COMMON LAW THEORY

-

Introduction
The common law is a concept that has been subject to severe criticism. Historically speaking, the common law theory emerged in England during the middle ages. It is a theory that might be said to be widely accepted in line with the civil law. These legal tradition can be seen in almost all the legal system of our contemporary society. Little wonder it was and is still being critiqued vehemently by most scholars since it is widely known.
In talking about common law, it is generally uncodified, having no compilation of legal rules and statutes. The state of common law is such that its decision and authority is mostly based on precedence. The records of the courts together with the collections of case laws known as yearbooks and reports give impetus and reference to the common law, and as such they maintain the precedence. Now in every case, the precedents to be applied in the decision of each new case are determined by the presiding judge.[1]
Having this idea of common law briefly explained, we shall delve into the main issue of this essay. This essay tends to explore the different criticism levelled against the common law theory. We shall endeavour in this essay to make this our primary and if possible only engagement.
Criticisms of Common Law Theory
If we suppose the Common Law to be a sort of legal system that has been developed by case Law, (a law highly influenced by the decisions of courts and tribunals) as distinct from the law derived from legislative status, there may be a case where there is no direct or authoritative statement of Law contained in the preceding cases upon which the common law bases its judgment. The issue becomes that the judge will have the authority to create precedence by applying fundamental principles and reasoning to come to a decision. In this case, much complexity may arise when there is interaction between the common law and jurisprudence.[2] The statutes of common Law is one that is constantly evolving, this makes law porous to be a guide or something to be trusted. Its uncertainty and mutability can make the legal system look stupid other than one in  which our seal of trust can be imprinted.
A state of affair where the judge is not equipped with the necessary tools from precedence to make decision based on Common Law can lead to an arbitrary creation of law which may be detrimental to the ideal concept of law. This will lead to creation of laws and spontaneous evolution of legal sanctions which may not be subjected to right reason but only on the prejudice of the judge who is in the position of making such laws.
It has been shown that the severe restrictions in relation to Common Law stems from negligence causing personal injury. Many European countries have set some parameters with regards to this law claims. An instance of this is the Queensland Act of 1974 which posits that a personal injury action must be brought within three years from the date of an accident from which the injury arises.[3] Various other limitations are set in relation to other types of actions. If actions fail to meet up within this limitation period, there is a risk that a plaintiff may lose her right to claim any damages at all.
Conclusion
Having stated the few criticisms that the parameters entails for us, it is quite necessary to state that inasmuch as the Common Law has been critiqued over the years, it is indubitably plausible to say that the influence of some sort of common law in the modern legal system is glaringly evident. Reason being that the very nature of man tends to repeat plausible past event.

[2] Cf. Carmel Davis, “Common Law and Limitations. www.inhalesuite2.com/uploads/24/documents/BM21.pdf. Accessed, 9-11-2015. 
[3] Cf. Carmel Davis, “Common Law and Limitations. www.inhalesuite2.com/uploads/24/documents/BM21.pdf. Accessed, 9-11-2015. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

SUMMARY OF PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, ENCYCLICAL LETTER OF POPE LEO XIII ON THE STUDY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURE.

-
SUMMARY OF PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, ENCYCLICAL LETTER OF POPE LEO XIII ON THE STUDY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURE.      God has elevated man, freed him of guilt and ruin, restored him to his initial dignity and has made known to him the mystery of his divinity.      He revealed himself through the inspiration of the holyspirit to man. This supernatural revelation, the church believe, is contained in both written tradition and written books which is called sacred and canonical. God himself is the author of the sacred book, he composed the book; the words of the book are his words.      Priests are encouraged to read this sacred book, meditate over it, ponder on it and explain it to the people. The apostolic office also enjoins them to help in making this sacred book reach the Christians and also to defend it against the attack of the heretics.      The holy spirit himself testifies that all the scripture i...
Read more

summary and appraisal of chapters one, two and three of the book The African Origin of Greek Philosophy: An Exercise in Afrocentrism, by Innocent C. Onyewuenyi.

-
Introduction Can Africans philosophize? Is there such a thing as African philosophy? What contribution has Africans made on the world’s civilization and on the discipline of philosophy? These and a plethora of questions are seeking answers in today’s modern world. Africa is being conceived by the world as savages, primitive, her people as those that reside in the Dark Continent who are intellectually inferior. Thus, Africans have not contributed anything to the discipline of philosophy. Hence, this work by Innocent Onyewuenyi aims at answering these questions and at reinstating the truth that philosophy has its origin in the Egyptian Mystery System. In view of this, it is our aim in this paper to summarize and appraise chapters one, two and three of the book The African Origin of Greek Philosophy: An Exercise in Afrocentrism, by Innocent C. Onyewuenyi. To achieve this, we shall begin with a summary of the three chapters followed by an appraisal. Furthermore, we shall present ...
Read more

THE LAST THREE WAYS TO PROVES GOD'S EXISTENCE BY THOMAS AQUINAS

-
THE LAST THREE WAYS TO PROVES GOD'S EXISTENCE BY THOMAS AQUINAS FROM POSSIBILITY AND NECESSITY ITS ARGUEMENT In nature, we find things that are possible to be and not to be, that come from being and go out of being as contingent beings. Imagine every being is a contingent being, for each contingent being, there come a time it is not in existence, which makes it impossible for these to always be in existence. There could have been a time when nothing existed. At that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence. So therefore, nothing would be in existence now. We have reached a common sense result from assuming that every being is a contingent being. It implies that not every being is a contingent being, some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being but rather causes them. This people term it as Supreme Being, God. ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN       ...
Read more