Search

The unprecedented Covid-19 lockdown response by governments around the world triggered a bevy of business interruption insurance claims. One of the key issues considered by the courts in adjudicating refuted claims was the question of causation. The question in its simplest form was this: did the virus or the government response cause the losses suffered by the insured? This paper analyzes the effect causation played in the adjudication of these business interruption insurance cases in South Africa, as well as the test case in the United Kingdom. Given the novelty of the issue, this paper narrows down on the causative link between the virus, the government response and the insurance claim, at the time of writing the paper, a topic not thoroughly focused on by other academics. This paper analyzes the case law to see how the courts dealt with the issue, but also proposes an alternative causation theory to consider and what the result of the courts' decision could have been had they followed that consideration. The main finding is that despite a reasonable alternative consideration of causations effect on the insurance claim, the courts' made the more appropriate decision, especially taking into account the overarching considerations of fairness. The result shows the major effect causation plays in business interruption insurance cases and the depth of the causative analysis goes much deeper than anticipated, however given the unanimous judgments from South Africa and the UK, the question of causation in Covid-19 business interruption claims seems to now be largely settled law.

Black people in America have often been labeled outlaws, deviants, and nonconformists who are disinterested in complying with the laid down rules. However, from a long range experience dating back to slavery, they recognize that rules in the American context whether the Slave Codes, Black Codes, Jim Crows, or the contemporary law, are machinations of the legal system to perpetuate oppression and violence against Blackness. Toward self-preservation, they have learned to radically resist acts of oppression such as wrongful arrests by the police and the functional denial of their rights to be presumed innocent, protest and bear arms, even if such resistance necessitates a stark disobedience to the law enforcement. The Stono Rebellion of 1739 and other slave uprisings used resistance to achieve the abolition of chattel slavery. In the contemporary times, the Black radical tradition pursues the eradication of criminal enslavement by promoting Black protests and resistance against wrongful arrests: wrongful arrests have been identified as the preliminary steps toward mass Black incarceration. In opposition to the mainstream perspective in American literature, this paper uses a functional-analytical approach to legal reasoning to analyze key legal, historical, and sociological issues surrounding the existence of Black people in America in order to show that slavery is still functionally alive: it argues positively for the legitimacy and appropriateness of the Black radical tradition as a reliable means of effectuating the myriad black-letter rights that started in 1865 under the Thirteenth Amendment.

Negative externalities of airport operations, associated mostly with noise, are becoming increasingly onerous to homeowners, as air transport develops. In order to resolve the neighbour conflict, the legislator introduces restricted use areas (RUAs) within which noise levels may be exceeded. In these areas, limitations in the use of land are introduced in order to ensure rational development of land surrounding airports and compensation claims are awarded to landowners. These claims compensate planning restrictions concerning the use of land and costs spent on ensuring sound insulation of buildings. The practical application of provisions on RUAs diverges from their literal content bringing about the compensation of loss without a legal and economic justification and the abandonment of the provisions’ objectives. It is argued that a revision of current practice is required in order to fulfill the legal, social and economic objectives of the regulations in force. Negatywne efekty zewnętrzne działalności lotniska, utożsamiane głównie z hałasem, stają się w miarę rozwoju transportu lotniczego coraz bardziej uciążliwe dla właścicieli nieruchomości mieszkalnych zlokalizowanych w sąsiedztwie lotnisk. W celu rozstrzygnięcia konfliktu sąsiedzkiego ustawodawca wprowadza regulacje dotyczące tworzenia obszarów ograniczonego użytkowania (OOU), na których dopuszcza przekraczanie norm hałasowych. W obszarach tych wprowadza ograniczenia w sposobie korzystania z nieruchomości, kształtując racjonalne zagospodarowanie przestrzeni wokół lotniska, oraz przyznaje właścicielom nieruchomości roszczenia odszkodowawcze. Mają one rekompensować planistyczne ograniczenia dotyczące nieruchomości w OOU oraz poniesione koszty na zapewnienie izolacyjności akustycznej budynków. Praktyczne stosowanie przepisów dotyczących OOU odbiega od ich brzmienia, powodując kompensację szkód bez uzasadnienia prawnego i ekonomicznego, a także niwecząc cel ustawowej regulacji. Postulowana jest rewizja aktualnej praktyki uwzględniająca prawne, społeczne i ekonomiczne znaczenie obowiązującej regulacji. По мере развития воздушного транспорта негативные внешние эффекты деятельности аэропортов, определяемые главным образом шумом, становятся все более обременительными для владельцев жилой недвижимости, расположенной в непосредственной близости от аэропортов. Для разрешения конфликтов между соседями, законодатель вводит правила, касающиеся создания зон ограниченного использования, на которых допускается превышение норм шума. В этих областях он вводит ограничения на поря#док использования недвижимости, формирует рациональное благоустройство вокруг аэропорта и предоставляет компенсационные иски владельцам собственности. Они должны компенсировать ограничения при планировании недвижимости в зонах ограниченного использования, и затраты, понесенные на обеспечение звукоизоляции зданий. Практическое применение положений о зонах ограниченного использования, отклоняется от их формулировок, вызывая компенсацию убытков без юридического и экономического обоснования, а также разрушая цель законодательного регулирования. Постулируется пересмотр существующей практики с учетом правовой, социальной и экономической важности применимого регулирования.

