Considering consideration : a critical and comparative analysis of the doctrine of consideration in the Anglo-Canadian common law
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The doctrine of consideration is widely regarded as one of the most problematic contract law doctrines present within the common law. For many years, there had been discussion about its possible removal, but recent times this discussion appears to have come to a virtual halt and little has been done to improve the current situation. It seems that many of the possibilities for the reform of the doctrine of consideration have already been explored by various reform committees and subsequently rejected. In order to re-open the discussion surrounding the problems caused by consideration, and to present further possibilities, this thesis explores a different approach to the reform of the doctrine; it focuses on the modification of contracts in the Anglo-Canadian common law, an area in which consideration has come to be a particular problem and identifies the ways in which the German civil law might act as an aid to the reform of the law in this area. In order to do this, the history of the doctrine of consideration and its German civil law equivalents is examined so as to identify common areas in their development. The reasons for the current need for the reform of the doctrine of consideration in the Anglo-Canadian common law, including its complexity, its use as a mask for the real reasons behind judicial decision-making and the common trend towards the harmonization of contracts law, are then identified. The German rules on the modification of contracts are subsequently identified using a modified functional comparative approach. These rules are then examined in order to determine the ways in which they differ from the Anglo-Canadian common law in the absence of a doctrine of consideration-the main difference being that there is no doctrine of consideration, nor anything comparable to it, within the German law. Finally, it is concluded that the German law would best be used as inspiration for a set of model laws, developed using both the Anglo-Canadian common law and the German civil law.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».