In the opening fragment of Digest 18.1, Paul tells us that Sabinus and Cassius had not required a money price in sale. So long as you could distinguish buyer and seller, they had contended, the mere fact that the buyer paid with goods made no difference, but such a permutatio was sale. Sabinus had appealed to the authority of Homer, who says: ‘From there (i.e., from the ships sent by Euneus from Lemnos) the long-haired Achaeans procured wine, some for bronze, some for gleaming iron, some for hides, some for whole cattle and some for slaves’.

As these verses do not contain the term ‘sale’ at all, they are generally regarded as pointless; and it is held that all Sabinus can have meant to prove by them was that other things than money might be used for trading—a platitude for which he need not have-searched the ancient books. This, however, is doing him an injustice. As a matter of fact, he knew very well why he adduced just this passage. The word χαλκῷ here rendered as ‘for bronze’ was rendered as ‘aere’ by the Romans. Paul, in the very fragment under discussion, says that the Greeks obtained wine ‘aere ferrohominibusque’ One of the meanings of ‘aes’, as indeed of χαλκóς, was ‘money’. (One may think, for example, of ‘aes alienum’.) It was, therefore, possible to ascribe to χαλκῷ in the passage quoted the sense of ‘for money’, instead of ‘for bronze’. Sabinus translated: ‘They procured wine, some for money, some for gleaming iron,’ etc.

Traditionally, common lawyers are used to examining other jurisdictions of their legal family as a source of inspiration for law reform or even as persuasive authority for the development of case law. Developments in continental civil law jurisdictions are less noted. However, particularly in the field of public law, English law is now being influenced by civil law concepts through the mediation of Community law.1 Product liability provides an example in private law of rules shared by the civil and common law jurisdictions of the European Union due to harmonisation by the Product Liability Directive. An important new area of non-contractual liability is environmental liability. Firmly established in the United States, liability for damage to the environment is increasingly being introduced in many countries around the world.3 In the European Union, the first step towards Community-wide legislation was taken in March 1993 with the publication of a Green Paper by the Commission.4 One of the many controversial aspects of a possible environmental liability regime is the issue of standing to sue.

INTito v. Waddell (No. 2), Megarry V.-C. famously described, and differentiated, the two dealing rules, the “self-dealing rule” and the “fair-dealing rule”, that apply to those occupying fiduciary positions: The self-dealing rule is … that if a trustee sells the trust property to himself, the sale is voidable by any beneficiary ex debito justitiae, however fair the transaction. The fair-dealing rule is … that if a trustee purchases the beneficial interest of any of his beneficiaries, the transaction is not voidable ex debito justitiae, but can be set aside by the beneficiary unless the trustee can show that he has taken no advantage of his position and has made full disclosure to the beneficiary, and that the transaction is fair and honest.

The legislature gives effect to the values of democracy and compromise in a pluralist society, but the legislation it produces is mediated in its application by the values inherent in the legal culture into which it is received. The judges complete the law promulgated by Parliament by applying it. In articulating the common law also, the judges act within the bounds of objective standards supplied by legal and political traditions, with a limited legislative role. The legislative role of the judges in applying statutes has been enhanced by the interpretive obligations applicable in areas where EU and ECHR law operates.

In Jogee and Ruddock, the Supreme Court/Privy Council decided that the law on secondary liability took a “wrong turn” in 1984 in the Privy Council's decision in Chan Wing-Siu. Chan Wing-Siu's contemplation/foresight-based fault element for secondary liability was alleged by the Supreme Court/Privy Council to have bucked a legal trend towards requiring that the secondary party intended to encourage or assist every one of the principal's offences. This article presents an alternative history of secondary liability that explains a wider selection of cases from 1553–1984 than were considered in Jogee and Ruddock. On this alternative account, Chan Wing-Siu was simply a more explicit and intellectually honest decision than its predecessors. If this alternative view of history is accepted, the Supreme Court/Privy Council's claim to be merely “correcting” (rather than substantively reforming) the law of secondary liability should be rejected. Doing so would make more critical a question that was side-stepped in Jogee and Ruddock, namely whether this reform should have been undertaken by the judiciary, rather than the legislature.

