Taylor v Caldwell (1863)

A Landmark Case is one which stands out from other less remarkable cases. Landmark status is generally accorded because the case marks the beginning or the end of a course of legal development. Taylor v Caldwell is regarded as a landmark case because it marks the beginning of a legal development: the introduction of the doctrine of frustration into English contract law. This chapter explores the legal and historical background to the case to ascertain if it is a genuine landmark. A closer scrutiny reveals that while the legal significance of the case is exaggerated, the historical significance of the cases reveals an unknown irony: the case is a suitable landmark to the frustration of human endeavours. While the existence of the Surrey Music Hall was brief, it brought insanity, imprisonment, bankruptcy and death to its creators.

Do real balance effects invalidate the Taylor principle in closed and open economies?

This paper examines the determinacy implications of forecast-based monetary policy rules that set the interest rate in response to expected future inflation in a Neo-Wicksellian model that incorporates real balance effects. We show that the presence of such effects in closed economies restricts the ability of the Taylor principle to prevent indeterminacy of the rational expectations equilibrium. The problem is exacerbated in open economies, particularly if the policy rule reacts to consumer-price, rather than domestic-price, inflation. However, determinacy can be restored in both closed and open economies with the addition of monetary policy inertia.

Uniform factorial decay estimate for the remainder of rough Taylor expansion

We establish an uniform factorial decay estimate for the Taylor approximation of solutions to controlled differential equations. Its proof requires a factorial decay estimate for controlled paths which is interesting in its own right.

Stakeholder perceptions of event attribution in the loss and damage debate

In 2013 the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) for loss and damage (L&D) associated with climate change impacts was established under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). For scientists, L&D raises ques- tions around the extent that such impacts can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change, which may generate complex results and be controversial in the policy arena. This is particularly true in the case of probabilistic event attribution (PEA) science, a new and rapidly evolving field that assesses whether changes in the probabilities of extreme events are attributable to GHG emissions. If the potential applications of PEA are to be considered responsibly, dialogue between scientists and policy makers is fundamental. Two key questions are considered here through a literature review and key stakeholder interviews with representatives from the science and policy sectors underpinning L&D. These provided the opportunity for in-depth insights into stakeholders’ views on firstly, how much is known and understood about PEA by those associated with the L&D debate? Secondly, how might PEA inform L&D and wider climate policy? Results show debate within the climate science community, and limited understanding among other stakeholders, around the sense in which extreme events can be attributed to climate change. However, stake- holders do identify and discuss potential uses for PEA in the WIM and wider policy, but it remains difficult to explore precise applications given the ambiguity surrounding L&D. This implies a need for stakeholders to develop greater understandings of alternative conceptions of L&D and the role of science, and also identify how PEA can best be used to support policy, and address associated challenges.