This study explored the legal parameters of sovereign immunity and its waivers for employees of public institutions of higher education in the state of Texas. This empirical study examined the decisions of the Texas Judiciary concerning public university litigation in the area of sovereign immunity, with a review of major state court decisions. Legal research methodology was used in this study. The data for this study included case study review of six cases decided by the Texas judiciary. Information about each of the cases and the important legal inferences from the cases was discussed. A review of the history of sovereign immunity and the current status of the application of the Texas Tort Claims Act was also included. Based on the review of the relevant case law and scholarly commentary, the study findings suggest that a) Texas courts recognize and apply the doctrine of sovereign immunity, unless the application of the doctrine is restricted by the Texas Tort Claims Act; b) the Texas Tort Claims Act establishes limited waivers to sovereign immunity applicable only under specified circumstances and subjects; c) Texas courts were consistent in applying the circumstances by which an institution or its actors waived sovereign immunity. Practice recommendations are included for education professionals at Texas state institutions of higher education.

This dissertation examines the significance of the Kansas Tort Claims Act of 1979 on state of Kansas court decisions in litigation against Kansas school districts and their employees. Through providing a historical perspective of the adoption and abolishment of the doctrine of sovereign immunity in the United States, which subsequently led to the enactment of the Federal Tort Claims Act, and ultimately led to the Kansas Tort Claims Act, the researcher analyzes pertinent case law and scholarly commentary pertaining to school negligence litigation. The goal of the analysis is to answer the following research question: How have Kansas state courts interpreted the Kansas Tort Claims Act in litigation against state school districts and their employees? Although the KTCA provides citizens with a vehicle for redress against governmental entities by virtue of tort claims, the KTCA also provides immunities from liability for governmental entities and their employees under exceptions to the KTCA. Most notably, the discretionary function exception and the recreational use exception are two exceptions to liability applied in a significant number of tort cases against Kansas school districts and employees. The case law analysis provides explanations for the types of actions of negligence that Kansas courts have qualified for school district or school employee liability, and, when permitted, negligent actions that qualified for immunity under a KTCA exception to liability.

This thesis is an investigation of a doctrine generally known as ‘failure of consideration’, but which I term ‘failure of condition’. I have two principal aims. First, to clarify quite what the doctrine of failure of condition is. Secondly, to explain why it has the effects it does – in particular, why it justifies the response of restitution. The doctrine, at core, concerns conditional transfers: when a transfer is made conditionally, and the condition fails, the transfer can be recovered. For this reason, I term the doctrine ‘failure of condition.’ I investigate the nature of this relationship and argue that the reason why the transfer is conditional is that the agent’s intention to make the transfer was itself conditional. The justification of restitution is a more complex affair than is customarily accepted – but there is a valid justification lurking not far from the surface of orthodoxy. A secondary concern of the thesis is to re-examine an old theory in the field of common mistake, frustration and termination following a breach of contract. It used to be thought that these doctrines could be explained by failure of condition. That theory has fallen out of favour – it seems that no one accepts it today. This rejection rests upon a confusion over the nature of the doctrine of failure of condition. Once the nature of this doctrine has been clarified, we can see how closely the various doctrines align with one another; we can also see where the true difficulty with the failure of condition explanation lies.

The central tenet of tracing theory is that in certain circumstances it is possible to show that one asset stands in the place of another, such that any claims in relation to the original asset can be transmitted to its substitute. Since at least 2001 academic and judicial orthodoxy has been that this is done by following the path of value from one asset to the other, and can be aided in more complex cases by the application of evidential rules or presumptions. These ideas are at the heart of existing accounts of proprietary claims against trustees who deal with trust assets without authority, and personal and proprietary claims against strangers to the trust. They are also at the heart of calls to 'unify' the rules of tracing at law and in equity, removing existing distinctions drawn between claimants who are owed fiduciary duties and those who are not. In this thesis it is argued that there are no independent processes of following and identifying value, and that the language of 'tracing value' has lent the appearance of neutrality and conceptual unity to disparate heads of fiduciary and non-fiduciary liability. Most importantly, it has led to the assumption that in any case in which a claimant can demonstrate that a series of transactions links some right in the defendant’s hands with a right previously held by or for the claimant, the claimant can claim that right. In this thesis it is argued that far from creating an arbitrary practical obstacle for claimants seeking to trace and locate value, the fiduciary relationship is at the heart of the justification for any claim that exists to a new right in the hands of someone else.

