Highlights
Private law is often said to be distinctive in a certain sense: it is about ‘interpersonal justice’. But consider the following: Antony Duff says criminal law is to be understood in a certain relational way. Kristen Rundle says that the Fullerian ideal of the internal morality of law concerns certain relations between the lawgiver and law subject. Avihay Dorfman argues that there are relational aspects of many public law duties. If there is any meaningful use of the relational architecture in these domains, it must extend beyond the vision offered by what is traditionally known as the ‘bipolarity’ thesis in private law.
The Coronation Cases: The Development of the Doctrine of Frustration
The Coronation cases have long been recognised as important in the development of the doctrine of frustration in the common law; they also stand at the boundary between contract and unjust enrichment. And yet these are troublesome cases: they appear contradictory; they turn on fine distinctions; and they produced consequences so unjust as to attract later judicial criticism and legislative intervention. In this Article, Professor Catharine Macmillian argues that not only is the modern understanding of these cases flawed but also that their seminal role in the development of the modern doctrine of frustration, with all its attendant problems, has been misunderstood. A legal history of these cases informs our understanding in a manner which allows reforms to the modern law.
Do Doctors have a Right to Perform Medically Unneccessary Genital Operations on Minors?
In the United States, UK, and Australia in recent years, criminal proceedings have been brought against members of a small immigrant Muslim community that practices, for religious reasons, both male circumcision for boys and ‘ritual nicking’ of the vulva for girls. Only the procedure for girls has been considered illegal. Defenders of these practices assume that parents have a right to authorize, and doctors to perform, religious rituals involving genital cutting or tissue-removal on non-consenting (e.g., prepubertal) minors. Opponents claim that temporarily non-autonomous persons of all sex characteristics or gender designations have a right to ‘genital integrity’ that is violated by any genital interference that is not urgently medically necessary. This seminar will review the ongoing legal and ethical debates in this area and point to key areas requiring further attention.
The Marex Tort: A Nascent or Unnecessary Tort?
Where a defendant (D) induces a third party (T) to act in a way that contravenes the terms of a court order granted in favour of a plaintiff (P) in an action brought by P against T, does D commit a tort that arises by analogy with the wrong of inducing breach of contract? In the United Kingdom, there is growing support— among those on the bench and at the bar—for such a view. But such support ignores a number of juridical hurdles that, in different ways, all stand in the way of portraying the action as a valuable addition to the tort law canon. Prime among these is the fact that court orders do not ordinarily invest winning plaintiffs with rights against T that are infringed when D induces T’s non-compliance with the court order. T is placed under a duty; but it is a duty owed to the court. All that D induces, then, is a contempt of court, but not a private law wrong done by T to P.