Role Of English Commercial Law On International Commercial Dealings

Common law is formed on the basis that courts will make decisions based on past judgments (Letwin, 2011). Cases with similar circumstances will be ruled in the saw way. In most cases the common law will combine with statutory and constitutional law in order to make decisions. Common law bases on the fact that court cases will be primarily ruled on precedent (Aspen Publishers, 2010). The common law is crucial to understanding almost all important

It would be impractical for judges to not make law in some situations as both parties in the case would not want the judge to refuse to deal with the case and they would want the matter decided. ‘Judicial decisions are important as a source of law on matters where the government is

Common law developed in the judicial system of England and its colonies before 1776. Statutory law refers to the body of law that is enacted by state and federal legislatures. Common law is not in any particular form; it consists of quotable statements taken from relevant opinions by prior judges, as well as ancient statutes, and is often summarized in legal treatises. Statutory law is found in the current published laws of each jurisdiction and is relatively concise. Although most states have adopted common law by legislative decree, state legislatures do not feel obligated to pass statutes consistent with common law, and inconsistent statutes supersede common law. Only in areas in which the legislature has not acted does common law serve as the primary authority. For example, the adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code in each state changed some rules of common law previously in effect.

* Case Law/Precedent/STARE DECISIS – Case Law is the doctrines and principles announced in cases. It governs all areas not covered by statutory law or administrative law and is part of our common law tradition. A Precedent is a decision that furnished an example of authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar legal principles or facts. For example, when a judge is making a ruling on a case, the judge may refer back to a similar case to see what the previous ruling was to keep the result similar. Stare Decisis is the practice of this process, deciding new cases with reference

Modern day common law is adjudicated similarly with it being judged according to available statutes or acts enacted by legislative bodies and decisions made in previous cases after all evidence and facts are attained. The decisions of a court/judge are binding only in a particular jurisdiction (area of control or influence), and even within jurisdiction, some courts have more power than others. Due to this before a decision is made it must be accepted by higher courts (Statute and Common Law, 2014).

This essay will examine the doctrine of Judicial precedent that helps form the English Legal System. It will illustrate various views that have been raised by Judges and relating cases to the use of ‘Stare decisis’ when creating precedents. In addition it will discuss how the developments in the powers of the courts now also allow them to depart from these precedents to an extent.

They are: a) jurisdiction; b) applicable law; and c) recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. In the United Kingdom, the aforesaid three domains are determined by connecting factors. In respect of the first domain, English courts tend to establish jurisdiction by means of the following connecting factors: nexus and ties between things, person, country, transaction, place of occurrence, etc. In the context of the second domain, English courts often connect legal categories to applicable laws, such as contract, succession, or tort in order to make decision with regard to the laws that apply to a specific dispute or case. With regard to the third domain, English courts decide on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments by way of focusing on outstanding facts that make it possible to establish natural connection between factual patterns and specific system of

The courts of the United Kingdom are institutions there are aim justice to all and deliver fair and equal trails. Although ‘fair and equal’ are not always true to some cases along with ‘justice to all’. Never the less either convicting someone for unlawful activity or resolving a civil dispute, the British legal system employs a variety of courts in its application of the law. It much reminds me of my home country the United States the different level of courts I mean. Magistrates courts have the jurisdiction to try minor offences then for more serious offences are referred to the Crown courts. There are also appellate courts, which include the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court; formally known as the House of Lords. To

Judges have the ability to interpret almost any statue in several different ways, using the nature of language and by giving some words in a statue meaning. When applying statutory laws, judges try to find out the intention of parliament when passing the law. In order to interpret the meaning of a statue, the courts have developed several ‘rules’. These rules can be divided into 3 categories:

A Contract requires several elements in order to be considered enforceable. However for the purpose of this essay we would explore one of these elements in order to effectively understand the controversial cases of Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (contractors) Ltd (1990) and Stilk v Myrick (1804). Before going any further one should briefly understand the doctrine of Consideration. Despite the vast amount of content written, the doctrine of consideration is still to this day unclear due to the inconsistency of the courts and its application of necessary rules. Consideration refers to that which the law deems as valuable in that the promisor receives from the promise that which was promised. In other words, it is the exchange of something of value between the parties in a contract. One should be mindful that in English law, every promise may not be legally enforceable; it requires the court to distinguish between are enforceable and non-enforceable obligations. This brings us to the controversial cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v the Roffery brothers. Many argue that that the case of Williams was wrongly decided leading to impairments in the rule initially established in Stilk v Myrick. This essay seek to analyse and critique the cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v Roffey Brothers and also highlight whether or not the new rule of Practical benefit lead to serious impairments in later cases.

Under the Basic Law, the role of courts include to adjudicate cases in accordance to the law, as well as to interpret laws when necessary. In the case of A Solicitor v Law Society of Hong Kong, the deciding court was the Court of Final Appeal (CFA), a newly established highest court under the new constitutional order of 1997. This case was considered a landmark case as the CFA decided to depart from a recent Privy Council decision and went out on setting a new doctrine of binding precedent under the new constitutional order of Hong Kong.

Nowadays every legal system wants to achieve justice. Different legal traditions in the world have given a different meaning of this concept by following one of the two legal systems: a civil law system and a common law system. The civil law system emerged from Roman law and throughout many centuries has been developed in continental Europe and often is called a “continental legal system”, achieving its prominence through development of aqui communitare in Europe. The common law system emerged in England during the Anglo-Saxon period and was developed by British colonies, reaching its peak in the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

Conceptually, reasonable expectations of honest men and sanctity of contract are not in conflict. Indeed, they often point to the same direction – it is the reasonable expectation of an honest man that an agreement should be executed. Although it is observed that the two themes usually work side by side, this essay argues that in regards to the rules of acceptance of unilateral contracts, the English courts place more emphasis on reasonable expectations when making decisions.

The Rules of the Statutory interpretation are The literal rule (IRC v Hinchy, 1960), the golden rule(R v Allen, 1872), The mischief rule (Smith v Hughes, 1960) and The Ejusdem generis rule (Powell v Kempton Racecourse, 1899) The golden rule of statutory interpretation may be applied where an application of the literal rule would lead to an absurdity(R v Allen (1872) LR 1 CCR 367). This is law/ legislation, which has been enacted by Parliament and through administrative process. The law enacted by Parliament is known as an Act of Parliament.

International commercial arbitration is one of the most important legal institutions in international private law. This conclusion follows from the fact that the nature of arbitration depends largely on autonomy of the parties, who choose arbitration procedure as the procedure in which the dispute will be settled; place where the arbitration is to be held; arbitral tribunal etc. Probably the most important and considerable expression of the autonomy is the right to choose the law, which is to be applied to merits of the dispute. The chosen applicable law guarantees in large measure predictability of the outcome of the case and allows parties to control the scope of interpretation and application of the international commercial