81,695
edits
Rights cumulative: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Well, it might, but only where the theory of the game suggests it ''should'' — and there, you shouldn’t need a [[rights cumulative]] clause and, if you have one, it won’t work anyway. | Well, it might, but only where the theory of the game suggests it ''should'' — and there, you shouldn’t need a [[rights cumulative]] clause and, if you have one, it won’t work anyway. | ||
Where it ''will'' work, | Where it ''will'' work, that “unrelated rights are cumulative where they don’t overlap” goes without saying, so — well, you don’t need it there, either. | ||
===Where it ''will'' work, it isn’t needed=== | ===Where it ''will'' work, it isn’t needed=== | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
===Where it ''won’t'' work, and isn’t wanted=== | ===Where it ''won’t'' work, and isn’t wanted=== | ||
Simetimes rights | Simetimes rights arising in different magisteria of the law ''aren’t'' cumulative. That is inevitable, you should embrace it, and a hastily injected [[rights cumulative]] clause is a chocolate teapot anyway. | ||
There is no [[concurrent liability]], for example, in [[contract]] and [[tort]], because they are the yin and yang of civil liabilities: [[tort]] is the system of rights and obligations that are presumed to exist between otherwise unconnected souls whose existences happen to interfere with each other — who are “[[Neighbour|neighbours]]”, in Lord Atkin’s well-oiled phrase, but not “[[Counterparty|lovers]]” (in mine) — people who haven’t directly agreed what the rights and obligations between them should be. | |||
[[Tort]] is the business of describing the illusive point at which strangers become [[neighbour|neighbours]], and articulating a practical public morality between them of the sort that the hateful ordinary [[Man on the Clapham Omnibus|fellow on the Clapham Omnibus]] might contrive. Those presumptive, “when all else fails” rules fall away when [[neighbours]] become intimate enough to personally agree specific rules of engagement between them. Then they are contracting [[Counterparty|counterparties]], and their specific rights and duties they have work out for themselves — their contractual obligations — override the general principles that tort would otherwise apply. If I have, in full possession of my senses, agreed to do something unreasonable, and you have agreed to pay for it, I cannot appeal to the rules derived from [[Donoghue v Stevenson - Case Note|misadventures with gifted gingerbeer]], [[Ferae naturae|escaping wild animals]] and [[Miller v Jackson - Case Note|mis-hit cricket balls]] to excuse my commitment. | |||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||