Search results

The four sections to this article have distinct but inter‐related objectives. Part I introduces the concepts, problems and tensions central to an understanding of the product liability debate. These issues recur throughout the article. Part II outlines the development of product liability law in Europe and assesses the impact of the European Directive on Product Liability. The “product liability crisis” in the United States is discussed in Part III, which looks at the law's development and proposals for reform. In Part IV the United States and European positions are compared and the case is made out for a global uniform product liability law which recognises the social responsibility of the producer towards those injured by his products.

The coming use of autonomous vehicles has kindled an extensive debate over the choice of a desirable liability regime. This article contributes to that debate by explaining how rules for liability and damages ought to be constructed to deal first with stranger (including highway) cases and then with consensual cases (like medical malpractice). It concludes that an output regime based on events as they unfold is applicable in the former but not in the latter. It then argues that this legal regime carries over without a hitch to autonomous vehicles. It then further notes that in private disputes there are no fixed rules for deciding how to mix rules for injunctions and liabilities for threatened harms, and further notes that the regulatory regime for IoT will face those same difficulties, which are best solved by trying to minimize the sum of Type I and Type II errors, as in other cases.

Legal reasoning/analysis.

One salient point is that the rules of the road should change in response to technical innovation, but liability rules should not. The sound approach for dealing with damages for past incidents ought to be constructed to deal first with stranger (including highway) cases in which there is a dichotomous decision on compliance or not. That regime is based on events as they unfold, and carries over without a hitch to autonomous vehicles. For dealing with the prevention of future harms from violation of these rules, by contrast, there are no fixed rules for deciding how to mix damages with injunction, and the substitution of a system of direct state enforcement faces the same difficulties of implementation. In both settings, the rules of the road should be held constant, after which the ideal remedial mix follows the traditional approach of trying to minimize the sum of Type I and Type II errors, relating to over and underenforcement. The basic rules of tort liability stand in contrast to the different standards of liability that arise in consensual situations, and in all cases, they must necessarily be supplemented by rules of vicarious and product liability. Overall, the bottom line is this: autonomous vehicle innovations are relevant to designing regulations for future and uncertain harms, but irrelevant to liability for past harms.

This is an original legal analysis on the topic of Autonomous Vehicles.

Products liability is having a substantial impact upon manufacturing industry. Marketing management is not immune and it is likely that products liability will lead to a major revision in product strategies.Starting from first principles, the monograph leads the reader through liability developments and liability issues as they pertain to death and personal injury. The major part of the monograph is devoted to central propositions that will assist the general manager and the marketing manager to review their present thinking and to provide new insights into this challenging, complex and strategic problem.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate whether or not lenders are environmentally liable by the simple act of lending money. The concept of “lender liability” is one of the more critical issues which seems to be ready to upset the “apple cart” of environmental calm, which the English law enjoyed until recently. Why should banks be held liable for pollution and clean-up costs? The banks’ responsibility should end when it has granted the loan to the borrower to carry out its commercial activities. It is argued that a lender who becomes involved in the borrower’s financial management is unlikely to incur a clean-up liability, but it will become liable to clean it up if it forecloses or takes possession of the land. Can the bank be regarded as the “owner” of the land? In some English statutes, there is no definition of the word “owner”. Does a mortgagee in possession entitle him to ownership of the property to hold him responsible for liabilities for environmental harm?

The development of domestic environmental liability and the Trans-Atlantic position with the USA will be examined. The “owner” concept will also be critically reviewed to see whether banks and mortgagees can be regarded as owners on possession of the property. The dilemma of the English courts with regards to lender issues and lender self-protection will also be examined. This will all be analysed and criticised in this paper.

This paper aims to demonstrate whether or not lenders are environmentally liable by the simple act of lending money. It will also discuss “owner” concept to see whether banks and mortgagees can be regarded as owners on possession of the property.

In this paper, the “owner” concept will be critically reviewed to see whether banks and mortgagees can be regarded as owners on possession of the property. The dilemma of the English courts with regards to lender issues and lender self-protection will also be critically analysed and compared with different legal systems.

Introduction In the last decade the problem of product liability has become one of the major concerns affecting industry, consumers and government. Product liability, which relates to the responsibility of a manufacturer to compensate a user who suffers injury from using his product, is not a new concept. King Hammurabi of Babylon instituted these two laws over 4,000 years ago:

The paper aims to outline the legal framework with regards to the civil liability of online intermediaries for users' misconduct in China, to analyze the problems in applying the rules related, and to introduce recent efforts from the State Council, the Supreme People's Court and legislature to combat online misconduct.

