A presente tese tem por objeto o estudo da influência e da importância da segurança jurídica para o processo civil. Para tanto, na primeira parte do estudo é feito um exame dos contornos e dos fins da segurança jurídica, da sua caracterização como princípio constitucional inerente ao Estado Democrático de Direito e da sua relação com outros princípios constitucionais e, finalmente, da sua importância para além do próprio Direito. Na segunda parte do trabalho é ressaltada, inicialmente, como a relação entre o direito material e o direito processual torna mais intensa neste a necessidade de segurança jurídica, bem como a utilidade do conceito de entropia para a compreensão do fenômeno processual. Após crítica às idéias de discricionariedade judicial e de criação judicial do direito, bem como da utilização de conceitos indeterminados pelo legislador, a análise da relação entre segurança jurídica e processo prossegue em temas relativos à técnica processual, como formalismo, fungibilidade, cognição judicial e eficácia das decisões. Tal exame abrange ainda a manifestação da segurança jurídica nos princípios processuais e em alguns institutos que com ela guardam especial afinidade, como a coisa julgada, a preclusão, o ônus da prova e os mecanismos de uniformização da jurisprudência, terminando com o estudo da segurança jurídica no campo do direito processual intertemporal / This thesis has as its object the study of the influence and importance of legal certainty to civil procedure. In order to achieve this purpose, in the first part of the study is made an examination of the contours and purposes of legal certainty, its characterization as a constitutional principle inherent to the rule of law and its relationship with other constitutional principles and, finally, its importance beyond the field of Law. In the second part of the work is initially emphasized that the relationship between substantive law and procedural law gives rise to a greater need for legal certainty from the latter, as well as the usefulness of the concept of entropy for the understanding of the procedural phenomenon. After criticism of the ideas of judicial discretion and the creation of law by judges, as well as the use of undetermined legal concepts by the legislature, the analysis of the relationship between legal certainty and the civil process continues in issues relating to procedural technique, such as formalism, fungibility, cognition and effectiveness of judicial decisions. This review also covers the manifestation of legal certainty in procedural principles and in some institutes that hold special affinity with it, such as res judicata, estoppels, burden of proof and mechanisms to prevent contradictory judicial decisions, ending with the study of legal certainty in the field of intertemporal procedural law.

The current research sought to clarify the diverging relationships between counterfactual thinking and hindsight bias observed in the literature thus far. In a non-legal context, Roese and Olson (1996) found a positive relationship between counterfactuals and hindsight bias, such that counterfactual mutations that undid the outcome also increased participants’ ratings of the outcome’s a priori likelihood. Further, they determined that this relationship is mediated by causal attributions about the counterfactually mutated antecedent event. Conversely, in the context of a civil lawsuit, Robbennolt and Sobus (1997) found that the relationship between counterfactual thinking and hindsight bias is negative. The current research sought to resolve the conflicting findings in the literature within a legal context. In Experiment One, the manipulation of the normality of the defendant’s target behavior, designed to manipulate participants’ counterfactual thoughts about said behavior, did moderate the hindsight effect of outcome knowledge on mock jurors’ judgments of the foreseeability of that outcome as well as their negligence verdicts. Although I predicted that counterfactual thinking would increase, or exacerbate, the hindsight bias, as found by Roese and Olson (1996), my results provided some support for Robbenolt and Sobus’s (1997) finding that counterfactual thinking decreases the hindsight bias. Behavior normality did not moderate the hindsight effect of outcome knowledge in Experiment Two, nor did causal proximity in Experiment Three. Additionally, my hypothesis that self-referencing may be an effective hindsight debiasing technique received little support across the three experiments. Although both the self-referencing instructions and self-report measure consistently decreased mock jurors’ likelihood of finding the defendant negligent, and self-referencing instructions decreased their foreseeability ratings in studies two and three, the self-referencing manipulation did not interact with outcome knowledge to moderate a hindsight bias effect on either foreseeability or negligence judgments. The consistent pattern of results across the three experiments, however, suggests that self-referencing may be an effective technique in reducing the likelihood of negligence verdicts.

No description available.

