scholarly journals Third Party Child-Centered Disputes: Parental Rights v. Best Interest of the Child

1969 ◽  
pp. 394 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Joyce Schlosser

The author opens by defining and discussing the two competing approaches to third party child-centred disputes. She then goes on to place the discussion in context by examining the relevant British and Canadian case law and reviewing the pertinent legislation. She concludes by offering criticism and recommendations for reform.

Author(s):  
Ly Tayseng

This chapter gives an overview of the law on contract formation and third party beneficiaries in Cambodia. Much of the discussion is tentative since the new Cambodian Civil Code only entered into force from 21 December 2011 and there is little case law and academic writing fleshing out its provisions. The Code owes much to the Japanese Civil Code of 1898 and, like the latter, does not have a requirement of consideration and seldom imposes formal requirements but there are a few statutory exceptions from the principle of freedom from form. For a binding contract, the agreement of the parties is required and the offer must be made with the intention to create a legally binding obligation and becomes effective once it reaches the offeree. The new Code explicitly provides that the parties to the contract may agree to confer a right arising under the contract upon a third party. This right accrues directly from their agreement; it is not required that the third party declare its intention to accept the right.


Author(s):  
Masami Okino

This chapter discusses the law on third party beneficiaries in Japan; mostly characterized by adherence to the German model that still bears an imprint on Japanese contract law. Thus, there is neither a doctrine of consideration nor any other justification for a general doctrine of privity, and contracts for the benefit of third parties are generally enforceable as a matter of course. Whether an enforceable right on the part of a third party is created is simply a matter of interpretation of the contract which is always made on a case-by-case analysis but there are a number of typical scenarios where the courts normally find the existence (or non-existence) of a contract for the benefit of a third party. In the recent debate on reform of Japanese contract law, wide-ranging suggestions were made for revision of the provisions on contracts for the benefit of third parties in the Japanese Civil Code. However, it turned out that reform in this area was confined to a very limited codification of established case law.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 465-488
Author(s):  
Thomas M.J. Möllers

AbstractThe Europeanisation of domestic law calls for a classical methodology to ‘update’ the established traditions of the law. The relationship between European directives and national law is difficult, since directives do apply, but European legal texts need to be implemented into national law. Whilst directives are not binding on private individuals, there is no direct third-party effect, but only an ‘indirect effect’. This effect is influenced by the stipulations of the ECJ, but is ultimately determined in accordance with methodical principles of national law. The ECJ uses a broad term of interpretation of the law. In contrast, in German and Austrian legal methodology the wording of a provision defines the dividing line between interpretation and further development of the law. The article reveals how legal scholars and the case-law have gradually shown in recent decades a greater willingness to shift from a narrow, traditional boundary of permissible development of the law to a modern line of case-law regarding the boundary of directive-compliant, permissible development of the law.


2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 664-684
Author(s):  
Christian Heinze ◽  
Cara Warmuth

Abstract In March 2018, the European Commission issued its proposal for a regulation on the law applicable to third-party effects of assignments of claims, aiming to put an end to the ongoing debate on this issue and the legal uncertainty associated with it. On the basis of the Commission’s decision in favour of the application of the law of the assignor’s habitual residence, this article discusses the consequences of the Proposal under European Union (EU) insolvency law. For that purpose, the coherence of the Proposal with the Insolvency Regulation will be examined, first in general and then in more detail. The analysis comes to the result that the Commission’s objective of aligning the Proposal with the legal framework of the Insolvency Regulation has predominantly been well achieved. The authors point out remaining minor inaccuracies that may be clarified in the further legislative process or by later case law. It is concluded that, from the perspective of international insolvency law, the proposed uniform conflict-of-laws rule at the EU level offers a good opportunity to promote legal certainty with regard to cross-border assignments of claims in the future.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Merrick Max Dillard Hayashi

This Case Note analyzes the Ninth Circuit’s approach to the issue of whether patients and doctors destroy proximate cause in cases where third-party payors (“TPPs”) sue drug companies for fraudulently misrepresenting the health risks associated with their products. In the 2019 case Painters & Allied Trades District Council 82 Health Care Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals Co., the Ninth Circuit held that TPPs suing to recover damages from a pharmaceutical company for the fraudulent omission of a drug’s health risks could satisfy the proximate cause requirement for a civil cause of action under § 1964(c) of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). The Ninth Circuit’s decision is satisfactory in that it faithfully (1) observes the Supreme Court’s direct relation test and (2) follows precedent establishing that a plaintiff satisfies the proximate cause requirement when their alleged injury is a foreseeable and natural consequence of the defendant’s fraud. As a matter of public policy, this holding is positive because it hamstrings pharmaceutical companies’ ability to escape liability by hiding behind patients, doctors, and other actors inhabiting the chain of causation. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit’s holding is positive in that it adheres to Supreme Court precedent and helps deter future injurious conduct. In support of these assertions, this Case Note begins by examining the factual background and procedural posture of Painters. The Note continues by analyzing the majority’s opinion with respect to related case law and closes by suggesting ways to address some of the potential problems that could stem from the Ninth Circuit’s decision.


