The Experts below are selected from a list of 59154 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Kit Barker - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
rights of action in public and private law the analytics of enforcement
Social Science Research Network, 2021Co-Authors: Kit BarkerAbstract:This chapter is part of a larger book project on Legal enforcement. In it, I examine the meaning and importance of rights of action in both private and public law. Rights of action are, I suggest, one kind of Legal ‘enforcement’ right, which enable either private or public enforcers to initiate Legal proceedings before courts of law in response to the violation of both private and public rights. Much has been made of the importance of rights of action in the private law context by civil recourse theorists in the United States. Here I seek to broaden our understanding of such rights by incorporating reference to their existence and particular configuration in public as well as private law. This broader focus leads me to a slightly different (and ironically slightly more limited) understanding of rights of action that which is posited by civil recourse theorists. The most important point made in the chapter is that rights of action in modern public and private law are not one, single right, but clusters of Hohfeldian liberties and powers that are also accompanied by a variable group of Legal Claim rights serving to reinforce them. They constitute important liberties and powers to require another publicly to answer a Claim before a court of law; and to enliven the public powers and duties of courts to see that justice (either public or private) is done. They are in this respect a source of autonomy for the persons exercising them and an essential feature of the efficacy and legitimacy of any system of law. At the same time, however, their powerful effects upon the interests of others, both private and public, means that their exercise is regularly set about with precautionary devices in the form of preconditions, duties and liabilities, which distribute power in respect of their use in different ways as between public and private law and public and private agents. This creates a jural network of cross-checks and balances upon their abuse or neglect in both public and private law. This system of cross-checks is essential, I suggest, to the normative acceptability of enforcement systems in both Legal domains. Finally, I suggest that whilst rights of action are clearly of great normative importance in making the possession of primary Legal rights meaningful and in enabling rights-holders to enforce those rights, there is no necessary analytical reason why the holder of a primary right should always hold the power to enforce it, or why the holder of that right should be the only one to be accorded that power. This means that in both public and private law, it cannot be taken for granted that only those holding the primary Claim right should be granted rights of action when it is violated; nor indeed that they should universally be granted that right. As it happens, this turns out to be substantiated by a wide range of examples in our modern law, where private enforcers get to enforce public rights and (less often, but sometimes) public enforcers are empowered to play a role in the enforcement of private ones.
Stefan Bauernschuster - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
public child care and mothers labor supply evidence from two quasi experiments
Journal of Public Economics, 2015Co-Authors: Stefan Bauernschuster, Martin SchlotterAbstract:Public child care is expected to assist families in reconciling work with family life. Yet, empirical evidence for the relevance of public child care to maternal employment is inconclusive. We exploit the introduction of a Legal Claim to a place in kindergarten in Germany, which was contingent on day-of-birth cut-off dates and resulted in a marked increase in kindergarten attendance of three-year olds in the following years. Instrumental variable and difference-indifferences estimations on two individual-level data sets yield large and positive effects of public child care on maternal employment. A set of placebo treatment tests corroborate the validity of our identification strategies.
Reginald Nii Odoi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
contested wills and testaments in ghana exploring the Legal Claim for reasonable provision for dependants
Social Science Research Network, 2020Co-Authors: Reginald Nii OdoiAbstract:It is certain that human life is not perpetual and surely does come to an end. That notwithstanding, during one’s lifetime, several properties whether movable and/or immovable are acquired but cannot be carried along into the afterlife. Thus, the Ghanaian law and the Common law in general allows persons to execute Wills as the Legal means by which property acquired during their lifetime could be disposed of, in the event of death. Wills represent the aggregate of a person’s “testamentary intentions so far as they are manifested in writing and duly executed according to the statute.” Wills are capable of disposing of all real and/or personal property of the testator in accordance with law. The law also ensures that the true declaration of the last Will of a testator is that which is done after the death of the testator. The law follows the intentions of the testator by leaving everything to the unfettered discretion of the testator since the law presumes that the “instincts, affections and common sentiments” of the testator may be safely trusted to secure a better disposition of the property of the dead as compared to a distribution prescribed by the stereotyped and inflexible rules of a general law. However, there are instances where dependants of the deceased, whether deliberately or inadvertently, are not provided for in the Will of the deceased testator. In such instances, Ghanaian law does not leave dependants without a remedy. This Article thus seeks to explore the Legal Claim for reasonable provision out of the Will of a deceased testator in favor of dependants of the testator. By so doing, the Article would review the Legal architecture as well as a number of decisions of the Superior Courts of Judicature on the subject so as to explore the jurisprudence on the subject of reasonable provision in a Will.
