82,886
edits
Civil law: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{g}}The continental way of doing law. Derives, they will claim, from Julius Caesar and the romance tradition, but basically means a lot of [[legislation]]. Less emphasis on [[precedent]], they’re in denial about the existence of [[contrat fiduciaire|trusts]], but otherwise sensible, if long-winded. You may prefer the [[common law]] if, like us, you are tickled by the idea that the entire law of civil wrongs can be derived from a [[Donoghue v Stevenson - Case Note|rotten snail in a bottle of ginger-beer]]. | {{g}}The continental way of doing law. Derives, they will claim, from Julius Caesar and the romance tradition, but basically means a lot of [[legislation]]. Less emphasis on [[precedent]], they’re in denial about the existence of [[contrat fiduciaire|trusts]], but otherwise sensible, if long-winded, and poroine to use words like [[synallagmatic]] and [[aleatory]]. Their [[netting opinion]]s are marathon exercises in spite. You may prefer the [[common law]] if, like us, you are tickled by the idea that the entire law of civil wrongs can be derived from a [[Donoghue v Stevenson - Case Note|rotten snail in a bottle of ginger-beer]], But the continentals will shrug and speak of Robespierre and Hannibal’s trek over the alps. Different strokes for different folks. | ||
{{seealso}} | {{seealso}} | ||