Search results

E-commerce is gaining popularity across the globe and Mauritian businesses are also increasingly making use of online platforms to engage in cross-border electronic transactions. However, there are several implications arising from online trading which need to be addressed, among which one is the validity of e-contracts. This research will therefore emphasise on two main components of e-contracts: choice of law and the applicable jurisdiction. While Mauritian laws were amended to give effect to digital signatures and e-agreements, there is no extensive or substantive domestic legal provision on choice of law and jurisdiction. Hence, the purpose of this study is to advocate for a greater clarity on the legal framework governing the applicable law and jurisdiction governing a conflict situation in e-contracts, with the view of increasing trust in international e-commerce and to bring in consistency with international commercial relations. This study will be carried out in the Mauritian context by adopting the black letter approach which will analyse the relevant rules and regulations concerning e-contract formation and validity. Additionally, a comparative analysis will be conducted on the legal framework relating to the applicable law and jurisdiction in e-contracts for selected countries: the European Union and the United States. These countries have been chosen for the comparison due to their high involvement in e-commerce and their advanced as well as comprehensive rules on e-commerce.

Marriage is often compared to a “contract.” This analogy purports to proceed from a settled concept called “contract,” under which legitimate obligations derive from consent. The analogy creates confusion when applied in the legal context. In law, “contract” refers to a broad category of legal obligation. Many legal theorists believe “contractual” enforceability should be based solely on consent. But as a matter of positive legal doctrine, consent is neither necessary nor sufficient to establish enforceability. A contract's enforceability also depends on its relationship to public welfare.

Thus the “contract” analogy does not constitute a legal justification for an approach to marriage based solely on the consent of the parties. It merely expresses a normative preference for a consent-based approach. The chapter illustrates this point using examples of current marriage-related issues, such as covenant marriage, prenuptial agreements, and same-sex marriage.

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) creates rights for covered employees, defines conduct that violates those rights, and deems that conduct an unfair labor practice. But while given broad remedial powers under the Act, the Board's options were curtailed by the Supreme Court's limit on the use of deterrence as an express remedial justification. The Board was left with a strongly make-whole, i.e., ex-post, focus to undo the consequences of a violation.

Put differently, the current NLRA remedies reflect a pay-or-play philosophy. The goal is restoration after the fact, using ex-post remedies to give parties the benefit or status quo that they expected. An actor willing to pay may use a cost–benefit analysis and strategically choose to violate the Act, accepting the make-whole remedies later. But the Act created ex-ante statutory rights, not agreed-upon contractual terms. By statutory enactment, employees are given something of value deemed worthy of protection. Assigning value to compliance with the law in the first instance not only prevents sometimes irreparable harm but also reaffirms the inherent value of the right itself.

The impact of the Board's limited remedies is therefore a broad value-driven one. Without ex-ante deterrence, the available ex-post make-whole remedial options make a normative statement about individuals' rights under the Act: those rights may not be inherently worth enough to incentivize legal compliance. The make-whole focus can imply that financial compensation for the portion of harm that can be calculated and “undoing” some nonfinancial effects is sufficient. There is little drive to deter infringement before the fact. By examining the remedial philosophy behind contrasting approaches in the common law of torts and contract, this Article asserts that the current remedial strictures and framework undermine both the Act and the worth of its rights in the eyes of the public and the employees who hold them.

The purpose of this paper is to determine whether there is any fundamental difference in the meaning of contract in these two legal systems by analysing some of the essential principles of contract particularly parties’ agreement and consideration.

This paper seeks to investigate the degree of equivalency of the term contract and its Islamic law counterpart “Aqd”. To implement this task, it applies some comparative law techniques to examine certain contractual elements under common law and Islamic law.

The argument that “contract” and “Aqd” are not equivalent is superficial, and it is not well-supported by concrete evidence. The examples used to build this argument are merely limited exceptions to the general principles of contract, and some of them even exist under both legal systems in a similar manner such as “deed” and “Hibah”.

The paper is of interest to legal practitioners and professionals working in cross-cultural or international contexts, as understanding points of conformity and disconformity between “contract” and “Aqd” can help in multiple ways. These may include negotiating international transactions, contract drafting and dispute-resolution processes involving parties from Western and Islamic law-based jurisdictions. It may also aid policymaking and lawmaking processes aiming to harmonize contract principles across different jurisdictions.

The research paper is important for public attitude, as understanding similarities and differences between “contract” and “Aqd” fosters mutual respect, tolerance and cooperation between individuals and communities adhering to different legal systems.

