9780192859860 - Justifying Strict Liability: A Comparative Analysis in Legal Reasoning de Cappelletti, Marco (16 resultados)

Hardcover. Condición: New. Estado de la sobrecubierta: New. First Edition. Dark blue hardback in new condition: firm and square with bright gilt lettering. Complete with original dustjacket, neat and sharp, not showing any scuffs, tears or chips. Contents crisp, tight and clean; no pen-marks. Not from a library so no such stamps or labels. Looks and feels unread. Thus a very nice copy.

Condición: New.

HRD. Condición: New. New Book. Shipped from UK. Established seller since 2000.

HRD. Condición: New. New Book. Shipped from UK. Established seller since 2000.

Condición: new.

Condición: As New. Unread book in perfect condition.

Condición: New.

Condición: As New. Unread book in perfect condition.

Hardback. Condición: New. New copy - Usually dispatched within 4 working days.

Hardcover. Condición: new. Hardcover. The imposition of strict liability in tort law is controversial, and its theoretical foundations are the object of vigorous debate. Why do or should we impose strict liability on employers for the torts committed by their employees, or on a person for the harm caused by their children, animals, activities, or things? In responding to this type of questions, legal actors rely on a wide variety of justifications. Justifying Strict Liability explores, in acomparative perspective, the most significant arguments that are put forward to justify the imposition of strict liability in four legal systems, two common law, England and the United States, and two civil law,France and Italy. These justifications include: risk, accident avoidance, the 'deep pockets' argument, loss-spreading, victim protection, reduction in administrative costs, and individual responsibility. By looking at how these arguments are used across the four legal systems, this book considers a variety of patterns which characterise the reasoning on strict liability. The book also assesses the justificatory weight of the arguments, showing that these can assume varying significance in thefour jurisdictions and that such variations reflect different views as to the values and goals which inspire strict liability and tort law more generally. Overall, the book seeks to improve ourunderstanding of strict liability, to shed light on the justifications for its imposition, and to enhance our understanding of the different tort cultures featuring in the four legal systems studied. This book explores in a comparative perspective the most significant arguments that are put forward to justify the imposition of strict liability in four legal systems, two common law, England and the United States, and two civil law, France and Italy. Shipping may be from multiple locations in the US or from the UK, depending on stock availability.

Condición: Sehr gut. Zustand: Sehr gut | Seiten: 376 | Sprache: Englisch | Produktart: Bücher | This book explores in a comparative perspective the most significant arguments that are put forward to justify the imposition of strict liability in four legal systems, two common law, England and the United States, and two civil law, France and Italy.

Hardcover. Condición: Brand New. 376 pages. 9.00x6.25x1.00 inches. In Stock.

Hardcover. Condición: Brand New. 376 pages. 9.00x6.25x1.00 inches. In Stock. This item is printed on demand.

Hardcover. Condición: new. Hardcover. The imposition of strict liability in tort law is controversial, and its theoretical foundations are the object of vigorous debate. Why do or should we impose strict liability on employers for the torts committed by their employees, or on a person for the harm caused by their children, animals, activities, or things? In responding to this type of questions, legal actors rely on a wide variety of justifications. Justifying Strict Liability explores, in acomparative perspective, the most significant arguments that are put forward to justify the imposition of strict liability in four legal systems, two common law, England and the United States, and two civil law,France and Italy. These justifications include: risk, accident avoidance, the 'deep pockets' argument, loss-spreading, victim protection, reduction in administrative costs, and individual responsibility. By looking at how these arguments are used across the four legal systems, this book considers a variety of patterns which characterise the reasoning on strict liability. The book also assesses the justificatory weight of the arguments, showing that these can assume varying significance in thefour jurisdictions and that such variations reflect different views as to the values and goals which inspire strict liability and tort law more generally. Overall, the book seeks to improve ourunderstanding of strict liability, to shed light on the justifications for its imposition, and to enhance our understanding of the different tort cultures featuring in the four legal systems studied. This book explores in a comparative perspective the most significant arguments that are put forward to justify the imposition of strict liability in four legal systems, two common law, England and the United States, and two civil law, France and Italy. This item is printed on demand. Shipping may be from our UK warehouse or from our Australian or US warehouses, depending on stock availability.

Buch. Condición: Neu. Justifying Strict Liability | A Comparative Analysis in Legal Reasoning | Marco Cappelletti | Buch | Gebunden | Englisch | 2022 | Oxford University Press(UK) | EAN 9780192859860 | Verantwortliche Person für die EU: Libri GmbH, Europaallee 1, 36244 Bad Hersfeld, gpsr[at]libri[dot]de | Anbieter: preigu Print on Demand.

Buch. Condición: Neu. nach der Bestellung gedruckt Neuware - Printed after ordering - The imposition of strict liability in tort law is controversial, and its theoretical foundations are the object of vigorous debate. Why do or should we impose strict liability on employers for the torts committed by their employees, or on a person for the harm caused by their children, animals, activities, or things In responding to this type of questions, legal actors rely on a wide variety of justifications. Justifying Strict Liability explores, in a comparative perspective, the most significant arguments that are put forward to justify the imposition of strict liability in four legal systems, two common law, England and the United States, and two civil law, France and Italy. These justifications include: risk, accident avoidance, the 'deep pockets' argument, loss-spreading, victim protection, reduction in administrative costs, and individual responsibility. By looking at how these arguments are used across the four legal systems, this book considers a variety of patterns which characterise the reasoning on strict liability. The book also assesses the justificatory weight of the arguments, showing that these can assume varying significance in the four jurisdictions and that such variations reflect different views as to the values and goals which inspire strict liability and tort law more generally. Overall, the book seeks to improve our understanding of strict liability, to shed light on the justifications for its imposition, and to enhance our understanding of the different tort cultures featuring in the four legal systems studied.