Bradley W Wendel - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
duty in the litigation investment agreement the choice between tort and contract norms when the deal breaks down
Vanderbilt Law Review, 2013Co-Authors: Anthony J Sebok, Bradley W WendelAbstract:Litigation investment, which is also known as “litigation finance” or “third party litigation finance,” has grown in importance in many common law and civilian Legal systems and has come to the United States as well. While many questions remain about both Legality and social desirability of litigation finance, this paper starts with the assumption that the practice will become widespread in the US and explores the obligations of the parties to the litigation finance contract.The first part of the article uses an example to illustrate the risks imposed by one of the other party on the other which should inform the formation and enforcement of the litigation investment contract. The risks are: (1) Information Asymmetry; (2) Shirking; (3) Control; and (4) Opportunities Forgone. As we explain in the article, it is not obvious that careful contract drafting can do anything other than minimize these risks. Since their elimination is impossible (or at least prohibitively costly), the question the article turns to is how should disputes over the realization of any of these risks be handled by the courts?The article canvasses a range of Legal responses, including tort, contract, and regulation, and focuses on the tort and contract regimes as resources for Legal doctrine to provide guidance to lawyers and judges. We review the history of tort liability in pure economic loss cases involving the performance of contracts, and focus in first and third party insurance “bad faith” doctrines as the most promising analog. We conclude that, despite some superficial similarities, the relationship between a Claim owner and an investor in a Legal Claim are sufficiently different from that of an insurer and an insured such that tort law should not be followed in the case of litigation finance disputes.Finally, we review the possibility of using contract law to resolve disputes between funders and Claim owners. The key challenge to anyone who defends the adequacy of contract law is to properly define the nature of the contract, since different kinds of contracts yield different obligations and different remedies. We argue that litigation investment contracts are ‘relational contracts’ since they possess certain features that are a hallmark of this Legal family, such as a concern to allow for the renegotiation of terms in order preserve the contract as an ongoing relationship. With this in mind, we conclude by drawing upon the relational contract literature to sketch out broad contract law principles to apply to disputes over the performance of litigation investment contracts and the remedies that courts should order in the event that a contract breach is found.
Sam Cromie - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a socio technical exploration for reducing mitigating the risk of retained foreign objects
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2018Co-Authors: Siobhan Corrigan, Alison Kay, Katie Obyrne, Dubhfeasa Slattery, Sharon Sheehan, Nick Mcdonald, David Smyth, Ken Mealy, Sam CromieAbstract:A Retained Foreign Object (RFO) is a fairly infrequent but serious adverse event. An accurate rate of RFOs is difficult to establish due to underreporting but it has been estimated that incidences range between 1/1000 and 1/19,000 procedures. The cost of a RFO incident may be substantial and three-fold: (i) the cost to the patient of physical and/or psychological harm; (ii) the reputational cost to an institution and/or healthcare provider; and (iii) the financial cost to the taxpayer in the event of a Legal Claim. This Health Research Board-funded project aims to analyse and understand the problem of RFOs in surgical and maternity settings in Ireland and develop hospital-specific foreign object management processes and implementation roadmaps. This project will deploy an integrated evidence-based assessment methodology for social-technical modelling (Supply, Context, Organising, Process & Effects/ SCOPE Analysis Cube) and bow tie methodologies that focuses on managing the risks in effectively implementing and sustaining change. It comprises a multi-phase research approach that involves active and ongoing collaboration with clinical and other healthcare staff through each phase of the research. The specific objective of this paper is to present the methodological approach and outline the potential to produce generalisable results which could be applied to other health-related issues.