Extraordinary remedies.

Reprinted from American law and procedure, ed. by J.P. Hall, v.9.

The manual of peace; exhibiting the evils and remedies of war.

"The original work embraced, ʻ1. The evils and remedies of war ; 2. Suggestions on the law of nations; 3. Considerations of a congress of nations.' The two last parts, and several chapters in the first, on capital punishments, are, with the author's consent, omitted in this edition."--Note to the stereotype ed., signed: G.C.B.

Reasserting the distinctive character of share-holder remedies in Scotland - Wilson v Inverness Retail and Business Park Ltd

Juridical Review. Looks at the question of whether an individual shareholder has title to bring an action on the company's behalf in exceptional circumstances, as considered in the cases of Anderson v Hogg and Wilson v Inverness Retail & Business Park Ltd. Examines the difference between English and Scottish law in this area, notwithstanding the reliance on English case law in Scotland due to the small number of Scottish cases decided. Looks at progress towards the reform of company law and the impact it will have on a shareholder's title to sue.

Casebook on contract law

This volume provides students with a comprehensive selection of the cases most likely to be encountered on contract law courses and is specifically designed to meet their needs. The case law is helpfully structured and presented under clear headings, with the emphasis on explaining the decisions and their implications in order to promote better understanding. The fifth edition incorporates important judgments and assesses the significance of recent decisions of the House of Lords such as Attorney-General v Blake and Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd and the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank plc and Barclays Bank v Coleman. Important recent decisions on remedies for misrepresentation have also been included.

PROTECTING TRADE SECRETS IN LITIGATION - THE IMPACT OF ARTICLE 9 OF THE EU TRADE SECRET DIRECTIVE ESPECIALLY ON FINNISH LAW

In November 2013 the European Commission issued the “Proposal for a Directive on the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure” (referred to as “TSD”). The TSD offers minimum harmonisation and aims at promoting sharing of knowledge, and the exploitation of innovations on the Internal Market. The European Parliament adopted the TSD on April 14, 2016 and the EU Member States will have two years to implement it. The TSD includes a harmonised definition of a trade secret that builds on the definition provided in Article 39 of the TRIPS Agreement. Moreover, it also ensures the freedom of expression and information and the protection of whistle-blowers. Appropriate means of actions and remedies against unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure of trade secrets are also included, such as provisional and pecuniary measures, injunctions and corrective measures or allocation of damages. This study examines the protection of trade secrets in the course of litigation regulated in Article 9 of the TSD. Currently, the protection of trade secrets within the EU is fragmented especially in this regard, which makes companies reluctant to resort to litigation when a trade secret has unlawfully been misappropriated or it is suspected that a trade secret is being misused. The regulations in Article 9 expand only to the hearing in court. Such protection is welcomed and a step in the right direction. However, in my study I have found that in order for the protection to be sufficient there is a need to further establish measures to protect trade secrets during the entire process, from the filing of the claim to the end when the judgement is given. Consequently, I also discuss different measures that could be used to strengthen the protection of trade secrets before the hearing in court, as evidence are gathered.

Protecting Trade Secrets In Litigation The Impact of Article 9 of The EU Trade Secret Directive Especially on Finnish Law

In November 2013 the European Commission issued the “Proposal for a Directive on the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure” (referred to as “TSD”). The TSD offers minimum harmonisation and aims at promoting sharing of knowledge, and the exploitation of innovations on the Internal Market. The European Parliament adopted the TSD on April 14, 2016 and the EU Member States will have two years to implement it. The TSD includes a harmonised definition of a trade secret that builds on the definition provided in Article 39 of the TRIPS Agreement. Moreover, it also ensures the freedom of expression and information and the protection of whistle-blowers. Appropriate means of actions and remedies against unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure of trade secrets are also included, such as provisional and pecuniary measures, injunctions and corrective measures or allocation of damages. This study examines the protection of trade secrets in the course of litigation regulated in Article 9 of the TSD. Currently, the protection of trade secrets within the EU is fragmented especially in this regard, which makes companies reluctant to resort to litigation when a trade secret has unlawfully been misappropriated or it is suspected that a trade secret is being misused. The regulations in Article 9 expand only to the hearing in court. Such protection is welcomed and a step in the right direction. However, in my study I have found that in order for the protection to be sufficient there is a need to further establish measures to protect trade secrets during the entire process, from the filing of the claim to the end when the judgement is given. Consequently, I also discuss different measures that could be used to strengthen the protection of trade secrets before the hearing in court, as evidence are gathered.

Engaging Students in the Implementation of Criterion Referenced Assessment in First Year Law

The Queensland University of Technology (QUT) University Academic Board approved a new QUT Assessment Policy in September 2003, which requires a criterion-referenced approach as opposed to a norm-referenced approach to assessment across the university(QUT,MOPP,2003). In 2004, the QUT Law School embarked upon a process of awareness raising about criterion-referenced assessment amongst staff and from 2004 – 2005 staggered the implementation of criterion-referenced assessment in all first year core undergraduate law units. This paper will briefly discuss the benefits and potential pitfalls of criterion referenced assessment and the context for implementing it in the first year law program, report on student’s feedback on the introduction of criterion referenced assessment and the strategies adopted in 2005 to engage students more fully in criterion referenced assessment processes to enhance their learning outcomes.