| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Slade v Morley ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Slade's Case
Slade's Case was a case in English contract law that ran from 1596 to 1602. Under the medieval common law, claims seeking the repayment of a debt or other matters could only be pursued through a writ of debt in the Court of Common Pleas, a problematic and archaic process. By 1558 the lawyers had succeeded in creating another method, enforced by the Court of King's Bench, through the action of ''assumpsit'', which was technically for deceit. The legal fiction used was that by failing to pay after promising to do so, a defendant had committed deceit, and was liable to the plaintiff. The conservative Common Pleas, through the appellate court the Court of Exchequer Chamber, began to overrule decisions made by the King's Bench on ''assumpsit'', causing friction between the courts.
In Slade's Case, a case under ''assumpsit'', which was brought between judges of the Common Pleas and King's Bench, was transferred to the Exchequer Chamber where the King's Bench judges were allowed to vote. The case dragged on for five years, with the judgment finally being delivered in 1602 by the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, John Popham. Popham ruled that ''assumpsit'' claims were valid, a decision called a "watershed" moment in English law,〔 with archaic and outdated principles being overwritten by the modern and effective ''assumpsit'', which soon became the main course of action in contract cases. This is also seen as an example of judicial legislation, with the courts making a revolutionary decision Parliament had failed to make.
==Background==
Under the medieval common law, there was only one way to resolve a dispute seeking the repayment of money or other contract matters; a writ of debt, which only the Court of Common Pleas could hear. This was archaic, did not work against the executors of a will and involved precise pleading; a minor flaw in the documents put to the court could see the case thrown out. By the middle of the 16th century lawyers had attempted to devise an alternative using the action of ''assumpsit'', which was technically a type of trespass due to deceit. The argument was based on the idea that there was an inherent promise in a contract to pay the money, and that by failing to pay the defendant had deceived the plaintiff.〔Boyer (2003) p.125〕 By 1558 the lawyers had succeeded, with the Court of King's Bench agreeing to hear cases under this piece of legal fiction. The judges of the Common Pleas, however, a more traditional group, rejected this argument and only accepted cases where an actual promise had been made in addition to the contract.〔Simpson (2004) p.70〕
The action of ''assumpsit'' had several advantages over a writ of debt; the plaintiff could count on always having a jury, while in writs of debt the defendant could rely on wager of law, where he produced twelve people to swear he did not owe the plaintiff money and had the case dismissed. In addition, it worked for executory agreements, not just normal contracts.〔Boyer (2003) p.126〕 In 1585 a new form of the Court of Exchequer Chamber was set up, an appellate court where the Common Pleas judges held a majority, and regularly began to reverse King's Bench judgments which were based on ''assumpsit''.〔Simpson (2004) p.71〕 This, and the conflict between the King's Bench and the Common Pleas as a whole, was problematic; a plaintiff at assizes could not be sure which sort of judge his case would come before, lending uncertainty to the law. Boyer suggests that, in this environment, the Chief Justice of the King's Bench John Popham deliberately provoked the Common Pleas to resolve the matter, and did so through Slade's Case.〔Boyer (2003) p.127〕
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Slade's Case」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|