SAS Open Journals
Not a member yet
4299 research outputs found
Sort by
Lawyers for the Poor: Legal Advice, Voluntary Action, and Citizenship in England, 1890-1990 by Kate Bradley
Full text linkService Charge Budget: To Consult or Not to Consult?
Full text linkThis article examines whether freeholders should be legally required to consult long-leaseholders on service charge budgets before imposing and collecting charges. Using empirical survey data—both qualitative and quantitative—alongside doctrinal analysis and theoretical insights from management studies, I argue in favour of such a requirement. Additionally, I draw upon my experience of over 30 years as both a leaseholder and a freeholder managing the block of flats in which I reside.
The discussion is structured around three key arguments. First, I propose that long leasehold contracts include an implied term necessitating consultation on service charge budgets. While legally complex and contentious, this argument establishes the foundation for the broader discussion. Second, I demonstrate that consultation constitutes good practice, as evidenced by professional guidance from management bodies—guidance that is not always adhered to in practice. Third, I advocate for a cultural shift towards greater consultation, arguing that fostering a consultative approach leads to improved outcomes for all parties involved.
Empirical data further supports this argument, revealing a clear correlation between the degree of control exercised by leaseholders and the extent of consultation, which in turn enhances their overall experience. The stratified nature of this dataset provides a unique contribution to the debate.
Keywords: contract law; contract management; implied terms; relational contract; domestic leasehold contracts/long leases; socio-legal empirical research
Transplants from Different Legal Families in Comparative Law: The Case of the Incorporation of US Common Law Institutions into Cuba for State-Building Purposes (1898-1902)
Full text linkThis article aims to provide a detailed account of receptions and transplants from the United States (US) into Cuban domestic law within the period of military occupation (1898-1902). The underlying assumption points to the particular history of the rough exposition of Cuban continental-style law to the overwhelming influence of US common law at the beginning of the twentieth century. There is scant evidence of this phenomenon in the Hispanic-American area. However, the particularities of Cuban law provide almost laboratory conditions for the insightful study and analysis of dynamic complex interactions between legal families through transplants and receptions.
Keywords: comparative law; legal transplants; legal families; Cuban law; US common law
AI evidence and the future of motor vehicle accident disputes
Full text linkThis paper uses a learning scenario to explore how UK civil courts may deal with self-driving vehicle cases involving a collision. We explore challenges related to obtaining and presenting evidence about decisions made by artificial intelligence (AI) and the impact the legal process may have on automated vehicle (AV) users and other road users.
At first glance, UK legislation regulating AV claims appears to provide a straightforward mechanism for any road user to make a claim for injury or damage caused by a vehicle in self-driving mode. However, this paper will discuss how in the event of the insurer denying a claim or the insurer alleging that the AV user contributed to the accident, those disputing an insurer’s decision, will have no alternative but to take the expensive and time-consuming action of pursuing the matter through the courts.
The UK has introduced legislation which creates a benchmark of safety for AVs which is that AVs should drive to the standard of a ‘careful and competent human driver’. This means that if an AV has a crash while driving itself, an assessment has to be made: Was the vehicle driving like a careful and competent human driver? In the first instance, this decision will be made by the insurer.
If an insurer decides the AV was not at fault, and instead, the AV user was at fault, or partially at fault, the user is at a distinct disadvantage if they disagree with the insurer’s assessment. Anyone disputing the insurer’s assessment will need access to vehicle data and expertise to interpret the data. It will be possible to access some data, but the majority of the relevant data may be difficult to obtain. While there are laws regarding compulsory incident data recording, the mandatory parameters are narrow, and this data may not reveal how an incident occurred. More data parameters exist and will be recorded and available to manufacturers and service providers, but these will not necessarily be made available to other parties. Parties such as AV users, who are not in control of the data, will have to request access. Where this is not voluntarily forthcoming, production of this evidence must be pursued through the Courts.
If an insurer assesses a crash and assigns liability to an AV user, and that user wishes to dispute this and allege that an incident happened due to faulty AI, the existing legal presumptions in the UK about the reliability of computers, combined with the inexplicable nature of deep learning algorithms, presents an almighty challenge for both a user to present a case and for the Court to understand the evidence before it. The UK has not (at the time of writing) amended its product liability legislation to include AI and software. Consequently, if there is an allegation of a vehicle fault relating to the AI, and this is not accepted by the insurer, the claim must be pursued via a negligence claim.
This paper considers how cases may be presented and the issues which arise as a result of the interaction between the law and the AI used in vehicles
Misunderstanding Digital Computer Technology in Court: A Commentary on a Case Involving the Post Office Horizon System
Full text linkOn 3rd May 2007, the long-time Manager of the England’s Lane Post Office in Hampstead, England , Mr. David Cameron, was found guilty in the Crown Court of ten counts of theft from six customer-complainants in the period July 2005 to February 20061. Mr. Cameron applied to the Court of Appeal for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against his conviction, in light of the issues now known with the Horizon system, which processed the transactions involved in Mr. Cameron’s prosecution (the original deadline for filing for appeal had long passed). The judgement was published on 31st March, 2022. The Court of Appeal declined Mr. Cameron's application to appeal his conviction and provided their reasons