Opting only in: Contractarians, waiver of liability provisions, and the race to the bottom

This paper will test the core claim of scholars in the nexus of contracts tradition—that private ordering as a process of bargaining creates optimal rules. We do this by analyzing empirical evidence in the context of waiver of liability provisions. These provisions allow companies to eliminate monetary damages for breach of the duty of care through amendments to the articles of incorporation. With all states allowing some form of these provisions, they represent a good laboratory to examine the bargaining process between management and shareholders. The contractarian approach would suggest that shareholders negotiate with management to obtain agreements that are in their best interests. If a process of bargaining is at work as they claim, the opt-in process for waiver of liability provisions ought to generate a variety of approaches. Shareholders wanting a high degree of accountability would presumably not support a waiver of liability. In other instances, shareholders might favor them in order to attract or retain qualified managers. Still others would presumably want a mix, allowing waiver but only in specified circumstances.Our analysis reveals that the diversity predicted by a private ordering model is not borne out by the evidence with waiver of liability provisions for Fortune 100 companies. All states permit such provisions and in the Fortune 100, all but one company has them. Moreover, they are remarkably similar in effect, waiving liability to the fullest extent permitted by law. In other words, one categorical rule was merely replaced by another, dealing a significant blow to the contractarian thesis.

Missing Emigrants : Gleanings from Petitions Presented under the Presumption of Life Limitation (Scotland) Acts

Peer reviewed

Amended 1913 ed. of An act prescribing the liability of an employer to make compensation for injuries receied by an eploye in the course of employment, establishing an elective schedule of compensation, and regulating procedure for the determination of liability and compensation thereunder, approved April 4, 1911, amendments approved April 1, 1913. To which is appended supplements to the "Liability act" approved May 2, 1911, March 27, 1913 and April 9, 1913 ...

Mode of access: Internet.

Joint purchasers and the presumption of joint beneficial ownership:a matter of informed choice?

This paper examines the ruling of Jones v Kernott and shows the results of an empirical survey of conveyancing solicitors and their practices where so affected by the ruling. In particular the paper considers how conveyancing practitioners deal with the issue of organising trusts of land and giving advice to clients in relation to the co-purchase of land.

Le régime juridique international de la responsabilité du transporteur maritime de marchandises sous connaissement : un échec?

Les avocats, praticiens et universitaires qui sont engagés dans le droit des transports internationaux de marchandises par mer ont l’habitude de travailler avec un régime complexe de responsabilité du transporteur maritime. La coexistence de plusieurs conventions régissant ce régime et l’imprécision des textes de ces différentes législations rendent leur application difficile d’où l’échec permanent du voeu d’uniformisation de ce droit. En premier lieu, nous retrouvons le régime de base celui de la Convention de Bruxelles sur l’unification de certaines règles en matière de connaissement, ratifiée le 25 août 1924 et ses Protocoles modificatifs annexés en 1968 et 1979. Il s’agit d’un régime fondé sur la présomption de responsabilité comprenant une liste de cas exonératoires appelés « cas exceptés ». En second lieu figurent les Règles de Hambourg, édictées en 1978, qui établissent un régime basé sur la présomption de faute du transporteur à l’exception de deux cas exonératoires : l’incendie et l’assistance ou la tentative de sauvetage. Enfin, apparaît la Convention sur le contrat de transport international de marchandises effectué entièrement ou partiellement par mer, adoptée par les Nations unies en 2009, sous l’appellation « Les Règles de Rotterdam », qui adopte un régime de responsabilité « particulier ». Cette étude a tenté d’analyser ces mécanismes juridiques mis en place. Pour ce faire, nous nous sommes concentrées sur les sources du dysfonctionnement de ces régimes, afin de favoriser le développement d’initiatives d’uniformisation des règles de responsabilité du propriétaire du navire. L’analyse des textes positifs, de la doctrine et de la jurisprudence, nous a permis de constater que les différentes approches du régime juridique du transporteur maritime des marchandises sous ces différentes législations ne garantissent pas la prévisibilité et la sécurité juridiques recherchées par les différents acteurs maritimes. Par conséquent, l’absence d’un régime cohérent et unifié a créé des incertitudes au sein de la communauté maritime internationale et au sein des tribunaux en cas de litige. Pour surmonter cette réalité complexe, notre thèse propose une approche qui pourra simplifier ce régime, l’approche objective.