This article explores various aspects of morality, rights and the law, in relation to the Hillsborough Football Stadium Disaster of 15 April 1989, including the legal repercussions of this disaster – the public inquiry; the Taylor Report; compensation claims against the police; inquest proceedings; judicial review challenge; private prosecution; ECHR challenge; and the House of Lords decisions on the rules for compensation for nervous shock. Moreover it focuses on other cases lying at the intersection of law and morality, such as the death of a patient who suffered catastrophic and irreversible brain damage and the withdrawal of medical treatment with judicial approval. Another case considered in this article is that of the conjoined twins and the tragic dilemma of ‘which one to die?’

Evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of international business transactions presents vexing challenges for the legal comparativist and practitioner. Divergent legal regimes impact business decisions, as commercial transactions extending across different legal jurisdictions may produce different and perhaps unexpected results. Exclusively relying on black-letter law does not sufficiently capture the entire comparative landscape. Rather, evaluating how black letter law, or law-in-the-books, reacts with law in practice presents the optimal analytical vantage point.1 Such approach necessitates that a credible, neutral and objective method evaluates the international business transaction — one which considers that economic, cultural and sociological viewpoints, perhaps competing, all exist. These analytical methods, while providing valuable reference points, do not independently present a complete picture.2 Rather, a hybrid comparative theory, objective pluralism, incorporating all of these methodologies, is a more effective evaluator tool providing the optimum means for evaluating comparative commercial law issues.3 The totality of this review presents a balanced perspective offering unique issue insights. Part one introduces the need for objective modes of comparative law analysis within the context of international business transactions, most notably contractual relationships. Discussing the disparate common and civil law families evidences why objective methods are necessary to explore legal problems extending over systematic divergences. Focusing on how good faith under comparative contract law is interpreted quite differently between (and within) these families demonstrates that legal concepts transplanted across legal families may have different meanings. Part two explores how black letter law is applied in practice, through the lens of objective pluralism, yielding nuances while providing comparativists with an important toolkit to further “test” a legal problems. The economic comparative method is evaluated, with special focus given to efficiency and transaction-based economic methodologies. Next, the sociological comparative method is analyzed, with emphasis on behavioral theory. Relational contracting, which contains elements of economic-based methodologies, is subsequently reviewed. The paper then proposes the new methodology, objective pluralism, as the most efficient tool for analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of comparative business transactions. Practical application of objective pluralism involves a carefully-constructed survey or empirical study., Nordic Journal of Commercial Law, No. 1 (2012)

Contrary to what is often stated in policy and ethical arenas, it is argued in this paper that no existing empirical data proves the superiority or the inanity of presumed consent systems when it comes to understanding variations in procurement rates. A historical analysis of the French case is presented that shows that only contextualized and historically based analyses of specific situations can help understanding such variations. Indeed, although organ donation from cadaveric donors has been governed in France by presumed consent legislation since 1976, such legislation has been applied exceptionally and in specific socio-political contexts. Actually, relatives of brain dead potential donors enjoy in practice a para-legal veto right and play the most central role in the process of deciding whether to retrieve the organs of a brain dead potential donor. The analysis of the French situation shows thus that there is no general, decontextualised answer to the question Do consent regimes explain variations in procurement rates? As a matter of fact, no pre-established connection between the two exists, for procurement rates vary together with micro and macro social and political contexts that differ historically and geographically.

Contrary to what is often stated in policy and ethical arenas, it is argued in this paper that no existing empirical data proves the superiority or the inanity of presumed consent systems when it comes to understanding variations in procurement rates. A historical analysis of the French case is presented that shows that only contextualized and historically based analyses of specific situations can help understanding such variations. Indeed, although organ donation from cadaveric donors has been governed in France by presumed consent legislation since 1976, such legislation has been applied exceptionally and in specific socio-political contexts. Actually, relatives of brain dead potential donors enjoy in practice a para-legal veto right and play the most central role in the process of deciding whether to retrieve the organs of a brain dead potential donor. The analysis of the French situation shows thus that there is no general, decontextualised answer to the question Do consent regimes explain variations in procurement rates? As a matter of fact, no pre-established connection between the two exists, for procurement rates vary together with micro and macro social and political contexts that differ historically and geographically.

Contrary to what is often stated in policy and ethical arenas, it is argued in this paper that no existing empirical data proves the superiority or the inanity of presumed consent systems when it comes to understanding variations in procurement rates. A historical analysis of the French case is presented that shows that only contextualized and historically based analyses of specific situations can help understanding such variations. Indeed, although organ donation from cadaveric donors has been governed in France by presumed consent legislation since 1976, such legislation has been applied exceptionally and in specific socio-political contexts. Actually, relatives of brain dead potential donors enjoy in practice a para-legal veto right and play the most central role in the process of deciding whether to retrieve the organs of a brain dead potential donor. The analysis of the French situation shows thus that there is no general, decontextualised answer to the question Do consent regimes explain variations in procurement rates? As a matter of fact, no pre-established connection between the two exists, for procurement rates vary together with micro and macro social and political contexts that differ historically and geographically.