| Cena: |
| Stanje: | Polovan bez oštećenja |
| Garancija: | Ne |
| Isporuka: | Pošta CC paket (Pošta) Post Express |
| Plaćanje: | Tekući račun (pre slanja) |
| Grad: |
Novi Sad, Novi Sad |
ISBN: Ostalo
Godina izdanja: 1900 - 1949.
Jezik: Engleski
Tematika: pravo
Kulturno dobro: Predmet koji prodajem nije kulturno dobro ili ovlašćena institucija odbija pravo preče kupovine
Autor: Strani
U dobrom stanju
Common-Sense in Law
by Paul Vinogradoff, D.C.L., LL.D., D.Hist., Dr.Jur., F.B.A.
Corpus Professor of Jurisprudence in the University of Oxford
London: Williams and Norgate
New York: Henry Holt and Company
The Home University Library of Modern Knowledge series was an early 20th-century educational series edited by Herbert Fisher, Gilbert Murray, J. Arthur Thomson, and William T. Brewster, aiming to provide concise introductions to various academic subjects for a general readership.
Vinogradoff’s Common Sense in Late is a gem, a little classic. To attempt to ‘bring it up to date’, in the accepted sense of the term, would be to spoil it. The text has, therefore, been left, as far as possible, intact. No systematic effort has been made to incorporate recent decisions of the Court. The only changes that have been made arc in places in which the author’s statement has ceased correctly to present the existing law. Eor instance, he mentions as an act-in-law which would in England be invalid as being not in conformity with the rules of law a bequest for masses for the testator’s soul. Such bequests now having been validated by the decision of the House of7 Lords in Bourne v. Keane in 1919, another type of act-in-law, a gift for the establishment of a lottery, has been taken to illustrate the author’s point (p. 82). Again, the author criticized the narrow interpretation placed by the Supreme Court of the United States on the ‘Commerce Clause’ of the Constitution, which constrained it to declare unconstitutional the Act of 1906 which established a system of Employers Liability in Interstate Commerce, and hazarded the prediction that the Court would find it necessary later to adopt a wider interpretation. This prediction of Vinogradoff’s was triumphantly justified by a later decision (see pp. 105-6).
H. G. HANBURY
Oxford 1945