Rape in Victoria as a crime of absolute liability : a departure from both precedent and progressivism

In recent decades, a disturbing trend has emerged in Victoria and elsewhere that has witnessed the emergence of statutory rules that accord preferential treatment to prosecutors and complainants in instances where allegations of rape are made. This article examines not only the manifestations of such treatment in the form of Victorian crime legislation, but the means by which the statutory crime of rape in Victoria has been transformed into an offence which, though technically one of mens rea, can effectively be prosecuted as an offence of absolute liability. The piece concludes with a discussion of the likely reasons for this trend as well as the implications of allowing such a serious offence to be prosecuted as one of absolute liability.

Don't argue with the ref! - Legal liability for incorrect decisions of sports' officials

This paper continues the conversation from recent articles examining potential remedies available for incorrect decisions by sports officials. In particular, this article focuses on bringing an action against an official in negligence for pure economic loss. Using precedent cases, it determines that such an action would have a low chance of success, as a duty of care would be difficult to establish. Even if that could be overcome, an aggrieved player or team would still face further hurdles at the stages of breach, causation and defences. The article concludes by proposing some options to further reduce the small risk of liability to officials.

The Application of a Pluralist Approach of Global Administrative Law on the Governance of Doping in Sport

Plusieurs problèmes liés à l'utilisation de substances et méthodes interdites de dopage dans les sports posent de grands défis à la gouvernance antidopage. Afin de lutter contre le dopage, certains pays ont mis en oeuvre des cadres juridiques basés exclusivement sur le droit pénal tandis que d'autres pays ont plutôt misé sur des mécanismes et organismes spécialisés trouvant fondement en droit privé ou sur un régime hybride de droit public et privé. Ces différentes approches réglementaires ont pour conséquence de faire en sorte qu’il est très difficile de lutter efficacement contre le dopage dans les sports, notamment parce que leur exécution requiert un degré de collaboration internationale et une participation concertée des autorités publiques qui est difficile à mettre en place. À l’heure actuelle, on peut par exemple observer que les États n’arrivent pas à contrer efficacement la participation des syndicats et organisations transnationales liés au crime organisé dans le marché du dopage, ni à éliminer des substances et méthodes de dopage interdites par la réglementation. Par ailleurs, la gouvernance antidopage basée sur les règles prescrites par l’Agence mondiale antidopage prévoit des règles et des normes distinctes de dopage distinguant entre deux catégories de personnes, les athlètes et les autres, plaçant ainsi les premiers dans une position désavantageuse. Par exemple, le standard de responsabilité stricte sans faute ou négligence imposé aux athlètes exige moins que la preuve hors de tout doute raisonnable et permet l'utilisation de preuves circonstancielles pour établir la violation des règles antidopages. S'appliquant pour prouver le dopage, ce standard mine le principe de la présomption d'innocence et le principe suivant lequel une personne ne devrait pas se voir imposer une peine sans loi. D’ailleurs, le nouveau Code de 2015 de l’Agence attribuera aux organisations nationales antidopage (ONADs) des pouvoirs d'enquête et de collecte de renseignements et ajoutera de nouvelles catégories de dopage non-analytiques, réduisant encore plus les droits des athlètes. Dans cette thèse, nous discutons plus particulièrement du régime réglementaire de l’Agence et fondé sur le droit privé parce qu’il ne parvient pas à répondre aux besoins actuels de gouvernance mondiale antidopage. Nous préconisons donc l’adoption d’une nouvelle approche de gouvernance antidopage où la nature publique et pénale mondiale du dopage est clairement reconnue. Cette reconnaissance combiné avec un modèle de gouvernance adapté basé sur une approche pluraliste du droit administratif global produira une réglementation et une administration antidopage mieux acceptée chez les athlètes et plus efficace sur le plan des résultats. Le nouveau modèle de gouvernance que nous proposons nécessitera toutefois que tous les acteurs étatiques et non-étatiques ajustent leur cadre de gouvernance en tenant compte de cette nouvelle approche, et ce, afin de confronter les défis actuels et de régler de manière plus satisfaisante les problèmes liés à la gouvernance mondiale du dopage dans les sports.

