English Contract Law and the Great War: the development of a doctrine of frustration

This article examines changes that occurred in English contract law as a result of the demands made upon Great Britain by the Great War. The focus is on the development of the doctrine of frustration in English law. In particular, it is argued that the development of the doctrine of frustration was fashioned from internal legal forces in the form of both existing case law and emergency legislation in response to the demands placed upon the nation by a global war. The way in which the doctrine of frustration developed during the Great War arose as a direct result of the way in which Britain chose to meet the logistical demands created by the way it fought the Great War.

Proprietary estoppel: a functional analysis

This article argues in favour of a functional analysis of proprietary estoppel which focuses on the role of the doctrine in enabling claims to the informal acquisition of property rights in land. The article shows that adopting such an analysis both assists our understanding of two recent decisions of the English House of Lords and helps to resolve issues of taxonomy that arise in relation to the doctrine. A functional analysis both unites the sub-categories of proprietary estoppel into a single principle and distinguishes this principle from other types of estoppel claim. It is suggested, however, that the unification of common law and equitable estoppel remains both possible and desirable as long as ‘unification’ is understood broadly and is not confined to the recognition of a doctrine that is identical in its scope and operation in all cases. It is further shown that despite a lack of discussion of the concept in the House of Lords, unconscionability continues to play a key role in proprietary estoppel and therefore in the informal acquisition of property rights. Unconscionability may now benefit from a closer connection with the other elements of claims which should prevent abuse of the concept and allay concerns of ‘palm-tree justice’.

Understanding unconscionability in proprietary estoppel

In a series of recent cases, courts have reasserted unconscionability as the basis of proprietary estoppel and in doing so have moved away from the structured form of discretion envisaged in the classic Taylors Fashions formula. In light of these developments, this paper traces the use of unconscionability in estoppel and examines the changing role attributed to the concept. In a parallel development, in exercising their remedial discretion once a claim to estoppel has been established, the courts have emphasised the foundation of estoppel in unconscionability to assert the need for proportionality between the detriment and remedy as ‘the most essential requirement’. Collectively, the cases demonstrate a lack of transparency or consistency, which raises concerns that the courts are descending into a form of individualised discretion. These developments are of particular concern as they come at a time when commentators are predicting a ‘boom’ in estoppel to follow the introduction of electronic conveyancing.

Predicating from an early age: edusemiotics and the potential of children’s preconceptions

This paper aims to explain how semiotics and constructivism can collaborate in an educational epistemology by developing a joint approach to prescientific conceptions. Empirical data and findings of constructivist research are interpreted in the light of Peirce’s semiotics. Peirce’s semiotics is an anti-psychologistic logic (CP 2.252; CP 4.551; W 8:15; Pietarinen in Signs of logic, Springer, Dordrecht, 2006; Stjernfelt in Diagrammatology. An investigation on the borderlines of phenomenology, ontology and semiotics, Springer, Dordrecht, 2007) and relational logic. Constructivism was traditionally developed within psychology and sociology and, therefore, some incompatibilities can be expected between these two schools. While acknowledging the differences, we explain that constructivism and semiotics share the assumption of realism that knowledge can only be developed upon knowledge and, therefore, an epistemological collaboration is possible. The semiotic analysis performed confirms the constructivist results and provides a further insight into the teacher-student relation. Like the constructivist approach, Peirce’s doctrine of agapism infers that the personal dimension of teaching must not be ignored. Thus, we argue for the importance of genuine sympathy in teaching attitudes. More broadly, the article also contributes to the development of postmodern humanities. At the end of the modern age, the humanities are passing through a critical period of transformation. There is a growing interest in semiotics and semiotic philosophy in many areas of the humanities. Such a case, on which we draw, is the development of a theoretical semiotic approach to education, namely edusemiotics (Stables and Semetsky, Pedagogy and edusemiotics: theoretical challenge/practical opportunities, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, 2015).

Joint criminal enterprise

The doctrine of joint criminal enterprise is in disarray. Despite repeated judicial scrutiny at the highest level, the doctrine's scope, proper doctrinal basis and function in relation to other modes of complicity remain uncertain. This article examines the doctrine's elements and underlying principles. It argues that while joint criminal enterprise is largely used to make individuals liable for offences committed by their associates in excess of the common criminal purpose, its proper function is to police the limits of associate liability and thus to exculpate rather than inculpate. The doctrine governs not only instances of accessorial liability; it also applies where the parties involved are joint principal offenders. As this puts into question the prevalent view that joint criminal enterprise is a form of secondary participation that results in accessorial liability, the article concludes that it is best seen as a doctrine sui generis.

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.

