquiry |
|
|
196 | (1) |
|
B Unjust Enrichment and Restitution |
|
|
197 | (2) |
|
C Equity and Unjust Enrichment |
|
|
199 | (2) |
|
|
|
201 | (1) |
|
|
|
202 | (8) |
|
|
|
|
|
202 | (1) |
|
|
|
202 | (2) |
|
|
|
204 | (1) |
|
|
|
205 | (1) |
|
|
|
205 | (2) |
|
|
|
207 | (3) |
|
|
|
210 | (1) |
|
|
|
210 | (9) |
|
|
|
I The Idea of Unjustified Enrichment |
|
|
210 | (3) |
|
II The Rationalisation of Unjustified Enrichment |
|
|
213 | (3) |
|
III Farewell to Unjustified Enrichment? |
|
|
216 | (3) |
|
|
|
219 | (8) |
|
|
|
11 Revolutions in Personal Property: Redrawing the Common Law's Conceptual Map |
|
|
227 | (24) |
|
|
|
|
|
227 | (2) |
|
II What Has English Law Done with the Numerus Clausus Principle? |
|
|
229 | (1) |
|
III Which `Things' Count as Property? |
|
|
230 | (5) |
|
IV Which `Types of Interests' Count as Property? |
|
|
235 | (8) |
|
|
|
243 | (4) |
|
|
|
247 | (4) |
|
|
|
|
12 Modern Equity: Revolution or Renewal from Within? |
|
|
251 | (22) |
|
|
|
|
|
251 | (1) |
|
II A Revolutionary Narrative of Modern Equity |
|
|
252 | (1) |
|
III A Counter Narrative of Modern Equity |
|
|
253 | (1) |
|
IV The Integration of Common Law and Equity |
|
|
254 | (10) |
|
A The Revolutionary Narrative: Undue Influence |
|
|
254 | (3) |
|
B The Counter Narrative: The Claim for Money Had and Received |
|
|
257 | (1) |
|
C Ancillary Liabilities for Receipt of Trust Property |
|
|
258 | (1) |
|
(i) Background: The Knowing Receipt and Persisting Property Claims |
|
|
258 | (1) |
|
(ii) The Revolutionary Narrative and Knowing Receipt |
|
|
259 | (1) |
|
(iii) The Counter Narrative: The Heperu Claim |
|
|
259 | (1) |
|
(iv) The Revolutionary Narrative: Great Investments Ltd v Warner |
|
|
260 | (3) |
|
(v) Has Either Narrative Prevailed? |
|
|
263 | (1) |
|
|
|
264 | (3) |
|
|
|
264 | (1) |
|
B The Two Roles of Conscience |
|
|
265 | (1) |
|
(i) Conscience as a Doctrinal Rationale: The Heperu Claim |
|
|
265 | (2) |
|
(ii) Conscience as a Determinant of Liability |
|
|
267 | (1) |
|
|
|
267 | (3) |
|
|
|
270 | (3) |
|
13 Concurrent Liability: A Spluttering Revolution |
|
|
273 | (22) |
|
|
|
|
|
273 | (2) |
|
|
|
275 | (13) |
|
A First Steps: Contract Trumps Tort |
|
|
275 | (2) |
|
B Asserting Concurrent Liability |
|
|
277 | (4) |
|
C The Beginnings of a Counter Revolution? |
|
|
281 | (1) |
|
|
|
281 | (4) |
|
|
|
285 | (1) |
|
(iii) Contributory Negligence |
|
|
286 | (1) |
|
|
|
287 | (1) |
|
|
|
287 | (1) |
|
|
|
288 | (1) |
|
III Contract versus Trusts |
|
|
288 | (5) |
|
|
|
293 | (2) |
|
14 The Illegality Revolution |
|
|
295 | (20) |
|
|
|
|
|
295 | (1) |
|
II The Central Controversy: Rule versus Discretion |
|
|
296 | (7) |
|
A No Reliance on Illegality |
|
|
299 | (1) |
|
B Withdrawal from an Illegal Transaction |
|
|
300 | (1) |
|
C The Parties are not In Pari Delicto |
|
|
301 | (1) |
|
D The Policy Behind the Illegality |
|
|
302 | (1) |
|
E Close Connection or Inextricable Link |
|
|
302 | (1) |
|
|
|
303 | (6) |
|
IV Patel v Mirza: Revolution or Evolution? |
|
|
309 | (2) |
|
A Impact on Legal Doctrine |
|
|
309 | (1) |
|
B Judicial Reception of the Decision |
|
|
310 | (1) |
|
|
|
311 | (4) |
|
15 The Revolutionary Trajectory of EU Contract Law towards Post-national Law |
|
|
315 | (22) |
|
|
|
I A Revolutionary Cocktail for the Ancien Regime |
|
|
315 | (2) |
|
|
|
317 | (6) |
|
|
|
318 | (3) |
|
|
|
321 | (1) |
|
|
|
322 | (1) |
|
III The Impact of Techno-law |
|
|
323 | (3) |
|
IV From Rule-Book to Rights-Based Conception of the Rule of Law |
|
|
326 | (6) |
|
|
|
328 | (2) |
|
|
|
330 | (1) |
|
C The Implications of a Rights-Based Conception of the Rule of Law |
|
|
331 | (1) |
|
|
|
332 | (3) |
|
|
|
335 | (2) |
| Index |
|
337 | |