|Abstract||Ownership of the product of living things, such as human tissue or cultures developed from human cells, is difficult for the law to determine. Civilian jurisdictions, with their legal heritage grounded in Roman law, offer one solution. Civilian jurisdictions would resolve such cases under the rules of specificatio (specification). A recent case from the Outer House of the Scottish Court of Session (Kinloch Damph Ltd v Nordvik Salmon Farms Ltd) addresses the problem. The case was properly decided, though the grounds of the decision could be improved. Specifically, on civil law principles, civilian courts ought to award ownership of a living thing to a maker/manufacturer who has altered the living thing's natural pattern of development|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Joshua Hoffman & Gary S. Rosenkrantz (1998). On the Unity of Compound Things: Living and Non-Living. Ratio 11 (3):289–315.
Boris Hennig (2007). Der Fortbestand Von Lebewesen. Allgemeine Zeitschrift für Philosophie 32 (1):81-91.
John Dupré & Maureen A. O'Malley, Varieties of Living Things: Life at the Intersection of Lineage and Metabolism.
Uko Zylstra (1992). Living Things as Hierarchically Organized Structures. Synthese 91 (1-2):111 - 133.
Theodore George (2012). Thing, Object, Life. Research in Phenomenology 42 (1):18-34.
David Sobel (2011). The Limits of the Explanatory Power of Developmentalism. Journal of Moral Philosophy 7 (4):517-527.
Keith R. Laws (2001). What is Structural Similarity and is It Greater in Living Things? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):486-487.
Ronald Sandler (2012). Is Artefactualness a Value-Relevant Property of Living Things? Synthese 185 (1):89-102.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?