Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:44:22.992Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Professor Rubin’s Reply Does Not Live up to Its Title

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2017

Anthony D’Amato
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

If there were a truth-in-advertising law that applied to essays in the American Journal of International Law, Alfred Rubin’s reply to my article on Judge Bork could be charged with deceptive packaging. His tentative and speculative contentions hardly prove his title statement that I am “seriously mistaken.” Yet his very failure of proof means that my arguments remain valid and that I have suffered no damage. As a result, I may lack standing, or have no cause of action, to bring a case of deceptive advertising against Professor Rubin.

Type
Agora: What Does Tel-Oren Tell Lawyers?
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 79 , Issue 1 , January 1985 , pp. 112 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1985

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.)