Causation and foreseeability in private law The issue of this thesis is the causation and foreseeability in private law. The aim of this diploma thesis is to provide comprehensive view of both presented legal institutes and their significance in law. This thesis especially focuses on detailed analysis of procedure of proving the causation and introduces the most significant issues arising from this proceeding. Introduction is aimed at the function and especially at detailed definition of the term causality not only in law, but also in the area of natural sciences. It defines the term foreseeability in the same way. Moreover, it defines conditions that considerably affect foreseeability. Consequently, it aims to provide the relation between foreseeability and causation. This thesis also deals with the significance of causation from the perspective of legal liability. In this context, it mentions the issue of causally relevant conditions. On this basis, this paper tends to its core which consists of detailed analysis of methods of proving the factual causation. Universally accepted method of proving factual causation is considered the 'conditio sine qua non' test. However, this test is found to be ineffective in cases of causal uncertainty. Therefore there are more effective instruments for equitable...

The recent decades have seen a steady growth of international trade of goods. In order to harmonize the legal environment concerning this materia, attempts for unification of international sales law have been made. In the field of sales of goods, several international instruments have been adopted. These include the (unsuccessful) Convention relating to a Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods, the model laws, i.e. the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts and the Principles of European Contract Law, and, most notably, the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sales of Goods (CISG). This master's thesis aims to explore one type of remedies for non-performance under the CISG, namely provisions on damages. In a great detail, articles 74, 77, 79 and 80 will be analysed. First, a detailed commentary on two major prerequisites for liability for damages, i.e. causation and foreseeability, will be given. The various factual and legal causation theories will be described. Then it will be demonstrated why it is just and useful that the CISG contains a provision for limiting liability to foreseeable loss and how foreseeability is measured. We will then move to another method of limiting damages - mitigation rule. It will be shown why it is in the aggrieved party's best...

本論文的研究重心為1980年聯合國國際商品買賣契約（以下簡稱CISG）七十四條第二段所規定之「預見可能性原則」。 第二章「預見可能性原則在比較法上的觀察」中整理大陸法系，普通法系及CISG的前身ULIS、國際統一商務契約原理和PECL等以預見可能性原則做為限制賠償責任制度的相關規定和研究成果，做為解釋CISG預見可能性原則的基礎。 第三章「CISG的預見可能性原則」則以CISG七十四條第二段的預見可能性原則規定為中心，分節探討其體系架構、構成要件，例如預見的主體、客體（包含損害的可能性、類型與規模）、判斷的主客觀標準、判斷時點及舉證責任等問題。除了以第二章在比較法上的觀察為解釋的材料以外，也視情況引用聯合國秘書處所提供之一九七八年CISG草案註釋。 第四章「預見可能性原則與我國法之比較分析」整理我國現行契約法上通用的責任限制原則──相當因果關係原則和法規目的原則，再將預見可能性原則與之分別比較分析，從其中觀察到不同的政策背景如何地影響制度的形成並造成彼此的差異。 最後，於第五章「結論」中總結本論文對CISG預見可能性原則及與我國法比較分析後的結論與論文寫作的一點心得。

