Measuring the comprehensibility of Z specifications

The effects of natural language comments, meaningful variable names, and structure on the comprehensibility of Z specifications are investigated through a designed experiment conducted with a range of undergraduate and post-graduate student subjects. The times taken on three assessment questions are analysed and related to the abilities of the students as indicated by their total score, with the result that stronger students need less time than weaker students to complete the assessment. Individual question scores, and total score, are then analysed and the influence of comments, naming, structure and level of student's class are determined. In the whole experimental group, only meaningful naming significantly enhances comprehension. In contrast, for those obtaining the best score of 3/3 the only significant factor is commenting. Finally, the subjects' ratings of the five specifications used in the study in terms of their perceived comprehensibility have been analysed. Comments, naming and structure are again found to be of importance in the group when analysed as a whole, but in the sub-group of best performing subjects only the comments had an effect on perceived comprehensibility.

Fictitious toponyms in the responsa: Bashan's ruleset revisited

Fictitious personal names and toponyms are not infrequent in legal casenotes as used for didactic purposes nowadays. There is a long tradition of fictitious names being used in the legal literature. The problem with medieval or early modern legal (here, rabbinical) responsa is that if they are used as evidence for historical purposes, as though they were chronicles, confusion may occurs. Historian Eliezer Bashan showed that this is the case, indeed, with particular reference to rabbinical responsa from the Ottoman empire where Holy Land toponyms occur. He set forth several tentative rules to decide whether a toponym is there to literally refer to the place it names, or whether, instead, the name is used fictitiously. This paper formalizes the ruleset.

Constructive trusts, illegal purpose and locus poenitentiae

Analyses the Family Division decision in Q v Q on the competing claims of a father and son to beneficial ownership of a house in which the father sought to on a secret agreement entered into with his sons when transferring the property into their joint names, intended to subvert the inheritance tax rules on lifetime gifts by retaining the right to have the property transferred back to him, and the son relied on a later agreement with his brother to transfer the house into his sole name, in reliance on which he and his wife had acted to their detriment by paying for its upkeep and renovation.

Beneficial entitlement after Stack

Reviews the approach adopted in Stack v Dowden to determination of beneficial interests in a property purchased in the joint names of cohabitees. Considers two cases which extended the Stack v Dowden approach to encompass the beneficial entitlement of family members, namely: (1) Adekunle v Ritchie on beneficial entitlement in a property jointly purchased by a mother and son, where the transfer document contained no express declaration of trust; and (2) Abbott v Abbott on the impact of a wife's indirect financial contributions in determining her beneficial entitlement in the matrimonial home.

No more nonsense

Discusses the approach of the courts to the quantification of beneficial interests in the family home in the event of a relationship breakdown. Assesses the clarification provided by the Court of Appeal ruling in Fowler v Barron on whether the respondent was the sole beneficial owner of a property purchased with his former partner, by means of a significant cash contribution from him and a mortgage in both their names, focusing on whether he could rebut the presumption that they held the property as joint tenants in equity where it was registered in joint names. [From Legal Journals Index]