From: | Summers,AD <A.D.Summers@lse.ac.uk> |
To: | Robert Stevens <robert.stevens@law.ox.ac.uk> |
Peter Radan <peter.radan@mq.edu.au> | |
obligations@uwo.ca | |
Date: | 07/11/2017 12:41:37 UTC |
Subject: | RE: Misconstrued Cases |
How about Victoria Laundry - Asquith LJ’s comments on the headnote in Hadley v Baxendale?
Niranjan Venkatesan has written about this in his chapter on remoteness in our Defences in Contract collection, and Victor Goldberg (I think a member of this list?) has also recently written something
on it.
Best wishes,
Andy
From: Robert Stevens [mailto:robert.stevens@law.ox.ac.uk]
Sent: 07 November 2017 12:28
To: Peter Radan <peter.radan@mq.edu.au>; obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: RE: Misconstrued Cases
I wonder if you might be referring to Stilk v Myrick, and the different reports of what Lord Ellenborough said? Discussed here
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1748-121X.1999.tb00638.x/epdf
From: Peter Radan [peter.radan@mq.edu.au]
Sent: 07 November 2017 00:56
To: obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: Misconstrued Cases
Colleagues,
When in law school - decades ago - I call a professor referring to a case which had come to stand for authority for a legal principle, even though the decision itself did not expound such a principle. Apparently,
later cases referred to an incorrect headnote in the report of the case as the principle that emerged from it.
I cannot recall the case (or the principle), but would be obliged if anyone can refer me to it - and thereby confirm that I still have a functioning memory. I would also be interested in knowing of any other instances
where a case has become authority for a rule or principle which it did not state or declare.
Many thanks,
Peter Radan
Peter Radan FAAL
Professor of Law
Macquarie Law School | Level
5, W3A Building (Room 527)
Macquarie
University, NSW 2109, Australia
T: +61
2 9850 7091 | F: +61
2 9850 9686