Search

This paper is concerned with the interaction between the principle of equal treatment and non-disclosure agreements in English law. The common use of non-disclosure agreements (also referred to as 'confidentiality clauses' or 'gagging clauses') as a term in contracts settling possible claims in which harassment or discrimination were alleged came to public prominence in England following the #MeToo movement. There has, though, been little consideration of the enforceability of these non-disclosure agreements as a matter of contract law and the impact of non-disclosure agreements upon equality. This paper examines the legal enforceability of these agreements as a matter of English contract law. It is argued that non-disclosure agreements, designed to obtain silence, work to impede the equality of women. English contract law provides few protections from the potential abuse that can arise from non-disclosure agreements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study aims to characterize the changes in contract law under the influence of the Covid-19 pandemic in Ukraine and the world. For this purpose, we used systemic, comparative-legal, and formal-legal methods. The paper consists of an introduction, methodology section, bibliography review, results, discussion, conclusions, and references. In the result of the study some distinctive features of changes in contract law under Covid-19 pandemic at the level of national law of Ukraine and some foreign countries were characterized and highlighted. The authors came to the conclusion that changes in contract law are typical for the countries of continental law. Instead, common law states remain resistant to changes in contract law, particularly, the force-majeure application. The reason for this lies in the specific doctrine of the common law countries, as England and the United States. These countries' courts remain unshakable in terms of managing the contracts performance. In contrast, some Asian and European states (including Ukraine) are characterized by dynamic changes in legislation, given the pandemic situation. The paper also discusses similar institutions like hardship and frustration of purpose, which are both applicable in continental and common law countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the current approach to the quantification of damages for non-pecuniary loss, and the issues that have arisen therein. Notwithstanding the acceptance by English contract law that certain forms of non-pecuniary loss are compensable, substantial difficulties still arise when attempting to quantify such loss. In particular, the courts have struggled to justify damages in cases that require some measurement of the value of the 'subjective' loss to the claimant. One method of measurement is the concept of consumer surplus, as demonstrated in the oft-cited cases of Ruxley v Forsyth and Farley v Skinner. This article discusses various inconsistencies with the courts' application of the term consumer surplus, and posits a solution for quantification of loss in such situations, using tools already available to economists (viz equivalent and compensatory valuation deployed in the course of cost-benefit analyses). In so doing, the article seeks to promote the utility of the consumer surplus as a remedial tool, and advance the underlying goals of contract law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]