Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T12:55:01.867Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

English Legal Terminology: Legal Concepts in Language, 3rd ed. By Helen Gubby. The Hague:Eleven International Publishing, 2011. Pp. 272. ISBN 978-90-8974-547-7. €35.00; US$52.50.

Review products

English Legal Terminology: Legal Concepts in Language, 3rd ed. By Helen Gubby. The Hague:Eleven International Publishing, 2011. Pp. 272. ISBN 978-90-8974-547-7. €35.00; US$52.50.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2019

Scott Rasmussen
Scott Rasmussen*
Affiliation:
San Francisco, CA USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Reviews
Information
International Journal of Legal Information , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , Winter 2011 , pp. 394 - 395
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 by the International Association of Law Libraries. 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

4 Or even respecting systems that are quite similar. Dr. Gubby knows enough about the United States to recognize that even innocuous terms such as “firm” and “company” have very different meanings under English and American law.Google Scholar

5 With this in mind, there is unlikely ever to be a legal equivalent to SI units or IUPAC nomenclature.Google Scholar

6 Dutch-speakers will enjoy her pithy letter to a national broadsheet bemoaning the ignorance of the paper's London correspondent of English law and constitutional machinery. See “Rechtssysteem” in the Volkskrant of March 16, 2000.Google Scholar