Defects of English Rules of Contractual Interpretation and Their Challenges for African Businesses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Law Society of England and Wales, as well as English politicians and judges, claim that English (contract) law is admirable, settled and predictable, and non-English legal systems are “laxer systems” whose judges are not as exceptionally knowledgeable as English judges. These claims of legal superiority attract foreign litigants such as African businesspeople to use English laws and forums to resolve their contractual disputes. This article aims to disprove these claims by rigorously assessing them from an Afrocentric lens, as well as from the prediction theory of law, English case law, and rules of contractual interpretation. It finds that English contract law and dispute resolution mechanisms are far from predictable and settled. Also, there is a staggering level of disagreement among English judges regarding their interpretation of commercial contracts. The article exposes the defects of English contract laws to enable foreign businesses to make informed decisions about their choice of laws and forums to resolve their contractual disputes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".