An unprecedented number of consumer problems has been caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, not least with regard to refunds of prepayments and the ability of consumers to keep up their monthly payments under loan and rental agreements. Based on a notion of societal force majeure sketched in this paper, we propose guiding principles in respect of the introduction of moratoria on recurring payments, the use of refunds or vouchers in respect of prepayments, and associated enforcement challenges. This analysis draws on experiences around the globe. Keywords Consumer law. COVID-19. Moratoria. Refunds. Guiding principles The COVID-19 pandemic has swept around the world. As well as huge suffering and high numbers of fatalities, it has had a heavy negative economic impact. Millions of consumers around the world are suffering financially, because many have lost their regular income, and many are fighting to obtain refunds of prepayments from struggling businesses whilst having to service loans and rental payments. In this contribution, we, a research group on consumer law with a global reach, offer an initial assessment of the legal difficulties consumers face. We argue for a principles-based way forward and evaluate a range of global initiatives taken thus far.
As organ donation rates remain unable to meet the needs of individuals waiting for transplants, it is necessary to identify reasons for this shortage and develop solutions to address it. The introduction of kidney paired donation (KPD) programs represents one such innovation that has become a valuable tool in donation systems around the world. Although KPD has been successful in increasing kidney donation and transplantation, there are lingering questions about its legality. Donation through KPD is done in exchange for-and with the expectation of-a reciprocal kidney donation and transplantation. It is this reciprocity that has caused concern about whether KPD complies with existing law. Organ donation systems around the world are almost universally structured to legally prohibit the commercial exchange of organs. Australia, Canada, and the United States have accomplished this goal by prohibiting the exchange of an organ for "valuable consideration," which is a legal term that has not historically been limited to monetary exchange. Whether or not KPD programs violate this legislative prohibition will depend on the specific legislative provision being considered, and the legal system and case law of the particular jurisdiction in question. This article compares the experiences of Australia, Canada, and the United States in determining the legality of KPD and highlights the need for legal clarity and flexibility as donation and transplantation systems continue to evolve.
This chapter makes a case against the use of smart contracts in the context of employment. It discusses the general operation of smart contracts, followed by a consideration of their potential use in employment. With that information as a lens through which to view the remainder of the chapter, four key suggestions are then made as to why smart contracts are not suited to instances of employment. The first is that smart contracts cannot account for an employer’s exercise of the managerial prerogative, which is inherent to employment. Secondly, smart contracts are unsuited to allowing for employers to exercise various types of discretions that tend to be contained under employment contracts, which, in turn, has the potential to unfairly prejudice employees. Thirdly, a smart employment contract is unable to allow an employer to performance manage, discipline and potentially dismiss employees for misconduct, or even to allow employees to respond to such circumstances—all of which are concepts of a strongly subjective nature. Finally, smart contracts are unable to accommodate for certain changes that are cognizant in instances of employment and inherent in the employee’s interests; they are inflexible and contain functional vulnerabilities that would generate unprecedented and unnecessary structural change in workplaces. Put simply, smart contracts are not up to the job of supplanting the existing means of generating a contractual relationship between an employer and employee.
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.