Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:44

From: Jason Neyers

Subject: How this group got its name

Dear Chaim:

The name was chosen with two concerns in mind: 1) to include tort, unjust enrichment, equity and contract but to exclude technical discussions of the law of property (for which there is another list) (therefore not the private law discussion group); 2) to be inclusive of those from civil law or mixed jurisdictions. Obligations seemed the best word to address these concerns (which might be reflective of my bi-juridical training at McGill and its use by scholars such as Peter Birks).

Sincerely,

----- Original Message -----
From: Chaim Saiman
Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 12:58 pm
Subject: ODG: How this group got its name

Dear Friends,

My question relates to the name of this discussion group.

To the best of my knowledge, the term "law of obligations" has its roots in the civil rather than the common law. In US very few lawyers and even professors recognize the category of obligations (or even private law for that matter - but that is a different story) unless they have foreign law training. In the US, the categories that are roughly comparable are "common law" "commercial law," or in the law school context "first year courses," --- all of which are both under and over inclusive of the way "obligations" is used.

I'd be interested to know anything about the history of the term "obligations" in common law systems; or how did this group get its name.

--
Jason Neyers
Associate Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
University of Western Ontario
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>