Protecting Prepaying Buyers of Unascertained Goods: Why ‘Pay before You Go’ May Be Bad for You
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper shows that the traditional equitable doctrine, which protected the rights of a prepaid buyer of future or unascertained goods, was wrongly perceived as being overruled by the judgment of a single Court of Appeal judge. What followed, however, was considerable judicial reluctance by English courts to remedy this error. The article examines various legislative and judicial approaches from major common law jurisdictions around the world that purport to lessen the potential for injustice created by this judicial caution. Yet despite legislative intervention in England to provide limited remedies, there has been a marked reluctance elsewhere to produce the necessary radical reform suggested by the Law Reform Commission of Ontario. The position in Ireland is examined and the authors note that the time may be ripe for a reconsideration of the current statutory provisions in that jurisdiction.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".