Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d'auteur. L'utilisation des services d'Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique d'utilisation que vous pouvez consulter en ligne.https://apropos.erudit.org/fr/usagers/politique-dutilisation/ Cet article est diffusé et préservé par Érudit.Érudit est un consortium interuniversitaire sans but lucratif composé de l'Université de Montréal, l'Université Laval et l'Université du Québec à Montréal. Il a pour mission la promotion et la valorisation de la recherche. Cet article retrace la façon dont ce consensus se développa à l'écart de réels débats, en dépit d'importantes controverses opposant plusieurs écoles de pensée historiques du droit contractuel du XIXe siècle. Pour ce faire, l'article résume de manière critique plusieurs exemples du droit des contrats du XIXe siècle à nos jours. L'article débute avec une brève excursion littéraire afin de démontrer qu'il existe de bonnes raisons de douter que le consensus soit justifié. Une version individualiste mais relationnelle du contrat était dominante dans le réalisme littéraire de l'époque victorienne, l'un des principaux sites culturels de l'« Ère du contrat », rendant problématique la théorie d'une unique signification du contrat.Le consensus créé par l'histoire des contrats influence la pensée actuelle puisqu'il concerne l'interprétation des contrats et explore les effets constitutifs du droit sur la conscience sociale. Cet article met à nu le consensus afin qu'il puisse être reconsidéré. This paper argues that histories of nineteenth-century contract have been implicated in the creation of a questionable historical artifact: the story of a single meaning of contract at the decisive era for modern contract law's development, a story intimately tied with atomistic individualism. The paper traces how the consensus has been built and kept beyond debate despite significant controversies engaging rival historical schools of nineteenth-century contract law. It does so by critically synthesizing multiple accounts of contract law, produced from the nineteenth century to our own days. It opens, however, with a brief literary excursion in order to show that there is good reason to view the consensus as unwarranted. An individualist but relational version of contract was dominant in Victorian literary realism, one of the central cultural sites of the "Age of Contract", problematizing the story of a single meaning of contract. McGill Law JournalThe consensus created by contract histories bears implications for present thought as it negotiates visions of contract, and as it explores law's constitutive effects on social consciousness. This paper lays the consensus open so that we can let go of it.Cet article soutient que l'histoire des contrats du XIXe siècle fut impliquée dans la créa-tion d'un artefact historique discutable : le déve-loppement d'une seule et unique interprétation du contrat à une époque décisive pour le déve-loppement du droit contractuel moderne, un dé-veloppement intimement liée à l'individ...
What is the difference between advertising and news? This essay examines the rise of this dilemma and its precarious resolution in the formative era of modern advertising and press commercialization in Britain, c. 1848–1914, with particular attention to legal powers mobilized in the process. The essay traces a dialectical process, which began with the midcentury campaign to repeal taxes on the press, one of which was the advertisement duty. The campaign framed advertising as a communication of essential information. Its success gave full reign to advertising in the newspaper press, but also triggered a readjustment: Newspaper owners soon faced a threat to their effective control of the medium; their proprietary power to differentiate advertising from their self-proclaimed business - news - was put to the test. Owners' responses established a hierarchic distinction between news and advertising, along an informational metric: advertising was framed as an inferior kind of information, more biased than news. The hierarchy became embedded as a common sense to the point that the process of historical creation has been forgotten; yet, it asserted a difference between news and ads which had little to hang on in theory and practice, giving rise to challenges which still resonate today.
No abstract
Hendrik Hartog’s The Trouble with Minna complicates the binary between freedom and unfreedom in American history by probing the mixture of slavery and contract in antebellum New Jersey’s regime of gradual emancipation. This Essay argues that if Hartog’s narrative is read for more general patterns—in addition to everyday lived experiences which Hartog emphasizes—it also reveals resistance to such line-blurring, and historical efforts to construct conceptual boundaries that would separate slave relations from capitalist ones. That resistance should assume a more central conceptual place within the current tide of historiographical emphasis toward blurred lines.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.