Pour étudier le phénomène paradoxal d’un renforcement de l’autonomie de la volonté parallèlement à une multiplication des impérativités en droit international privé contemporain, le concept de norme permissive apparaît particulièrement pertinent. Il permet de saisir l’ensemble des énoncés normatifs où l’auteur de la norme octroie à un destinataire une faculté de faire ou de ne pas faire, qu’il s’agisse du juge lorsqu’il lui est permis de surseoir à statuer en cas de connexité ou des parties lorsqu’il leur est permis de choisir la loi applicable à un contrat international.L’étude du droit positif montre que les manifestations des normes permissives sont nombreuses, tant dans les conflits de lois que de juridictions et qu’elles obéissent à des logiques distinctes selon qu’elles octroient une faculté au juge ou aux parties. Dans cette seconde hypothèse, en effet, il n’est plus question d’une liberté octroyée par la règle de droit mais d’une liberté concédée dans le choix de la règle de droit. Cette spécificité, conjuguée à la multiplication des normes permissives en droit international privé, a donc justifié que leur efficacité soit éprouvée.Dans cette perspective, le présupposé selon lequel les normes permissives constitueraient une traduction normative adéquate de l’objectif de prévisibilité des solutions, qui sert de justification à leur admission, doit être remis en cause. L’appréciation critique de ce postulat permet de proposer que les normes permissives n’occupent, à l’avenir, qu’un rôle résiduel en droit international privé, soit comme instrument de consensus soit comme palliatif à l’indétermination d’un critère de rattachement suffisamment prévisible. / In order to study the paradoxical phenomenon of the rise of party autonomy in parallel with the multiplication of mandatory norms in contemporary private international law, the concept of permissive rule is particularly apposite. It accounts for all instances where the law-making body grants a beneficiary the possibility to do or not to do something; be it the judge when he is authorized to stay the proceedings in case of related actions, or the parties when they are authorized to choose the law applicable to an international contract.A study of the positive law shows that permissive rules are numerous in both Choice of laws and Jurisdiction and that they operate under distinct logics depending on whether they grant a possibility to a judge or to the parties. In the latter case, the issue at stake is no longer whether a right is granted by the legal rule, but rather whether a right is conceded in the choice of the legal rule. This specificity, together with the proliferation of permissive rules in private international law, warrants that their relevancy be tested.In this context, the assumption that permissive norms would adequately serve the purpose of foreseeability of solutions, which forms the basis for their adoption, must be questioned. This critical assessment leads to the proposal that permissive norms should, in the future, play only a residual role in private international law, either as a way to reach consensus or as a stopgap in the absence of a sufficiently foreseeable connecting factor.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:23:30Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Rodrigo Cesar de Oliveira Marinho.pdf: 2034105 bytes, checksum: c5f56cb3c9fc76d86114ccc6a95d19e7 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-02-27 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / This work is a study regarding the limitation of the effects and particularly of the prospective effects of decisions issued by appellate courts that result in a change to a previous holding and, consequently, recognize a new or more burdensome legal tax relationship. It begins with the distinction between a legal rule and the text of the law (prescriptive statement), with the legal rule being considered to be the result of an interpretive process conducted by all those who have the necessary cognitive ability. For them, the judicial branch is the authentic interpreter the one with the last word regarding what the law is, regardless of and overriding other interpretive results. When the interpretive results are coincident (the same legal rule) or when the judicial branch states the meaning of the legal rule, there is an idealization of a stable nucleus of legal rules. That nucleus represents certainty in regard to the meaning that should be attributed to a given normative text, so as to produce foreseeability and stability, founded on a general state of legitimate expectations and acting as guidelines for taxpayers conduct. Working from these premises, on the basis of legal certainty, which is a fundamental element of a democratic state that intends to be subject to the rule of law, set upon the pillars of the principals of private property, liberty and equality and grounded on the application of the rules of non-retroactive enforcement and legality to legal rules (and not merely to legal texts), this work seeks to justify the necessary prospective limitation of the effects of a decision that establishes a new legal holding, which consequently eliminates a previously settled holding, in relation to which taxpayers acted based on the legitimate expectation that they were acting in accordance with that which the authentic interpreter of the law held to be correct / Este trabalho tem por objeto o estudo sobre a modulação dos efeitos especialmente a aplicação de efeitos prospectivos das decisões proferidas pelos tribunais superiores que impliquem alteração de entendimento anteriormente manifestado e, consequentemente, reconheçam uma nova ou mais onerosa relação jurídica tributária. Partiu-se da distinção entre norma jurídica e texto de lei (enunciado prescritivo), considerando ser a norma jurídica resultante de um processo interpretativo realizado por todos aqueles que disponham do mínimo de senso cognitivo. Estes têm no intérprete autêntico, no Poder Judiciário, a figura daquele que possui a última palavra sobre o que é o direito, independentemente dos demais resultados interpretativos e a estes se sobrepondo. Existindo coincidência nos resultados interpretativos (mesma norma jurídica), ou dizendo, o Poder Judiciário, qual o sentido da norma jurídica, há a idealização de um núcleo estável de normas jurídicas. Tal núcleo representa a certeza em relação ao sentido que deve ser atribuído a determinado texto normativo, de modo a gerar previsibilidade e estabilidade, fundadas num estado geral de confiança legítima e orientadoras das condutas dos contribuintes. A partir dessas premissas, com base na segurança jurídica, enquanto elemento fundamental do Estado Democrático que se pretenda ser de Direito, elevada sobre os pilares dos princípios da propriedade, da liberdade e da igualdade e com fundamento na aplicação das regras da irretroatividade e da legalidade às normas jurídicas (e não apenas aos textos legais), este trabalho intenta justificar a necessária modulação prospectiva dos efeitos da decisão que estabelece um novo entendimento jurisprudencial, afastando, consequentemente, entendimento anteriormente pacificado, em relação ao qual os contribuintes atuaram baseados na confiança legítima de que estavam agindo segundo aquilo que o intérprete autêntico entendia ser o correto

