Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 23:03

From: Chaim Saiman

Subject: Obligations in the common law

OK, so Jason has addressed how this group got its name, but I guess I am more interested in what stands behind it.

How is it (and since when) do common lawyers know what the "law of obligations" is? My guess is that 30 years ago common lawyers would not have used this term. I assume that this has something do to with the Europeanization on English law.

Jason's answer suggests 3 possible explanations.

1. Canadian lawyers trained in both common and civil law and spread it to England and the rest of the commonwealth (and perhaps the case can be made for other mixed jurisdictions that taught it to the non-mixed jurisdictions).

2. Roman law trained Peter Birks introduced it to English legal academics and from there is spread to other commonwealth academics.

Or 3, some combination between 1 and 2.

I'd be interested to hear views on which seems more correct. Also, is this solely a term used by scholars or do the English (and other commonwealth courts use it as well?

thanks,
Chaim Saiman

Chaim Saiman
Assistant Professor
Villanova Law School
610.519.3296
http://ssrn.com/author=549545

>>> Jason Neyers 12/12 1:44 PM >>>

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).

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