There is a common belief that the term “contract” substantially differs from “Aqd”, and it is by no means safe to presume that every “Aqd” qualifies as a contract. The current research introduces a new point view on the degree of conceptual equivalency of the two terms by showing resemblances in aspects relating to some contractual elements which have always been viewed as an area of divergence rather than convergence.

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

Markets for public contracting are in the process of transition. Various public/private partnership arrangements replace conventional purchasing, especially within the local and regional government area. Municipal entities may not be in a position to define their needs up-front because they would not have the overview of what the market may have to offer. So one should ask: Is the traditional ban-on-negotiations in mandatory tender procedures (sealed bidding) - such as it is in EU public procurement law - counter-effective to genuine best value for public money? The article displays significant differences between European Union (EU) law, U.S. law and other regimes such as United Nations Model law, The World Trade Organisation’s Government Procurement Agreement (WTO/GPA), The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), and the NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). New avenues for public/private demand a new agenda and the recent EU 2004 directive scheme attempts to respond to the market challenges. The author accepts that the new directive on public contracting facilitates a more smooth approach than in current EU law with regard to high-tech complicated contract awards, but questions whether the ’competitive dialogue’ really can afford tailor-made solutions to cope with long-term public/private partnership arrangements of the kind now spreading all over Europe

Proposes to treat social law contracts by covering the two most important aspects of the contract of employment, and also the collective agreement. Covers the contract of employment in full with all the integral laws explained as required, including its characteristics, written particulars, sources or regulations, with regard to employers, are also covered. Lengthy coverage of the collective agreement is also included, showing legal as well as moral (!) requirements, also included are cases in law that are covered in depth.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the main contract principles which govern the international arbitration contract with special emphasis to examine contract principle found of the Middle East, how international principles of contract are perceived in the region, and whether there are any dominant contract principles.

A general exploratory research procedure used to give a better grasp of various aspects of socio‐legal approaches. The paper seeks to create knowledge that can be used to retrieve some pressing social and organisational understanding in the said region. The first part of the paper examines the role of ethics and tradition in understanding Middle Eastern contract principles. The second part examines the impact of Islamic Law on commercial contract principles. The third section analyses the regional perception of international contract principles. Finally, the paper addresses some contemporary issues of international contracts in the Middle East.

The paper showed that the legal perceptions of international contract principles reflect regional legal thinking which has been influenced by a mixed understanding of regional traditions, Islamic contract law principles as well as Western contract principles when these principles match regional legal culture. Overall, it showed that still under such mixed understanding, there are strong regional legal traditions and these are found in Islamic contract principles and affects commercial contract experiences. In general, a significant difference still exists between modern international contract principles and those in the Middle East.

The paper generates a knowledge that mixed understanding in regard to international contract arbitration principles due historical and cultural reasoning. Arab States does not share common understanding of international contract principles. Thus, it is very superfluous to propose the argument that there is sole Middle Eastern regional perception which dominates every Arab State. Therefore, special understandings and considerations should be given to every international arbitration contract from certain Arab State entity to another.

The paper provides a clear understanding of the guidelines for international commercial arbitration contract in the Middle East. Legal culture should be taken into consideration if a successful contract implementation has to be achieved.

Compares and contrasts the contractual role of bills of lading in the context of Greek, US and English law. Discusses the legal status and contractual roles of these lading bills in the context of the legislative provisions and associated case law in each of the three countries. Concludes that the role of these bills is unsettled and there is no uniform perception. Recommends measures involving amendments to English legislation, to consolidate the regulation of international trade.

The purpose of this paper is to better understand how commercial contracts are interpreted and the level of control that contracting parties have over the judicial interpretation of their contracts.

The paper approaches the subject of commercial contract interpretation through an analysis of four dichotomies debated in legal scholarship and found in judicial decisions. The four dichotomies are formalism versus realism, literalism versus contextualism, facilitation versus regulation, and rules versus standards.

The main finding of the paper is that both poles of each of the dichotomies play important roles in the interpretation and enforcement of commercial contracts. For example, contract interpretation characterized by a high degree of formalism looks to the four‐corners of the contract for interpretive answers. In turn, some courts make use of external factors – such as distributive justice or public policy concerns in interpreting contracts.

One of the research implications of the paper is the need for a more in‐depth analysis of how contracting parties may agree on how their contracts are to be interpreted and whether courts should be obligated to enforce party‐mandated rules of interpretation.

The practical implication of understanding the means and methods of contract interpretation is that it leads to a better understanding of commercial contracts in transborder transactions.

The value of this research lies upon the fundamental premise that the same philosophies and theories of interpretation found in most legal systems are replicated in the area of international commercial contracting.