Confessionalism and conversion in the Reformation

Recent research on the Reformation has been concerned with the process by which lay people acquired a religious identity, whether it began merely as an act of political obedience or by a sudden ‘conversion’ to new doctrines. Confessional politics made it imperative for rulers to try to control the religious allegiances of their people, but the doctrine of conversion (as a spiritual change) made this theoretically impossible. Instead, a ‘culture of persuasion’ developed by which clerical and secular rulers sought to persuade their people to accept teachings authorized by the state. The possibility of religious dissent, of converting away from the state-sanctioned denomination, made conversion an issue whose importance was far greater than the actual number of converts. The study of confessionalism and conversion emphasises two theses fundamental to Reformation studies: that the era produced radical changes in the ways that people thought about their personal and communal identities, and that it made individuals’ religious choices the urgent concern of their governors.

Military doctrine, command philosophy and the generation of fighting power: genesis and theory

Military doctrine is one of the conceptual components of war. Its raison d’être is that of a force multiplier. It enables a smaller force to take on and defeat a larger force in battle. This article’s departure point is the aphorism of Sir Julian Corbett, who described doctrine as ‘the soul of warfare’. The second dimension to creating a force multiplier effect is forging doctrine with an appropriate command philosophy. The challenge for commanders is how, in unique circumstances, to formulate, disseminate and apply an appropriate doctrine and combine it with a relevant command philosophy. This can only be achieved by policy-makers and senior commanders successfully answering the Clausewitzian question: what kind of conflict are they involved in? Once an answer has been provided, a synthesis of these two factors can be developed and applied. Doctrine has implications for all three levels of war. Tactically, doctrine does two things: first, it helps to create a tempo of operations; second, it develops a transitory quality that will produce operational effect, and ultimately facilitate the pursuit of strategic objectives. Its function is to provide both training and instruction. At the operational level instruction and understanding are critical functions. Third, at the strategic level it provides understanding and direction. Using John Gooch’s six components of doctrine, it will be argued that there is a lacunae in the theory of doctrine as these components can manifest themselves in very different ways at the three levels of war. They can in turn affect the transitory quality of tactical operations. Doctrine is pivotal to success in war. Without doctrine and the appropriate command philosophy military operations cannot be successfully concluded against an active and determined foe.

Non-display uses of digital works: Google Books and beyond

With the advent of mass digitization projects, such as the Google Book Search, a peculiar shift has occurred in the way that copyright works are dealt with. Contrary to what has so far been the case, works are turned into machine-readable data to be automatically processed for various purposes without the expression of works being displayed to the public. In the Google Book Settlement Agreement, this new kind of usage is referred to as ‘non-display uses’ of digital works. The legitimacy of these uses has not yet been tested by Courts and does not comfortably fit in the current copyright doctrine, plainly because the works are not used as works but as something else, namely as data. Since non-display uses may prove to be a very lucrative market in the near future, with the potential to affect the way people use copyright works, we examine non-display uses under the prism of copyright principles to determine the boundaries of their legitimacy. Through this examination, we provide a categorization of the activities carried out under the heading of ‘non-display uses’, we examine their lawfulness under the current copyright doctrine and approach the phenomenon from the spectrum of data protection law that could apply, by analogy, to the use of copyright works as processable data.

Conscience, discretion and the creation of property rights

This paper considers the utility of the concept of conscience or unconscionable conduct as a contemporary rationale for intervention in two principles applied where a person seeks to renege on an informal agreement relating to land: the principle in Rochefoucauld v Boustead; and transfers 'subject to' rights in favour of a claimant. By analysing the concept in light of our current understanding of the nature of judicial discretion and the use of general principles, it responds to arguments that unconscionability is too general a concept on which to base intervention. In doing so, it considers the nature of the discretion that is actually in issue when the court intervenes through conscience in these principles. However, the paper questions the use of constructive trusts as a response to unconscionability. It argues that there is a need, in limited circumstances, to separate the finding of unconscionability from the imposition of a constructive trust. In these limited circumstances, once unconscionability is found, the courts should have a discretion as to the remedy, modelled on that developed in the context of proprietary estoppel. The message underlying this paper is that many of the concerns expressed about unconscionability that have led to suggestions of alternative rationales for intervention can in fact be addressed whilst retaining an unconscionability analysis. Unconscionability remains a preferable rationale for intervention as it provides a common thread that links apparently separate principles and can assist our understanding of their scope.

Whatever works: proportionality as a constitutional doctrine

In The Global Model of Constitutional Rights Kai Möller claims that the proportionality test is underlain by an expansive moral right to autonomy. This putative right protects everything that advances one’s self-conception. It may of course be limited when balanced against other considerations such as the rights of others. But it always creates a duty on the state to justify the limitation. Möller further contends that the practice of proportionality can best be understood as protecting the right to autonomy. This review article summarizes the main tenets of Möller’s theory and criticizes them on two counts. First, it disputes the existence of a general right to autonomy; such a right places an unacceptably heavy burden on others. Second, it argues that we do not need to invoke a right to autonomy to explain and justify the main features of the practice of proportionality. Like other constitutional doctrines, proportionality is defensible, if it is grounded in pragmatic –mainly epistemic and institutional- considerations about how to increase overall rights compliance. These considerations are independent of any substantive theory of rights.