...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>The journal of business law >The Rule in Foss v Harbottle is Dead: Long Live the Rule in Foss v Harbottle
【24h】

The Rule in Foss v Harbottle is Dead: Long Live the Rule in Foss v Harbottle

机译：Foss v Harbottle中的规则已死：Foss v Harbottle中的规则万岁

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Consensus practitioner or academic opinion is not an admissible interpretative aid in determining the purpose and meaning of legislation. Yet in practice such consensus views may infiltrate the interpretative process. This problem is particularly acute in the context of legislative reform projects where there is a consensus narrative as to both the prior legal problem and the intended legislative response. When "we all know" what the legislative change was intended to remedy it is easy to ride rough-shod over legislative ambiguities that do not fit with the narrative. In such contexts there is a risk that consensus views, although formally inadmissible, disperse literal legislative ambiguity and its exploration. In doing so, academic and practitioner consensus becomes a latent, and illegitimate, source of law. One area raising such problems is the recent reform of derivative action law in the UK.
机译：在确定立法的目的和意义时，共识从业者或学术观点不是可接受的解释性帮助。但实际上，这种共识观点可能会渗透到解释过程中。在立法改革项目的背景下，这个问题尤为严重，因为在该立法改革项目中，既有关于先验法律问题，也有关于预期的立法对策的共识性叙述。当“我们都知道”立法变更旨在补救的内容时，很容易对与叙述不符的立法歧义over之以鼻。在这种情况下，有一种风险是，尽管共识共识在形式上是不可接受的，但它们会分散字面的立法歧义及其探索。这样一来，学术界和实践界的共识就成为潜在的，非法的法律渊源。引起此类问题的领域之一是英国最近对衍生诉讼法进行的改革。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号