Corporate structures across different jurisdictions are frequently utilised for commercial,_x000D_ profit-making purposes. Notwithstanding this common underpinning, there is undeniably "real" (John Armour, Henry Hansmann & Reinier Kraakman, "What is Corporate Law?" in The Anatomy of Corporate Law—A Comparative and Functional Approach (2009) at p. 1 [Armour]) divergence in the jurisdiction-specific corporate laws that govern them. And diversity is necessary fodder for comparative scholarship, a diversity that this book nabashedly celebrates. The book presents case studies on how the derivative action operates in seven selected Asian jurisdictions. In addition, the editors author three overview chapters which attempt to draw the diverse threads together to present a coherent whole. As editors Puchniak, Baum and Ewing-Chow explain in their preface, a project which began as a quest for similarities revealed an "inconvenient truth" and that is that there is no single_x000D_ "grand theory" that unites the operation of the derivative action across the chosen Asian jurisdictions (at p. 90). Instead, how the derivative action functions in the different jurisdictions profiled can be accurately understood only if the multiplicity of local factors in each jurisdiction is duly considered and analysed. However, the book is itself necessarily predicated on a legal convergence, albeit admittedly a broad one - a convergence that is manifested in the governance strategy adopted by the corporate laws of the different jurisdictions: the conferment of a litigation decision right on minority shareholders. Indeed, comparative studies in corporate laware often informed by the "impressive" (Armour at p. 1) underlying uniformity of the corporate form, and the laws that govern it. As Armour, ansmann and Kraakman observed, "[b]usiness corporations have a fundamentally similar set of legal characteristics - and face a fundamentally similar set of legal problems - in all jurisdictions" (Armour at p. 1). The derivative action is one such common response to a_x000D_ common corporate law problem.

There are a number of ways to writing a law book. One is the traditional 'black letter' approach, by providing information on what the current rules and principles of law are and how to use those rules and principles to solve legal problems. This approach assumes that legal issues are by and large separate and distinct from normal everyday activity. However, law is essentially a socio-political institution. For corporate law, there is an added dimension of economic considerations. Therefore, it is no longer sufficient for authors writing on an applied area of law to produce a purely expository text without considering its non-legal context. Iain MacNeil's book is one of such books that provide more than just the legal principles and regulatory rules relevant to financial investment. He also tries to draw from other disciplines relevant theories and principles in order to introduce an element of critical awareness and assessment into the areas considered.

The author of this treatise holds the positions of Emeritus Professor of Law, University_x000D_ of Sydney, General Editor of the Journal of Contract Law and Consultant to Herbert Smith Freehills. Earlier versions of Emeritus Professor Carter's treatise on breach of contract (previously published in 1984 and 1991, and substantially reworked and retitled as a 2012 first edition with Hart Publishing) have taken their place in the canon of leading works focusing primarily on this topic (other recent additions include John Stannard and David Capper, Termination for Breach of Contract (2014) and Neil Andrews, Malcolm Clarke, Andrew Tettenborn and Graham Virgo, Contractual Duties: Performance, Breach, Termination and Remedies (rev 2017)).

Given the competitive nature of legal academia today, anyone believing in free market economics would seldom find a PhD thesis or monograph that makes one wonder why it had not hitherto been written. Rachel Leow’s book on attribution in private law, based on her Cambridge PhD, falls into that category. Like the proverbial twenty dollar note lying before the economist, you may not pick it up because rationally it cannot be there.

Marital Agreements and Private Autonomy in Comparative Perspective is based on_x000D_ a research project of the same title. In its Preface, the Editor Jens Sherpe writes: "[I]t was apparent that the legal position on marital agreements in England and Wales contrasted starkly with that of the continental European jurisdictions, which seemed to merit a comparative study". Indeed, in recent years, the legal status of marital agreements in England and Wales has been criticised and debated on. The courts in the U.K. have a wide discretion over the determination of the financial consequences of a divorce, and marital agreements made between spouses over such matters are not enforceable in themselves. In contrast, many of the continental European jurisdictions have more definite default matrimonial property regimes and also permit marital agreements to be enforced. The topic was made part of the Law Commission of England andWales' Tenth Programme of Law Reform.

Company law is extremely complex, in part because it is founded upon a substratum of statute, regulatory law, contract, tort law, equity and more. Researchers tend each to focus upon one of the main areas of inquiry, these being corporate governance, securities regulation, and corporate liability. Many basic concepts relevant to the study of company law remain contested. Debate rumbles on about matters such as separate legal personality, the boundaries of the company, corporate purpose, limited liability, veil-piercing, and so on. This review focuses upon the question of how the company is to be viewed in theoretical terms. “Theoretical” means, in this context, abstracting from less significant details and concentrating upon the company’s most important elements and functions, and upon the way that it operates in the commercial world.