Competition between trade rivals in a marketplace operating within a common law-based legal system is regulated primarily by two fairly distinct branches of the law: the prohibitions against anti-competitive conduct imposed by the competition law framework, and the common law restraints against acts of “unfair competition” that attract liability under the economic torts. This dissertation aims to critically examine both these legal frameworks and provide an integrated account of how these branches of the law distinguish between lawful and unlawful modes of competitive conduct. By scrutinising the doctrinal and policy foundations that underlie each of these legal frameworks, common thematic strands that may not be immediately apparent to lawyers working exclusively in either field will be exposed, while fundamental differences between their respective inner workings will also be uncovered in the process. Engaging in such a comparative exercise will facilitate a deeper understanding of the contrasting objectives and jurisprudential approaches associated with each legal framework which, in turn, sheds some light on the nature of their relationship with each other and the extent to which legal developments in one field ought to influence, or be influenced by, the other. Besides evaluating how and why the common law economic torts operate differently from the competition law prohibitions in circumscribing the liberty of individual competitors to inflict economic harm upon their trade rivals, this dissertation will also analyse selected types of commercial conduct which are regarded as lawful under one framework but unlawful by the other, and contrast them with scenarios which could attract overlapping legal liability under both legal frameworks. In addition, this dissertation will explore a selection of legal issues arising from the doctrinal interaction between these areas of the law that may confront the courts as these two legal frameworks continue to develop in tandem with each other.

Legal systems around the world vary widely in how they deal with the assignment of receivables. This legal variety makes it difficult for financiers to conduct their international receivables financing business. This thesis suggests an International Registration System for the Assignment and Security Interest of Receivables (‘IRSAR’) and proposes a model international convention for the IRSAR (‘proposed IRSAR Convention’), which could help financiers to overcome the obstacles they currently encounter. Under the proposed IRSAR Convention, the international assignment of receivables would be regulated by a unified legal system with respect to priority and perfection. The IRSAR would facilitate international project financing. Furthermore, the IRSAR would enable companies to raise finance from greater ranges of investors around the world through international receivables financing and to dispose of non-performing loans more easily. The proposed IRSAR Convention would succeed the UN Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade in the attempt of establishing a registration system for international assignments of receivables. The proposed IRSAR Convention confines its scope of application by defining the assignor (or the security provider), inventing the concept of ‘Vehicle for the International Registration System’ (‘VIRS’). The proposed IRSAR Convention applies where the assignor or security provider is a VIRS. An assignment of a receivable where the assignor is a VIRS and a security interest in a receivable where the security provider is a VIRS could be registered in the IRSAR. Under the proposed IRSAR Convention, priority of assignments of and security interests in receivables is determined by the order of registration in the IRSAR. The proposed IRSAR Convention would be a receivables version of the Cape Town Convention. With respect to the contents and effect of registration, it would prescribe a notice-filing system along the lines of that adopted in the UCC Article 9. With respect to the operation of the registration, it would adopt an automatic online registration system operating 24 hours a day, 365 days a year like the International Registry under the Cape Town Convention.

Contractual and non-contractual liability to damages (a comparison with foreign legislation) In theory tort and contractual liability might seem to draw clear boundaries. The first one arises from breach of contract whereas tort being unrelated to any contractual obligation. However it is known that some legal systems, like the Czech law, do not differentiate between them and do not provide them with different rules. Does it only mean the differentiation is useless in these legal systems or does it suggest that there might be no reasonable grounds for distinction in other legal systems? How do tort and contractual liability differ? Differences have to be weighed when area between tort and contract is considered. They are of significance when it comes to possibility or impossibility of choice in case of concurrence of tort and contract and they are important for liability to third parties of a contract. I researched following legal systems: Czech law, German law, French law, Spanish law and Italian law. In each of them I examined these areas: contractual liability, liability to third party, tort liability, liability for behaviour contrary to bonos mores, and selected elements of tort liability with some remarks to some special rules for contractual liability: wrongfulness, fault, causation, damage and its...

