Common-law spousal relationships have become increasingly common with a growing number of Canadians electing to enter into them. This thesis appreciates the injustices suffered by common-law spouses during and at the termination of their spousal relationships, and reinforces the view that the denial of marital property benefits dishonors the dignity of common-law spouses. Common-law spouses experience similar needs as their married counterparts when the relationship ends. Most of the current functions of marriage can be fulfilled within common-law spousal relationships and should more appropriately be called functions of the family. / Both Canadian courts and the legislatures have acknowledged and responded to the injustices that often flow from power imbalances in unmarried persons' families and have thereby given increased recognition to common-law spousal relationships. They have taken stock of the fact that by not recognizing the rights of common-law spouses in Canada on the basis of their marital status is an affront to justice. Legislatures have also enacted various statutes and have amended existing ones to extend certain rights to common-law spouses. / The various ways in which the rights of common-law spouses have been recognized in Canada will be examined and discussed, in particular the remedial notion of constructive trust which is imposed by courts to prevent injustice and unjust enrichment. It is argued this notion of constructive trust has proven effective, especially in cases where property is being divided after a long-term intimate relationship. Common-law spouses have advanced constitutional challenges in their quest to benefit from marital benefits and protections in their relationships since it is argued that both relationships are functionally the same. / Finally, this thesis suggests lessons that can be learned from the Canadian developments of recognizing common-law spouses. It also concludes by examining similar developments that have taken place in other countries of Europe and Africa.

Thesis (LL.M. (Labour Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2008.

Thesis (LL.M. (Labour Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2008.

This thesis examines common-law and civil-law jurisdictions in order to find differences between them. These differences are then being qualified as either relevant or irrelevant for the categorisation of individual jurisdictions. This reflects the argument that only features occurring in only one of the legal families can be relevant when categorising jurisdictions. Only such features can be, from the author’s point of view, specific and typical for their legal family and inherent features of them.The first thing to be considered under this premise is the respective sources of law (Chapter 1). These are in civil-law jurisdictions traditionally statutes and in commonlaw jurisdictions predominantly courts’ decisions. There are, of course, statutes also in common-law jurisdictions and previous courts’ decisions play an important role also in civil-law systems. The differences are not inherent. Furthermore, there are fundamental legal concepts, that is important concepts underlying the respective rules. These concepts may explain differences between the rules. The examination of sources of law, altogether, does not reveal any distinguishing factors.Chapters 2–5 discuss the issue of attitudes of common-law and civil-law judges to statutory interpretation. Chapter 2 examines the respective methods of statutory interpretation. This does not reveal any differences as to common-law and civil-law judges’ attitudes; for instance, greater adherence of common-law judges to the literal meaning of rules arguably does not exist. As shown in Chapter 3, this is true also in the area of Criminal Law under the special safeguards this subject provides. Chapter 4 asserts terminology causes differences between the systems; this is true even in case of identical terminology which is sometimes being interpreted in a diametrically different way. Moreover, differences can also be compensated for elsewhere in the legal system. Altogether, Chapter 4 does not reveal any inherent differences between the systems. As Chapter 5 shows, there is an ongoing process of convergence between common-law and civil-law systems, which means the categorisation into legal families becomes even less plausible.Chapter 6 shows that the categorisation into legal families is not only incorrect but also highly misleading and that there are numerous scholarly statements relying incorrectly on the family concept. The proposition (Chapter 7) is that it may nevertheless be feasible to structure comparative-law texts according to the wellknown legal families, as these show a common historical background. However, for conducting research into particular foreign legal rules (micro-comparative research), the family concept becomes a misleading starting-point. Insofar the concept should be abandoned or, at least, used only together with an appropriate warning.

Zugl.: Münster (Westfalen), Univ., Diss., 2007

Univ., Diss.--Münster (Westf.), 2003.

El origen de nuestra idea surge de la observación de la evolución del mercado en materia de Derecho con la llegada a nuestro medio de grandes estudios de abogados, los cuales requieren contar con profesionales altamente calificados y especializados en los temas vinculados con el common law y ampliamente requeridos en los países anglosajones y en especial en los Estados Unidos. Detectamos una oportunidad de negocio basada en el hecho de que en la actualidad ninguna Universidad local satisface esta necesidad, lo cual hace más atractiva nuestra idea. Nuestro análisis muestra que el mercado es atractivo y que los profesionales en Derecho son conscientes de la necesidad de especializarse para crecer profesionalmente. Validamos nuestra propuesta mediante un sondeo realizado a nuestro público objetivo, el cual confirma la gran aceptación de nuestra idea y nos permite definir con más precisión las características y los beneficios de nuestro programa. Como consecuencia hemos diseñado un programa de Maestría en Derecho con doble titulación mediante un convenio con una universidad prestigiosa de los Estados Unidos, la cual otorgaría el famoso título de Master of Laws (LL.M.) Nuestro análisis financiero demuestra que nuestra propuesta es viable económicamente desde el primer año con un margen de utilidad del 11.1%, el cual irá creciendo rápidamente para alcanzar el 36.5% el segundo año y el 45.5% al quinto año cuando el programa haya alcanzado mejor su posicionamiento en el mercado, demostrando así su sostenibilidad. / The large law firms, require highly qualified and specialized professionals in issues related to the common law and widely required in the Anglo-Saxon countries and especially in the United States. Currently no local university meets this need, which allows us to detect a business opportunity, which we validate through a survey conducted to our target audience We designed a Master of Laws program with double degrees through an agreement with a prestigious university in the United States, which would grant the famous title of Master of Laws (LL.M.) Our financial analysis shows that our proposal is economically viable from the first year and projects a profit margin of more than 30% from the second year, thus demonstrating its sustainability. / Trabajo de investigación

