Курсовая Ответственность из деликта в общем праве на английском языке

The liabilities incurred by way of contract are more or less expressly fixed by the agreement of the parties concerned, but those arising from a tort are independent of any previous consent of the wrong-doer to bear the loss occasioned by his act. If A fails to pay a certain sum on a certain day, or to deliver a lecture on a certain night, after having made a binding promise to do so, the damages which he has to pay are recovered in accordance with his consent that some or all of the harms which may be caused by his failure shall fall upon him. But when A assaults or slanders his neighbor, or converts his neighbor's property, he does a harm which he has never consented to bear, and if the law makes him pay for it, the reason for doing so must be found in some general view of the conduct which every one may fairly expect and demand from every other, whether that other has agreed to it or not.

Such a general view is very hard to find. The law did not begin with a theory. It has never worked one out. The point from which it started and that at which I shall try to show that it has arrived, are on different planes. In the progress from one to the other, it is to be expected that its course should not be straight and its direction not always visible. All that can be done is to point out a tendency, and to justify it. The tendency, which is our main concern, is a matter of fact to be gathered from the cases. But the difficulty of showing it is much enhanced by the circumstance that, until lately, the substantive law has been approached only through the categories of the forms of action. Discussions of legislative principle have been darkened by arguments on the limits between trespass and case, or on the scope of a general issue. In place of a theory of tort, we have a theory of trespass. And even within that narrower limit, precedents of the time of the assize and jurata have been applied without a thought of their connection with a long forgotten procedure. All these

The object of the term paper is  examination of the conception of tort liability in the Common Law.

Research task:

• To study of constitutive theory of tort liability
• To examine of the grounds of tort liability
• To analyze of the process of specification

1. Arlen, Jennifer. 2000., 'Tort Damages', in Boudewijn Bouckaert and Gerrit De Geest (eds.), Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, vol. n, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.
2. Austin, Jurisprudence (3d ed.), 440 et seq., 474, 484, Lect. XX., XXIV., XXV.
3. Corone, pl. 6; Neal v. Gillett, 23 Conn. 437, 442; D. 9. 2. 5, Section 2; D. 48. 8. 12.
4. Calabresi, Guido. 2000., The Costs of Accidents: A Legal and Economic Analysis, New Haven, Yale University Press.
5. Galanter, Marc. 1999. Makers of Tort Law, DePaulLaw Review 49:559.
6. English Law, I. 113 (bis), n.a; Id., ed. Finlason, I. 178, n. 1. Fitzherbert (N.B. 85, F.) says that in the vicontiel writ of trespass, which is not returnable into the king's court, it shall not be said quare vi et armis. Cf. Ib. 86, H.
7. Holmes O.W. 2000. The Common Law, 78-81
8. Knapp v. Salsbury, 2 Camp. 500;
9. Kraakman, Reinier H. 2000.'Vicarious and Corporate Civil Liability', in Boudewijn Bouckaert and Gerrit De Geest (eds.), Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, vol. II, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.
10. Landes, William M. and Posner, Richard A. 1980, 'Multiple Tort feasors: An Economic Analysis', 9 Journal of Legal Studies, 517-555.
11. Landes, William M. and Posner, Richard A. 1991., 'An Economic Theory of Intentional Torts', 1 International Review of Law and Economics, 127-154.
12. Landes, William M. and Posner, Richard A. 1993., 'Causation in Tort Law', Journal of Legal Studies, 109-134.
13. Landes, William M. and Posner, Richard A. 1997, The Economic Structure of Tort Law, Cambridge (MA), Harvard University Press.
14. Landes, William M. and Posner, Richard A. 2003, 'Causation in Tort Law', Journal of Legal Studies, 109-134.
15. Landes, William M. and Posner, Richard A. 2004, 'Tort Law as a Regulatory Regime for Catastrophic Personal Injuries', Journal of Legal Studies, 417434.
16. Miceli, Thomas J. 1997, Torts, Contracts, Property, Litigation, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
17. Milman v. Dolwell, 2 Camp. 378;
18. Parisi, Francesco. 2004. Alterum non Laedere: An Intellectual History of Civil Liability', 39 American Journal of Jurisprudence, 317-351.
19. Peafey v. Walter, 6 C.&P. 232; Hall v. Fearnley, 3 Q.B. 919.
20. Peck, Robert S. 2001a. In Defense of Fundamental Principles, Seton Hall Law Review, 31:672, 677.
21. Polinsky, A. Mitchell and Che, Yeon-Koo (2001), 'Decoupling Liability: Optimal incentives for Care and Litigation', 22 Rand Journal of Economics, 562-570.
22. Priest, George L. 2001. The Constitutionality of State Tort Reform Legislation and Lochner, Seton Hall Law Review, 31: 683, 683.
23. Rizzo, Mario J. 2002. 'A Theory of Law of Torts', 11 Journal of Legal Studies, 281-310.
24. Slind-Flor, Victoria. 1996. Tort Revision: "Lost Cause" in California?, National Law Journal, Apr. 8, p. B1.
25. Tort Reform Laws Held Unconstitutional. 2001. Tort Reform Laws Held Unconstitutional by State Courts after January 2003, Rutgers Law Journal 32:939.
26. Tort Revision. 1994. Tort Revision Continues to Occupy Headlines, but its Progress Is Not Always Triumphal, National Law Journal, Dec. 26, p. C12 .
27. Werber, Stephen J. 2001. Ohio: A Microcosm of Tort Reform Versus State Constitutional Mandates, Rutgers Law Journal 32:1045, 1047.
28. Williams, Robert F. 1999. State Constitutional Law: Cases and Materials (Lexis Law Publishing, 3d ed.