Limitation of Actions - effect of admission of liability

The decision in Simpson v Lenton [2002] QDC 214 applied the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Lindsay v Smith [2002] 1 Qd R 610 and Morris v FAI General Insurance Co Ltd [1996] 1 QDR 495 in finding the second defendant, having admitted liability, was estopped from relying on the expiration of the limitation period.

The economics of credence goods : an experiment on the role of liability, verifiability, reputation and competition

Credence goods markets are characterized by asymmetric information between sellers and consumers that may give rise to inefficiencies, such as under- and overtreatment or market breakdown. We study in a large experiment with 936 participants the determinants for efficiency in credence goods markets. While theory predicts that liability or verifiability yield efficiency, we find that liability has a crucial, but verifiability at best a minor, effect. Allowing sellers to build up reputation has little influence, as predicted. Seller competition drives down prices and yields maximal trade, but does not lead to higher efficiency as long as liability is violated. (JEL D12, D82)

Dr. Porter's Sermon on Presumption of Skeptical Men and Careless Contemners of Religion

Sermon.

Much Ado About Nothing: The Limitation of Liability and the Market for 19th century Irish Bank Stock

Abstract Limited liability is widely believed to be a prerequisite for the emergence of an active and liquid securities market because the transactions costs associated with trading ownership of unlimited liability firms are viewed as prohibitive. In this article, we examine the trading of shares in an Irish bank, which limited its liability in 1883. Using this bank’s archives, we assemble a time series of trading data, which we test for structural breaks. Our results suggest that the move to limited liability had a negligible impact upon the trading of this bank’s shares.

The Presumption of Innocence and Irish Criminal Law:Whittling the Golden Thread

The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty has been described as the 'golden thread' running through the web of the English criminal law and a 'fundamental postulate' of Irish criminal law which enjoys constitutional protection. The purpose of this book is to consider whether the reality matches the rhetoris surrounding this central precept of our criminal law and to consider its efficacy in light of recent legislative innovations.

Threats to the Presumption of Innocence in Irish Criminal Law:An Assessment

The existence of four contemporary threats to the presumption of innocence in England and Wales has recently been posited by Ashworth. In his examination of legislation and case law impacting on the presumption, he concludes ‘generally recognised as a fundamental right it may be, but its precise significance for the defendant is so contingent as to raise doubts’. In an Irish context, Hamilton too has written of the ‘growing insignificance of the presumption of innocence for accused persons’ such that ‘[its] tangible benefits [appear] little in evidence’ in our criminal justice system. In light of these rather depressing diagnoses, the aim of this paper is to attempt to take stock of the law in the Republic of Ireland impacting upon the presumption of innocence as well as to search for some possible explanations for recent developments.

Corporate Mechanisms and the Presumption of Accountability

This paper seeks to draw out this focus on form in British public administration reform by focusing on the role that the idea of the corporate form has played in reform. Drawing on the codification of Foundation Trusts in the English NHS, I argue that, while accountability ought to be considered as a 'social space' in which conduct conducive to particular interests emerges, reformers tend to regard accountability as a function of appropriate procedures and forms. The turn to the corporate form relies on a hope that it will deliver various 'accountability' benefits will emerge. This hope, I argue, is misplaced

Extending the golden thread? Criminalisation and the presumption of innocence

It seems to be widely accepted that the presumption of innocence, and the attendant standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' properly apply in the courtroom as a procedural principle directly grounded in the moral imperative to avoid punishing those who should not be punished. In this article I argue that if this is correct, then we ought be as careful about what we criminalise, as we are about who we punish, since people can be wrongfully punished by criminalisation errors as well as by conviction errors.

Could the presumption of innocence protect the guilty?

At criminal trial, we demand that those accused of criminal wrongdoing be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. What are the moral and/or political grounds of this demand? One popular and natural answer to this question focuses on the moral badness or wrongness of convicting and punishing innocent persons, which I call the direct moral grounding. In this essay, I suggest that this direct moral grounding, if accepted, may well have important ramifications for other areas of the criminal justice process, and in particular those parts in which we (through our legislatures and judges) decide how much punishment to distribute to guilty persons. If, as the direct moral grounding suggests, we should prefer under-punishment to over-punishment under conditions of uncertainty, due to the moral seriousness of errors which inappropriately punish persons, then we should also prefer erring on the side of under-punishment when considering how much to punish those who may justly be punished. Some objections to this line of thinking are considered.

An overview of liability and compensation for personal injury in China under the general principles of civil law

This article reviews the personal injury tort system in the People's Republic of China (PRC). The Chinese torts law has a number of unique features. To begin with, it is quite new — the legal framework of torts law was established only in 1986. The unique features of the Chinese torts law also stem from its long and difficult evolution over nearly 40 years. Equally important has been the remarkable blend of influences that have shaped its current law — a mixture of socialist objectives, capitalist pragmatism, and feudal doctrines combined with jurisprudential models taken from a range of western civil codes and, more recently, the common law.

Part one of the article briefly analyses the most important features of the existing Chinese legal system. Part two provides a background to the enactment of the General Principles of Civil Law (GPCL), which incorporates Chinese torts law. The review looks at the development and drafting of the GPCL legislation, and the influences that guided the formulation of legal principles. Part three of the article provides an overview of the torts law provisions in the GPCL. Part four examines the law of personal injury established by the GPCL. Part five uses some case studies to illustrate the principles highlighted in the previous two parts and part six contains a brief conclusion and some pointers to the directions that Chinese torts law may take in the future.