Este trabalho tem o objetivo de analisar a culpa como critério para majoração da indenização em casos de danos decorrentes de condutas altamente reprováveis do ponto de vista ético-jurídico. O tema é apresentado no âmbito da crise paradigmática vivida pela responsabilidade civil nos dias atuais: a responsabilidade civil afasta-se do paradigma da reparação para se aproximar do paradigma da prevenção de danos. Diante desse contexto, propõe-se a retomada da culpa, não mais como pressuposto da responsabilidade civil, mas agora no papel de critério para a quantificação da indenização. Para demonstrar a utilidade e viabilidade desta proposta, o trabalho segue três caminhos. Inicialmente, analisa-se o instituto dos punitive damages, à luz, principalmente, do direito norte-americano. Entende-se que o referido instituto representa uma experiência bem sucedida do uso da culpa como instrumento de prevenção de danos e dissuasão de condutas reprováveis. Em segundo lugar, recorre-se à literatura estrangeira para promover uma detalhada análise econômica dos punitive damages, com o intuito de demonstrar a eficácia e utilidade do instituto. Por fim, examina-se a viabilidade e adequação de uma possível indenização punitiva diante do atual sistema de responsabilidade civil brasileiro. Neste ponto, busca-se identificar o fundamento legal da indenização punitiva, analisando se este novo instituto resiste às críticas que o acusam de ilegalidade. Superado o ceticismo com relação ao instituto, avaliamos os possíveis critérios, objetivos e subjetivos, para a quantificação da indenização punitiva, dando destaque, evidentemente, para o papel ocupado, nesse processo, pela culpa. / This study aims to analyze fault as a factor to increase the amount of damages in cases of highly reprehensible misconducts, from a legal-ethical standpoint. The topic is presented under the paradigmatic crisis currently experienced by tort law: as tort law moves away from the paradigm of compensation it approaches the paradigm of prevention of damages. Given this context, we propose the return of fault, no longer as a requirement of liability, but now in the role of a factor for the assessment of the amount of damages. To demonstrate the utility and feasibility of this proposal, the study follows three paths. Initially, we analyze the remedy of punitive damages, mainly based on U.S. law. We understand that punitive damages represent a successful experience of using fault as a tool to prevent damages and deter reprehensible misconducts. Secondly, we resort to foreign literature to carry out a detailed economic analysis of punitive damages, in order to demonstrate the effectiveness and usefulness of the remedy. Finally, we examine the feasibility and suitability of punitive damages under the current Brazilian tort law. At this point, we attempt to identify the legal basis for punitive damages, analyzing whether this new remedy would resist the criticisms that accuses it of illegality. Once skepticism regarding the remedy is overcome, we go on to evaluate potential objective and subjective factors for the assessment of the amount of punitive damages, stressing, of course, the role played, in this process, by fault.

The technological development of recent years has brought not only new forms of electronic communication and social phenomena, but also a number of legal questions. As the internet creates a parallel cyberspace, a number of traditional legal rules have been called into question, including the rules for determination of court jurisdiction and governing law. This area is discussed in this dissertation thesis. The goal of this thesis is to identify problematic moments of interpretation and application of existing rules of private international law in the context of cross- border delicts on the internet and to find suitable solutions if they exist. Regarding methodology, this thesis uses the analytical approach, in particular in relation to case law and legal regulations. It is complemented by the comparative method, regarding evolution in time and regarding various legal cultures. The first chapter deals with the phenomena of digital information, the internet and the related philosophical or social areas, such as virtuality or cyberspace. The second chapter deals with legal regulation of the internet, censorship and the special position of certain providers of information services. In the third chapter there are defined the concepts of delict and delictual liability, with emphasis of this institute in...

