Category Archives: 3

The Sad Future of Unjustified Enrichment in Brazil: Criticising the Brazilian Civil Code Reform

João Costa-Neto*

Abstract: Brazil’s current Civil Code is going through a legislative overhaul. As concerns unjustified enrichment, a comparative review of notably German and the common law reveals three of the reform’s shortcomings: (a) it failed to develop or propose a Brazilian taxonomy on unjustified enrichment law (and to comprehend and elaborate on its rationale); (b) it neglected to determine the measure of restitution in cases of unjustified enrichment by infringement of another’s right (reasonable fee or disgorgement of profits?); and (c) it proposed a redundant and implausible dies a quo (commencement date) for interest rates in cases of unjustified enrichment. While the Brazilian Civil Code should undergo comprehensive reform on unjustified enrichment law, the current proposals are heading in the wrong direction. Just as Brazilian legislators should seize the opportunity to correct old mistakes, they should avoid rushing into making several new ones.

(2024) Oxford U Comparative L Forum 3 at ouclf.law.ox.ac.uk | How to cite this article

Continue reading →

‘But We’ve Spent the Money’: Defending Overpaid Tax Claims under English and German Law

by Sabrina Nanchahal*

(2020) Oxford U Comparative L Forum 3 at ouclf.law.ox.ac.uk | How to cite this article

Despite extensive litigation concerning restitution claims against the tax authority in the English courts, the role and parameters of the change of position defence have not been satisfactorily established in this context. German law provides a clear example of how these issues can be addressed within a public law restitution framework. This article explores the conceptual basis for the German position before turning to the current English framework. An analysis of the application of the defence according to unjust enrichment principles emphasises the practical and conceptual difficulties the English courts have faced in such claims. In light of these issues, two alternative potential developments of the defence are examined with the aim of achieving a conceptually cohesive common law restitution framework.

Continue reading →

Optimising Your Holiday: A Proposal for the Optimal System for Timesharing from a Comparative Perspective

by Dhurgham Fadhil Hussein Al-Ali,* John Gwilym Owen** and Marie Parker***

(2019) Oxford U Comparative L Forum 3 at ouclf.law.ox.ac.uk | How to cite this article

Timesharing causes profound issues for consumers, yet there is a dearth of academic commentary about this topic, and little is known about how other jurisdictions regulate this area. This article will assess the issues faced by consumers when purchasing, owning and terminating timeshare. As a result of this assessment, the optimal features required to tackle these difficult issues are suggested. These optimal features are applied to selected jurisdictions in order to undertake a functional analysis. The article identifies the strengths and weaknesses in each system under consideration, and makes specific proposals for England and Wales.[1]

Continue reading →

A Case for a Customary Right to Privacy of an Individual: A Comparative Study on Indian and other State Practice

by Arvind Pillai, Raghav Kohli

(2017) Oxford U Comparative L Forum 3 at ouclf.law.ox.ac.uk | How to cite this article

Privacy as a concept has been hotly debated with regard to its role in an individual’s personal sphere since antiquity. The inception of international instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, along with institutions such as the United Nations, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Council of Europe, have made the codification of privacy a global concern. However, despite the inception of these institutions, several states have refused to codify and respect privacy as a fundamental right guaranteed to an individual. Thus, the need arises to highlight the development of a right to privacy as a customary right with the help of widespread state practice around the world. The most recent country to address the question of what status privacy holds in the legislative framework of that state is India. Here a unique identifying number is provided to each citizen based on biometric and demographic information. Known as the ‘Aadhaar’ scheme, this is giving rise to grave concerns about bodily integrity, informational self-determination, and decisional freedom. Indeed, a nine-judge Constitution Bench has just unanimously affirmed that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India (Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd.), and Anr v Union of India and Ors (2017) 10 SCC 1)
This article traces the evolution of the right to privacy in India, starting with an exploration of its conception in the Constituent Assembly Debates of the longest Constitution in the world. It attempts to ascertain the intent behind the exclusion of the right to privacy as a fundamental right from the Constitution, and analyses the contemporary position developed by the inconsistent jurisprudence of the Courts in India. Finally, by scrutinizing the practices of states from around the world, it argues that the right to privacy, and in particular data privacy, can be considered a binding principle of customary international law.
Continue reading →

Canada’s Statutory Privacy Torts in Commonwealth Perspective

by Chris D. L. Hunt* and Nikta Shirazian**

(2016) Oxford U Comparative L Forum 3 at ouclf.law.ox.ac.uk | How to cite this article

In the last decade common law privacy torts have emerged in Ontario, England and New Zealand, and three recent law reform commissions in Australia have issued reports recommending similar actions in that country. Four Canadian common law provinces have had statutory privacy torts for decades (British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland). These statutes offer little guidance as to when a privacy interest will arise and the case law does little to illuminate. Despite dozens of decisions, few are at the appellate level, and none have engaged in a detailed assessment of the factors relevant to assessing privacy claims in the tort context. In this paper, the authors undertake a thorough analysis of the Canadian case law, uncovering the principles latent in the existing jurisprudence, and critically examine them in light of the dynamic developments occurring in other parts of the Commonwealth. After exploring the structure and scope of these statutory torts in Part One, the authors propose that courts employ a reasonable expectation of privacy test, turning on the existence of 10 contextual factors that are elucidated in Part Two. The authors recommend that these factors be analyzed from two perspectives—the extent to which they serve to identify a privacy interest, and the extent to which they suggest an intrusion was sufficiently objectionable to warrant recognition of a prima facie claim. While the recommendations in this paper are often directed at a Canadian audience, they are informed by the comparative experience abroad and hence could be of real interest to jurists throughout the Commonwealth concerned with the principled operation of privacy torts.
Continue reading →

Legal Aid in Times of Economic Turmoil: Current Challenges in England and Germany

Tobias Schrank*

(2011) Oxford U Comparative L Forum 3 at ouclf.law.ox.ac.uk | How to cite this article

Table of contents

Continue reading →

European Research Group on Existing EC Private Law (Acquis Group)

Position Paper on the Proposal for a Directive on Consumer Rights1

Drafting Team: Gerhard Dannemann, Judith Rochfeld, Hans Schulte-Nölke, Reiner Schulze, Evelyne Terryn, Christian Twigg-Flesner and Fryderyk Zoll

(2009) Oxford U Comparative L Forum 3 at ouclf.law.ox.ac.uk | How to cite this article

Table of contents

Continue reading →

Britain’s Emerging Constitution?

Lord Mance1

(2008) Oxford U Comparative L Forum 3 at ouclf.law.ox.ac.uk | How to cite this article this article

Table of contents

Continue reading →

The Role of Reasonable and Unreasonable Mistake in Justified Defences – A Comparative and Analytical Study

Khalid Ghanayim*

(2007) Oxford U Comparative L Forum 3 at ouclf.law.ox.ac.uk | How to cite this article

Table of contents

Continue reading →