Bibliographic record
Abstract
From 11 January 2009 the common law choice of law rule for unjust enrichment will be replaced in Member States of the European Union by the provisions in the Rome II Regulation. The first part of this article will analyze the new rule in Article 10, setting out its provisions and explaining how they will operate. For civil lawyers, that analysis will be reasonably familiar. But for lawyers in Europe’s common law legal systems — the United Kingdom and Ireland — it will be quite different from what preceded it. Until now, in those countries there was no statutory or codified choice of law rule for unjust enrichment. Rather, the rule was left to the case law, and was what judges in the few cases that had been decided had stated the rule to be. For the United Kingdom and Ireland, the adoption of Rome II means that the choice of law rule for unjust enrichment can be much more easily and confidently stated. A key question, however, for the common law countries is whether the content of the new rule is consistent with, or an improvement on, the earlier common law rule. The second section of this article will explain the common law rule and compare it with the new rule in Article 10. This comparison will not only highlight how the law in the United Kingdom and Ireland has been changed, but will also provide guidance as to how the courts in those countries might apply Article 10.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".