A presente dissertação parte da premissa de que o ordenamento jurídico brasileiro deve dispor de institutos jurídicos aptos a tutelar, de maneira eficiente, os bens e interesses da maior relevância, bem como a assegurar a manutenção do equilíbrio social. Trata-se da única maneira de garantir, em níveis adequados, a segurança social (art. 5o, caput, da CF/88), bem como de perseguir aquele que é tido como um dos objetivos fundamentais da República Federativa do Brasil, o de construir uma sociedade livre, justa e solidária (art. 3o, I, da CF/88). Deve-se, portanto, impedir o cometimento de atos anti-sociais, direcionados, de maneira intencional ou extremamente negligente, à lesão dos supra referidos interesses, atos estes tão reprováveis que seus efeitos extrapolam o âmbito individual (= da vítima diretamente atingida), causando impactos negativos também no âmbito coletivo (= um rebaixamento do nível social). Acredita-se que, para atingir tais fins, deve-se utilizar um remédio jurídico que seja, ao mesmo tempo, suficientemente flexível (para que possa sancionar todas as condutas potencialmente lesivas) e adequadamente severo (para que possa punir o ofensor e prevenir o cometimento de semelhantes atos no futuro). Nesse sentido, os conhecidos instrumentos do Direito Penal e do Direito Administrativo se mostram insuficientes. Para tanto, deve-se recorrer ao Direito Civil e, mais especificamente, à responsabilidade civil, agregando-se-lhe o mecanismo necessário para que possa desempenhar eficientemente as funções de prevenção e punição, o qual denominamos de indenização punitiva. Trata-se de instituto estrutural e funcionalmente assemelhado aos punitive damages, típicos dos países da common law e que nos servirão de modelo para a indenização punitiva, mas cuja aplicação, dadas as peculiaridades de nosso ordenamento constitucional, demanda prévia cominação legal. Tal regramento deverá estipular não apenas os pressupostos objetivos e subjetivos para a incidência da indenização punitiva (que só deve ocorrer nos casos da mais alta reprovabilidade, quando o ofensor houver se conduzido com dolo ou culpa grave, causando prejuízos a interesses existenciais ou metaindividuais, ou ainda extraindo benefícios econômicos do ilícito perpetrado), mas, também, os critérios a serem utilizados para a quantificação da sanção (os quais não se relacionam com, nem tampouco se limitam à, extensão dos prejuízos sofridos). / The current paper starts from the premise that the brazilian Law ought to make use of legal institutes that are able to protect, efficiently, the goods and interests of utmost relevance, as well as to assure the maintenance of the social balance. It is the only way to warrant, in adequate levels, the social security (art. 5th, caput, of FC/88), as well as to pursue that which is held as one of the fundamental objectives of the Federal Republic of Brazil, to build a free, just and sympathetic society (art. 3rd, I, of FC/88). It is needed, therefore, to preclude the commission of anti-social acts, aimed, in intentional or extremely negligent way, to the injury of the above mentioned interests, acts that are so reprehensible that its effects surpasses the individual context (= of the victim who is directly injured), causing negative impacts also to the social context (= a depreciation of the social level). It is believed that, to achieve these goals, one must use a judicial sanction that is, at the same time, sufficiently flexible (to be able to sanction all of the potentially detrimental conducts) and adequately severe (to be able to punish the offender and prevent the commitment of similar acts in the future). In that sense, the known instruments of Criminal Law and Administrative Law seem insufficient. For that purpose, one must resort to the Civil Law and, most specifically, to the tort law, adding to it the mecanism it needs to fulfill efficiently the functions of deterrence and punishment, which we call indenização punitiva. It is an institute structural and functionally similar to the punitive damages, typical of the countries of common law and which will serve as a model to the indenização punitiva, but whose enforcement demands previous legal provision. That provision must stipulate not only the objective and subjective requirements to the imposition of the indenização punitiva (which will only occur in the cases of utmost reprehensibility, when the offender acts with intent or gross negligence, injuring existential or metaindividual interests, or yet deriving economic benefits from the tort perpetrated), but also, the criteria to be used to quantify the sanction (which do not relate, neither limit, to the extension of the harm suffered).