Torts, Courts, and Legislatures Comparative Remarks on Civil Law Codifications of Tort Law

Abstract:
This contribution reflects on the relationship between courts and the legislature in tort law from a comparative European perspective. Though there is a substantial body of comparative literature on tort law as such, the relationship between the judiciary and the legislature in comparative tort law has received significantly attention. Here, the approach under civil law systems to tort law is and the interaction between the judiciary and the legislature under those systems is explored. If we look beyond the misconception among common lawyers that civil law courts act merely as ‘porte-parole de la loi’ there is much flexibility to be found. In tort cases, civil law courts may assume a role that complements the role assumed by the legislature. Where codes give leeway for case law to create, develop, and innovate in tort law, courts will fill the space. Where the legislature is active, courts may assume a more subservient role. Yet, there is no single concept of power balance in civil law tort systems. In some countries, courts may be more willing than in others to show policy initiative where the legislature fails to act. The overall conclusion must be that although there is a fundamental difference in the starting point between the common law and those legal systems that have a codified tort law system, the balance between the legislature and the courts may be similar in many respects.

Van Boom, Willem H., Torts, Courts, and Legislatures Comparative Remarks on Civil Law Codifications of Tort Law (February 6, 2012).

Enforcing Bilateral Promises: A Comparative Law and Economics Perspective

Abstract:
Parties often exchange promises of future performance with one another. Legal systems frame and regulate contracts involving the exchange of bilateral promises of future performance differently from one another. Two conceptual and practical questions often arise in these bilateral situations. Should a breaching promisor be allowed to force the performance of his non-breaching promisee? Should a breaching party be able to collect damages in a contract if his counterpart was also in breach? This paper examines these interrelated questions from a comparative law and economics perspective. We consider contracts in which parties make reciprocal promises of performance and study the incentives created by applying a defense of non-performance in unilateral breach cases and the “plaintiff in default” preclusion rules in bilateral breach cases.

Parisi, Francesco, Cenini, Marta and Luppi, Barbara, Enforcing Bilateral Promises: A Comparative Law and Economics Perspective (January 9, 2012). Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 12-03.

Toward a Methodology for Successful Legal Transplants

Abstract:
Global efforts to promote rule of law and good governance have led to renewed interest in legal transplants. Many reforms projects have focused on the substance of legal transplants, prescribing particular laws, practices or institutions, concepts, norms and attitudes – usually those found in the advanced economies of Euro-America – for developing countries. The results of such projects have been disappointing. The lackluster results have called attention to the need to develop a workable methodology for legal reforms, focusing on the processes of reform. Such a methodology must be based on a better theoretical and empirical understanding of the conditions that determine the success or failure of legal transplants. Part I provides a general overview of the legal transplant literature, focusing on descriptions, prediction and evaluation. One of the shortcomings of current rule of law promotion programs is that they tend to prescribe a common set of 'best practices' for all countries. Relatively little work has been done on differentiating developing countries and developing categories or ideal types based on the types of challenges they face. Accordingly, Part I lays the groundwork for a methodology of legal reforms based on differential analysis by first distinguishing between three 'exceptional cases': failed states, post-conflict states, and transitional states. In particular, Part I contrasts the particular problems facing low-income countries (LICs) with those facing middle-income countries (MICs). Part II then develops a preliminary methodological framework for assessing legal reforms and legal transplants. Part III concludes.

Peerenboom, Randall, Toward a Methodology for Successful Legal Transplants (January 9, 2012).