The aim of this thesis is to provide an insight into the topic of causation in law and to acquaint its reader with the common methods of proving the causation before courts. Among the most used methods such as the 'but for' test, this paper focuses on specific aspects of this topic which were introduced to the Czech legal system together with the adoption of the Civil Code 2014. The thesis also includes description and analysis of alternatively used methods of proving 'multiple causation' cases such as the theory of 'loss of chance' and 'pure economic loss'. Among this analysis the comparison between Czech and British legal system is used extensively. The core of this thesis is the effort to confirm or to refute the hypothesis that despite the Czech legal system does not officially recognize distinction between 'factual causation' and 'legal causation' as it is done in the British legal system, methods from both categories are actively used by Czech courts. This paper also aims to analyze whether, due to the fact that recognition between 'factual causation' and 'legal causation' is not explicitly expressed in the Czech legal system, does exist any negative or positive impact on judicial decisions. The last goal of this thesis is to demonstrate whether, similarly as in the British law, the significant number...

L’article 33.1 est une disposition du Code criminel qui vise à interdire l’utilisation de la défense d’intoxication extrême à l’encontre d’infractions violentes d’intention générale. La première version de cette disposition avait été ajoutée au Code criminel en 1995 en réaction à l’arrêt Daviault où la Cour suprême avait reconnu pour la première fois que l’état d’intoxication extrême pouvait constituer une défense admissible en droit pénal canadien. En adoptant cette disposition, le Parlement voulait s’assurer que les personnes qui avaient commis des crimes violents d’intention générale ne puissent invoquer leur état d’intoxication pour s’exonérer de leur responsabilité. Pendant plus de 25 ans, cette première version aura force de loi, mais en mai 2022 la Cour suprême rend l’arrêt Brown dans lequel elle déclare son inconstitutionnalité. En moins de six semaines, le Parlement adopte une nouvelle version de l’article 33.1 qui devrait, selon lui, corriger les lacunes de l’ancienne version et combler le vide juridique laissé par sa déclaration d’inconstitutionnalité. L’objet ultime du présent mémoire est donc d’évaluer si le nouveau libellé de l’article 33.1 du Code criminel sera en mesure d’atteindre les objectifs que le Parlement s’était fixés lors de son adoption. / Section 33.1 is a provision of the Criminal Code that is intended to prohibit the use of the defense of extreme intoxication against violent offences of general intent. The first version of this provision was added to the Criminal Code in 1995 in response to Daviault decision, where the Supreme Court recognized for the first time that a state of extreme intoxication could constitute an admissible defense in Canadian criminal law. By adopting this provision, Parliament wanted to ensure that people who had committed violent crimes of general intent could not invoke their state of intoxication to exonerate themselves from their responsibility. For more than 25 years, this first version will have the force of law, but in May 2022, the Supreme Court renders Brown judgement in which it declares its unconstitutionality. In less than six weeks, Parliament adopted a new version of article 33.1 which, in its view, should correct the shortcomings of the old version and fill the legal void left by its declaration of unconstitutionality. The ultimate purpose of this brief if therefore to assess whether the new wording of section 33.1 of the Criminal Code will be able to achieve the objectives that Parliament set for itself when it was adopted.