Author(s):  
Judith Lewis

Despite changing family compositions, entrenched in family law is the antiquated idea that a two-parent household, or its approximation vis-à-vis a shared custody arrangement, promotes stability and integrity and, thus, is in the best interest of the child. Yet, the concept that the two-parent household (or shared involvement of both parents in the child’s life if the parents separate) promotes stability for the family and is best for the child is a dangerous fallacy. When rape or intimate partner violence (IPV) is present, or the re-occurrence of violence remains a threat, the family unit is far from stable. This Article explores the legal system’s glorification of the nuclear family, its resistance to shifting away from the two-parent paradigm, and how this resistance creates a stability paradox and perpetuates violence against women and children. The harmful impact that the nuclear family paradigm has on families is further explored by an examination of the statutory constructs and judicial interpretations of termination of parental rights (TPR) and custody statutes in cases where a child is conceived as a result of rape or exposed to ongoing IPV. Cases are utilized to examine how courts have interpreted parental rights statutes where a child is conceived as a result of rape. Additionally, a hypothetical case is discussed to explore arguments that may be advanced in TPR cases where children are exposed to ongoing IPV. The Article finds that although there are inherent problems in enacting statutes to terminate parental rights in cases involving rape or IPV, legislation is also a necessary tool for survivors. Model legislation is proposed for termination of parental rights in cases where a child is conceived as a result of a sexual offense or when a child is exposed to ongoing IPV.


This is a new edition of the established authority on the law relating to directors of companies incorporated under the UK Companies Acts. The new edition features all important developments in the law including the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 which improves transparency (including requiring directors to be natural persons unless exceptions apply), simplifies company filing requirements, clarifies the application of general duties to shadow directors, modernises directors’ disqualification and reforms insolvency law to facilitate proceedings where there has been wrongdoing. There has been a wealth of new case law relevant to directors’ duties before the English courts, all of which are analysed and explained, including the Supreme Court decisions in Prest v Petrodel Resources, Jetivia v Bilta (UK), FHR European Ventures v Cedar Capital Partners and Eclairs Group v JKX Oil & Gas, the Court of Appeal decisions in Smithton Ltd v Naggar and Newcastle International Airport v Eversheds as well as the important High Court decisions in Universal Project Management Services v Fort Gilkicker, Madoff Securities International v Raven and the wrongful trading case, Re Ralls Builders. Non-UK cases are also analysed including Weavering Macro Fixed Income Fund Ltd v Peterson in the Cayman Islands’ Court of Appeal and the 2016 decision of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Chen v Jason. In keeping with developments in case law and legislation the book now includes expanded coverage of multiple derivatives claims, directors’ exposure to third party claims and a new chapter on civil remedies for market abuse. The third edition is a complete reference work on the law relating to company directors and is the first port of call for all serious corporate lawyers and scholars on this subject.


Author(s):  
Richard Calnan
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  

This chapter explains what tracing is. Differing descriptions of the expression are discussed. Tracing does not seek to examine intention; tracing imposes a proprietary interest. The chapter discusses the principles of tracing at common law and how a person becomes a legal owner of a substitute asset. In particular, the rules as to indentification of a substitute asset are discussed. The chapter contains a detailed discussion of the case law on tracing at common law. Attempts to distinguish tracing from ‘following’ are discussed. The chapter distinguishes tracing against the wrongdoer from tracing against a third party.


Author(s):  
Chester Brown

This chapter gives a short introduction to the history of international dispute settlement by third-party adjudication. It notes that there is a gap in the existing literature, being an examination of procedure and remedies before different international courts, and an answer to the question of whether the same procedural rules obtain, and the same remedies are available, before different international judicial bodies. It presents the book's central thesis — that international courts often adopt common approaches to questions of procedure and remedies, which leads to increasing commonality in the case law of international courts. It then explains that the term ‘common law of international adjudication’ refers to the emergence of an increasingly homogeneous body of rules applied by international courts and tribunals relating to procedure and remedies. It then defines the terms ‘procedure’ and ‘remedies’. It also covers certain selected aspects of international adjudication, and reviews the jurisprudence of certain selected international courts and tribunals.


2021 ◽  
pp. 307-358
Author(s):  
Robert Merkin ◽  
Séverine Saintier

Poole’s Casebook on Contract Law provides a comprehensive selection of case law that addresses all aspects of the subject encountered on undergraduate courses. This chapter examines privity of contract, its relationship with consideration, and the ability of third parties to enforce contractual provisions for their benefit. The doctrine of privity of contract provides that the benefits of a contract can be enjoyed only by the parties to that contract and only parties can suffer the burdens of the contract. At common law, third party beneficiaries could not enforce a contractual provision in their favour so various devices were employed seeking to avoid privity. Statute now allows for direct third party enforcement but in limited circumstances. This chapter examines the background to privity and the attempted statutory reform in the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as it has been interpreted in the case law. The chapter also discusses the common law means of avoiding privity as illustrated by the case law, e.g. agency, collateral contracts, and trusts of contractual obligations. Finally, it assesses the remedies available to the contracting party to recover on behalf of the third party beneficiary of the promise, including the narrow and broad grounds in Linden Gardens Trust. It concludes by briefly considering privity and burdens—and the exceptional situations where a burden can be imposed on a person who is not a party to the contract.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document