The police do not owe a duty of care to protect victims from the criminal acts of a third party when investigating or suppressing crime save in exceptional circumstances. This is justified as an application of the omissions principle and on several other grounds. The article argues that most of these justifications are unconvincing and it sets outs a positive rationale for the imposition on the police of a duty of care in respect of sufficiently proximate victims of a negligent omission. The scope of this duty can be coherently delimited by re-adjusting the existing framework of negligence liability of public authorities.

(1) Legal Basis

When the first issue of the Cambridge Law Journal appeared in 1921, the English rules of the conflict of laws were those stated and reformulated by Dicey and by the editors of Westlake and Foote. Their progress between 1858 and 1912 had been charted by Dicey himself in a survey published in 1912. The legal basis for the application of foreign law in England was and remained Lord Mansfield's pronouncement in Holman v. Johnson: “Every action here must be tried by the law of England, but the law of England says that in a variety of circumstances … the law of the country where the cause of action arose shall govern.” Dicey never waivered in his adherence to this rule of English law, but he supplemented it with an argument drawn from the doctrine of acquired rights which bedevilled English lawyers for a long time, until in 1949 the editors of the sixth edition of Dicey took what they believed to be a bold, but substantially honest, step by restricting the concept to its proper boundaries and thus by depriving it of its capacity to serve as a general principle of the Conflict of Laws.

This paper traces a key example of the overlap between tort and crime and explains the impact of how disjointed English legal thinking has been. For about 400 years English civil courts have accepted some form of pre-eminence of the criminal law where civil and serious criminal liability co-exist. This has often been described as the rule that “a trespass merges in a felony” though a more neutral term would be a “timing rule”. The development of the timing rules casts light on how English legal reasoning has approached the relationship between the victim and the state, the procedural context of substantive rules and the impact rules in one area of law can have elsewhere.

I hope that I shall not either dissatisfy you or disappoint you in what I have got to say to-night, in offering you some observations on the Permanent Court of International Justice, but I confess that it is a pleasure to me to feel that I can cast away all such taints and disadvantages as may attach to a member of the Government, and speak to you as a Trinity man.

The doctrine of anticipatory breach was officially first established in a famous 1853 case, enabling a party to a contract to terminate it and sue for damages immediately after the other party refused to fulfil its part, despite the fact that the time stipulated for the latter's performance had not arrived. The doctrine has since been employed by counsel as a vehicle to justify a premature termination of contract in numerous legal battles. It was perhaps with the confidence in such vast general judicial experience that Lord Wilberforce once declared that the rules determining the existence of an anticipatory breach constituted “one of the more perspicuous branches of the law of contract”. With due respect, however, his Lordship seemed to be too optimistic on that occasion. When one takes a closer look at decided cases, it is hard to resist the conclusion that this area of law is still plagued with inconsistency, uncertainty and incoherence. Where the existence of an anticipatory breach of contract is in dispute, the courts have been applying two distinct approaches to fact patterns of the same nature. A major cause for this disparity is the courts' failure to realise in some cases that the cases they are dealing with are anticipatory breach cases and should be subjected to a uniform test. This cognitive failure is largely attributable to the fact that, although the term “anticipatory breach” itself was criticised on several occasions, little has been done to illuminate the very nature of an anticipatory breach of contract and what distinguishes it from what we normally conceive of as a breach of contract, namely an “actual breach” of contract. Another cause of the disparity of the courts' approaches is perhaps English law's case-to-case, piecemeal methodology. Pragmatic though this methodology may be, it is sometimes necessary to amass the fragmented pieces and fit them into a clear and stable conceptual structure, thereby bringing the law to a higher level of generalisation. It is the purpose of this article to propose a general legal test for all types of anticipatory breach on the basis of an exposition of its nature and hopefully to bring order, rationality and unity to this chaotic area of law.

The Countess Gundred was an occasional litigant in the Curia Regis Rolls of Richard I and John. She was evidently an important person. Other women are described in the rolls as the wife or widow or daughter of someone: she is simply ‘Comitissa Gundreda’ (ComitisGund) without more. She was probably the daughter of Roger, Earl of Warwick, and was perhaps a great granddaughter of William the Conqueror. Her first husband was Hugh Bigod, first Earl of Norfolk; her second was Roger de Glanvill, brother of the Justiciar.

In this paper I propose to defend legal conventionalism against the attack mounted on it in Chapter 4 of Ronald Dworkin's book Law's Empire. I do not propose to defend legal conventionalism against other arguments which might conceivably be deployed against it. Nor do I propose to say anything of great substance about the positive merits of the position.