Made available in DSpace on 2013-08-07T18:48:05Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 000444155-Texto+Parcial-0.pdf: 125862 bytes, checksum: 38e05cc26d38b4f5c2324707d56c7483 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012 / The binding precedent is a topic which, more and more, has taken part of the academic and jurisprudential debates, in the face of its insertion in the Brazilian legal order through binding sumula, binding decisions in the appeals to the Supreme Court, acknowledgment of the general repercussion in recurrent appeals to the Supreme Court, and the judgment of recurrent appeals to the Superior Court. The best comprehension of the binding precedent, to avoid distortion in its application by the Brazilian jurists, demands a deep study of its original system, and the way it is faced and used in such a system. Aiming at this deepening, the present dissertation departs from the comparative study between the original law family of binding precedent, the Common Law family, and the family in which is inserted the Brazilian law, the Civil Law. Understanding both systems and these main features, a detailed examination of the binding doctrine in Common Law was established and, after that, it has done an analysis of the way this doctrine is being transposed to Brasil. The work was developed through the bibliographic research in historical and comparative law books, the reading of British and North-American authors who had been dedicated to the concepts of Common Law, and the analysis of Brazilian doctrinaire and jurisprudential opinion about the topic. The investigation which was made allowed to verify the importance of adopting binding precedents in the evolution of national law. But, on the other hand, it also permitted to realize the lack of technique in the consolidation of this practice in the national territory, what is responsible for the compromising of the judicial assistance. / O precedente vinculante é um tema que, cada vez mais, vem ocupando espaço nos debates acadêmicos e jurisprudenciais, diante da sua inserção no ordenamento jurídico brasileiro através das súmulas vinculantes, decisões vinculantes em recursos extraordinários, do reconhecimento da repercussão geral em recursos extraordinários repetitivos e do julgamento de recursos especiais repetitivos. A melhor compreensão do precedente vinculante, para se evitar distorções na sua aplicação pelos juristas pátrios, exige um estudo aprofundado do sistema jurídico que lhe deu origem, e da forma como é encarado e utilizado neste sistema. Visando a este aprofundamento, a presente dissertação partiu do estudo comparado entre a família de direito originária da doutrina dos precedentes, a família do Common Law, e a família na qual se insere o direito brasileiro, a do Civil Law. Entendendo estes dois sistemas e as suas principais características, estabeleceu-se, então, um exame minucioso da doutrina dos precedentes dentro do Common Law e, após, a análise de como esta doutrina vem sendo transposta para o Brasil. O trabalho foi desenvolvido através da pesquisa bibliográfica em livros de história do direito e de direito comparado, da leitura de autores ingleses e norte-americanos que se dedicaram aos conceitos do Common Law, bem como através da análise das opiniões doutrinárias e jurisprudenciais brasileiras a respeito do tema. A investigação realizada permitiu constatar a importância da adoção dos precedentes vinculantes para a evolução do direito nacional. Mas, por outro lado, permitiu perceber também a atecnia com que essa prática vem se consolidando no direito nacional, o que só compromete a qualidade da prestação jurisdicional.

LL.M. (Civil Procedural Law) / In this dissertation various topics regarding inchoate documents will be analysed and discussed. A brief historical background will set the scene, showing the development of bills of exchange in various countries around the world. Although the origins of the earliest bills of exchange can be traced back to Arabic traders in the eighth century, the development of the bill of exchange is generally traced back to the lex mercatoria, i~ the rules which were adopted by medieval traders, especially the Lombards in Italy, to conduct their business. As the lex mercatoria was absorbed into various countries, differences developed. It is clear that the English Bills of Exchange Act 1882 had a marked influence on the law relating to negotiable instruments in most Commonwealth countries and the United States of America. In the second chapter the distinction between the common law and statute law will be analysed. The recent Appellate Division judgment in the case of Thompson v Voges 1988 (I) SA 747 (A) will be discussed. In that case Acting Chief Justice Rabie held that an automatic estoppel could not operate against the signatory of an inchoate document who had signed a document and had handed it to another with the intention that it be issued and used as a negotiable instrument. A detailed analysis of Thompson's case, and the cases referred to by the learned Acting Chief Justice in the course of his judgment, will show that the conclusion reached by him can only be applied to holders who qualify as mere holders, and not to holders in due course. It is submitted, with the greatest respect, that an automatic estoppel will still operate in favour of a holder in due course...

No abstract available Copyright / Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2012. / Private Law / unrestricted