The paper intends to introduce these rules by studying the legislative history and several important case decisions. Comparisons with European and American approaches have also been made with regard to the self‐regulation issue.

Chinese courts have made many inconsistent decisions on the liabilities of online intermediaries in the past, but the legal framework is improving and the situation will become better given more clarifications from the Supreme People's Court. The State proactively promotes industry self‐regulation, together with public supervision in order to ensure the enforcement of rules.

This paper gives a systematical analysis and thorough introduction to online intermediaries' liability since the first case in 1990s to the latest report, law amendment and provisions before July 2012 in China.

Cyberspace is an international community, thus, the worldwide harmonisation of cyber law shall be approached. An introduction of the Chinese legal framework and any latest updates from the State would be valuable for foreign policy makers and foreign online service providers to learn the Chinese situation and evaluate the Chinese internet market.

The new Consumer Protection Act, 1987 has three main objectives:

This article continues to assess the role of private nuisance as a common law tool for environmental protection, independent of the wider regulatory controls. It evaluates the decision in Cambridge Water and asks the question whether it would stand as good law before the Supreme Court. It concludes with illustrating the enduring role of the injunction in environmental protection and its capacity to coerce restorative environmental justice. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The paper is predominately a classic doctrinal article as it is principally library-based analysing both primary sources (that both pre- and post-date the modern law reporting system) and secondary sources whilst engaging in leading academic commentary.

Nuisance developed to a point in the nineteenth-century where a simple form of the tort was visible. At that juncture, it had an “unchanged” essence that emanated from a strict liability reciprocal identity. Recent judicial activity has visibly adulterated that identity: this article casts doubts on juridical restrictions that assess the conduct of defendants to assess liability. It is suggested that it may not withstand the scrutiny of the Supreme Court if, and when, they are tested. In light of that analysis and considering the potency of injunctions, it is argued that nuisance law potentially has a positive future in environmental protection.

Owing to the elected research approach, the scope of the article has been necessarily concentrated on succinct areas of a broader subject and viewed in a manner that works alongside the regulatory regime.

This paper recognises that nuisance law has a positive future in environmental protection especially if the courts are willing to embrace the historical paradigm which has served the common law in this field broadly well for hundreds of years.

Discusses and details the 1994 case of Cambridge Water Co. v. Eastern Countries Leather plc and comments on the decision of the House of Lords, which found in favour of the polluter (ECL). Considers some implications raised by this case about the scope of environmental damage and liability, and concludes that if damage is reasonably forseeable then liability is strict.

In Malaysia, Get-Rich-Quick scheme (GRQS) is one of the financial fraud activities prohibited under Malaysian law. The common facet of such schemes involves plans that promise unrealistic rates of returns, and this new scheme continues to proliferate every year as the list of illegal investment companies and websites are growing. Indeed, GRQS will remain proliferating as long as there are people who are easily lured by the promise that wealth can be generated with little skill, effort or time. This paper aims to explain the phenomenon of GRQS in light of the existing laws in Malaysia. This paper also highlights the current development of Australian law pertaining to GRQS for comparative purpose.

This paper mainly relies on statutes as its primary sources of information. As such, this paper analyses the scope and provisions of the relevant laws that regulate GRQS and compare the existing GRQS provisions that are equivalent with Australian law.

Malaysia has comprehensive laws to combat GRQS activities. However, these laws are far from perfection, and only with immediate amendments, GRQS problems can be resolved more effectively. One of the weaknesses of current Malaysian laws to tackle GRQS is the lack of more stringent punishment against the operators of GRQS as well as the participants of the scheme. A comparison with equivalent GRQS law in Australia demonstrates that Australian laws provide a wide range of punishment to the operators and prohibits participation in GRQS. More importantly, Australia regards the offense as a strict liability offense where the mens rea or guilty mind of the perpetrators is exempted. Indeed, numerous proceedings have been instituted in the Australian Court against the operators and participants of GRQS.

This paper analyses the scope of relevant laws in Malaysia to combat GRQS and examines the strengths and weaknesses of these laws. This paper also compares Malaysian law with equivalent GRQS-related laws available in Australia. This paper further suggests that Malaysia should regulate sterner punishment for operators and participants of the scheme and that the offense is categorized under a strict liability offense where the mens rea or guilty mind of the offender is exempted.