MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2987342371 · doi:10.1017/9781780689449.001

Introduction to the ‘Law of Remedies’

2019· book-chapter· en· W2987342371 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Franz Hofmann, Franziska Kurz

Bibliographic record

VenueIntersentia eBooks · 2019
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLaw, logistics, and international trade
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDamagesTortLawCommon lawPolitical scienceEquity (law)ScholarshipLaw and economicsSociologyLiability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Is there such a thing as a ‘Law of Remedies’? The answer probably depends on your juridical provenance. Those who were educated in England, the United States or Australia will agree that quite a few scholars in these jurisdictions devote their writing, inter alia, to questions surrounding remedies. A. Burrows, for example, covers judicial remedies in his textbook, Remedies for Torts and Breach of Contract. The focus is on principles governing the remedial law instead of substantive tort or contract law. Furthermore, the book is not restricted to remedies available, for example, for breach of contract, but ‘treat(s) the area as a coherent whole’. A. Burrows argues that this has the great advantage’ of enabling the many similarities, as well as the differences, between tortious and contractual remedies and their governing principles to be fully appreciated’. Similarly, S. Waddams points out that the ‘ Law of Remedies’ ‘is worthy of study because it enables illuminating parallels to be drawn that cross the boundaries between contract and tort, and between law and equity’. Although there might be specific principles for the assessment of damages in intellectual property (IP) law or contract law, there seems to be a value in looking at different types of remedies side by side. In either case, textbooks in, for example, the UK, the US, Canada or Australia exclusively handle remedies, such as damages, account of profits, injunctions or specific performance. Admittedly, this is a recent phenomenon. The origins of a ‘remedies scholarship’ can be found in the 1970s. It was only in 1972 that F.H. Lawson published the first scholarly work dedicated to remedies. Since then, the ‘Law of Remedies’ appears to have become an increasingly ‘stand-alone’ research area. At the beginning of this century, R. Zakrzewski tried to classify remedies. T.F. Cotter focuses on an economic and comparative analysis of remedies in patent law. Recently, a conference at the University of Cambridge explored themes and controversies with respect to commercial remedies. Previously, scholars reflected on how to justify private law remedies. More edited volumes can be located easily. And finally, J. Berryman claimed that meanwhile ‘(t)he law of remedies has truly come of age’.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntersentia eBooksSame topicLaw, logistics, and international tradeFrench-language works237,207