Liability of country foreignness and liability of regional foreignness: their effects on geographic diversification and firm performance

The costs of inter- and intra-regional diversification have been widely discussed in the existing international business literature, but the findings are mixed. Explanations for the mixed findings have important managerial implications, because business managers have to estimate accurately the costs of doing business within and across regions before they make their internationalization decisions. To explain the existing mixed findings, this study differentiates between liabilities of foreignness at the country and regional levels, and explores the joint effects of liability of country foreignness (LCF) and liability of regional foreignness (LRF) on the performance of internationalizing firms. Using data from 167 Canadian firms, we find that LCF may not necessarily be negatively correlated with intra-regional diversification, but LRF is positively correlated with inter-regional diversification. LCF moderates the relationship between LRF and inter-regional diversification, and also mediates the relationship between intra-regional diversification and firm performance. LRF mediates the relationship between inter-regional diversification and firm performance. Missing one or more of these variables may result in different cost estimates. Identification of the relationships between these variables helps to improve the accuracy of estimating the costs of doing business aboard.

The failure of Australian legislation on indirect discrimination to detect the systemic racism which prevents Aboriginal people from fully participating in the workforce

Government figures put the current indigenous unemployment rate at around 23%, 3 times the unemployment rate for other Australians. This thesis aims to assess whether Australian indirect discrimination legislation can provide a remedy for one of the causes of indigenous unemployment - the systemic discrimination which can result from the mere operation of established procedures of recruitment and hiring. The impact of those practices on indigenous people is examined in the context of an analysis of anti-discrimination legislation and cases from all Australian jurisdictions from the time of the passing of the Racial Discrimination Act by the Commonwealth in 1975 to the present. The thesis finds a number of reasons why the legislation fails to provide equality of opportunity for indigenous people seeking to enter the workforce. In nearly all jurisdictions it is obscurely drafted, used mainly by educated middle class white women, and provides remedies which tend to be compensatory damages rather than change to recruitment policy. White dominance of the legal process has produced legislative and judicial definitions of "race" and "Aboriginality" which focus on biology rather than cultural difference. In the commissions and tribunals complaints of racial discrimination are often rejected on the grounds of being "vexatious" or "frivolous", not reaching the required standard of proof, or not showing a causal connection between race and the conduct complained of. In all jurisdictions the cornerstone of liability is whether a particular employment term, condition or practice is reasonable. The thesis evaluates the approaches taken by appellate courts, including the High Court, and concludes that there is a trend towards an interpretation of reasonableness which favours employer arguments such as economic rationalism, the maintenance of good industrial relations, managerial prerogative to hire and fire, and the protection of majority rights. The thesis recommends that separate, clearly drafted legislation should be passed to address indigenous disadvantage and that indigenous people should be involved in all stages of the process.

Maintaining shared knowledge of acquaintance : methods people use to establish who knows whom

Acquaintance is a fundamental determinant of how people behave when interacting with one another. This article focuses on how this type of personal knowledge is an important consideration for people as social actors. Studying naturally-occurring social encounters, I describe how speakers use particular references to convey whether a recipient should be able to recognise a non-present third party. On some occasions, however, the presumption of recognisability or non-recognisability that underpins the use of a particular reference proves questionable. By exploring how recipients can challenge reference forms, and thereby reject claims of either recognisability or non-recognisability, I explain how people establish and maintain a shared understanding of who knows whom. I conclude by discussing motivations for this behaviour, and thereby contribute to understanding the commonsense reasoning that underpins orderly conduct in this aspect of social encounters.

Australian Media Law [5th Edition]

Australian Media Law details and explains the complex case law, legislation and regulations governing media practice in areas as diverse as journalism, advertising, multimedia and broadcasting. It examines the issues affecting traditional forms of media such as television, radio, film and newspapers as well as for recent forms such as the internet, online forums and digital technology, in a clear and accessible format. New additions to the fifth edition include: - the implications of new anti-terrorism legislation for journalists; - developments in privacy law, including Law Reform recommendations for a statutory cause of action to protect personal privacy in Australia and the expanding privacy jurisprudence in the United Kingdom and New Zealand; - liability for defamation of internet search engines and service providers; - the High Court decision in Roadshow v iiNet and the position of internet service providers in relation to copyright infringement via their services; - new suppression order regimes; - statutory reforms providing journalists with a rebuttable presumption of non-disclosure when called upon to reveal their sources in a court of law; - recent developments regarding whether journalists can use electronic devices to collect and disseminate information about court proceedings; - contempt committed by jurors via social media; and an examination of recent decisions on defamation, confidentiality, vilification, copyright and contempt.