Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:03

From: Harold Luntz

Subject: Obligations in the common law

Having been away, I come late to this discussion. Unless I've missed it, I'm surprised that no one, including Andrew himself, has mentioned A M Tettenborn, An Introduction to the Law of Obligations, Butterworths, London, 1984.

When the new law schools were created in Australia in the 1960s, there was a general movement to depart from the traditional subject classifications. If I remember correctly, Monash taught "the Law of Obligations" in place of Contract and Tort. I think Christie Weeramantry (later a judge of the International Court of Justice at the Hague) was responsible for it.

Regards,
Harold.

Harold Luntz
Professorial Fellow
Law School
The University of Melbourne

----- Original Message -----
From: John Swan
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 2:16 AM
Subject: RE: ODG: obligations in the common law

For those of us who took Conflicts, particularly from John Morris, the use of the term, “obligations”, to encompass both contracts and torts — restitution wasn’t invented then — would have appeared quite natural.  When Jason used the word in setting up the Group, that connotation made the use of the word, at least for me, entirely appropriate and expected.

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