Clarkson & Hill's Conflict of Laws, now in its fifth edition, provides a clear and up-to-date account of private international law topics. Theoretical issues and fundamental principles are introduced in the first chapter and expanded upon in later chapters. Basic principles of the conflict of laws are presented, offering clarity on complex points and terminology. The fifth edition reflects the field's changing focus from case law to domestic and European legislation, incorporating the Brussels I Regulation and Brussels II Revised Regulation, as well as the more recent Rome Regulations and Brussels I Recast. Embracing this reorientation of the field and increased emphasis on the recognition and enforcement of judgments, the chapters provide detailed commentary on the most important commercial topics as well as the most relevant topics in family law.
Council Regulation 1347/2000 (the ‘Brussels II Regulation’) marked the beginning of the ‘Europeanization’ of family law. This article analyses the development of EU family law policy over the last decade, with particular focus on the common law perspective. It is argued that the Brussels II Regulation and the ensuing EU family law measures have had (and will have) a significant negative impact in English and Irish law, clashing with internal legal policy and sitting uneasily alongside existing legal structures.
Reporters Austria: Martin Stefula Belgium: Vincent Sagaert Denmark: Kim Østergaard, Christina Tvarnø, Andreas Tamasauskas England: Walter Cairns France: Bénédicte Fauvarque-Cosson, Valérie Pironon Germany: Matthias Hünert Greece: Eugenia Dacoronia Ireland: Máire Ní Shuilleabháin Italy: Raffaele Caterina Netherlands: Bert van Schaick Portugal: Paulo Mota Pinto Scotland: Hector MacQueen Spain: Miquel Martín-Casals, Jordi Ribot Igualada, Albert Ruda González Switzerland: Anne-Catherine Hahn
The decision by the BGH was based on the following facts. The plaintiff, born in 1982, claimed material and immaterial damages for the destruction of his milk teeth denture. He maintained that, during the first two years of his life, he had been fed a tea product made by the defendant by way of “permanent suckling”. In doing so, a plastic feeding bottle, which has also been distributed by the defendant and which lacked a proper warning, had been used. In 1985 the mother of the plaintiff learnt from the dentists treating her child that the damage to the milk teeth may have been caused by the consumption of the tea. In 1993 she was informed about the possibility of claiming damages from the tea producer by her health insurance. In 1996 the plaintiff lodged a claim for damages against the defendant and the co-defendants, some of her senior staff members (such as members of the executive board, the authorized officer, and head of departments) whom the plaintiff thought jointly responsible for the development, production and distribution of the tea product causing the damage to his teeth. The defendants raised the objection of limitation of the plaintiff’s claim. The previous Courts dismissed the claim due to the objection raised by the defendants. However, the plaintiff succeeded with his appeal in respect of the co-defendants. The BGH argued that the requirements for the period of limitation and its commencement have to be verified for each co-defendant separately. If several persons may have caused the damage, the period of limitation starts to run for each of them as from the point in time the aggrieved party has become aware of the respective person causing the damage. It is therefore possible that the period of limitation may start to run, and expire, from different points in time, notwithstanding the fact that the underlying claim is based on the same event and damage. This also holds true in respect of co-defendants being an enterprise on the one hand, and its legal representatives or senior staff on the other hand, who are liable for the enterprise according to §31 or §831 BGB.
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.