I distinguish between two ways of understanding the effect of a decision as a precedent in the common law, which I refer to as the individual rule approach and the holistic approach. I consider the different versions of the common law that they would be expected to give rise to, which approach is more closely reflected in the practices of the common law, and why the holistic approach is preferable as a method for finding and developing the law in adjudication. (...) I explain why under the holistic approach the common law contains principles as well as rules, and I consider the two approaches in the light of the requirement of the rule of law, and I show how the holistic approach explains a version of the policy/principle distinction. (shrink)

This article elaborates upon and defends the distinction between “primary duty” claims and “primary liability” claims in private law introduced in a previous article. In particular, I discuss the relevance of the distinction to the debates over fault and strict liability and “duty skepticism” and to the relationship between primary and remedial rights. I argue that the tendency to assume that all claims in private law arise from a breach of duty is a source of error and confusion. As a (...) prelude to the discussion, I set out an analysis of a claim or remedial right in private law as a Hohfeldian power correlated with a remedial liability. I also consider whether primary-liability claims can be formulated in terms of the legal relations found in Wesley Hohfeld's scheme, and I make some general comments about Hohfeldian analysis. (shrink)

Private law is generally formulated in terms of rightduty relation at all but on a or liability” relation. A primary-liability claim is not a claim arising from the breach of a strict-liability duty. The recognition of primary-liability claims does not involve skepticism about duties or rules or legal relations and it is consistent with the analysis of private law in terms of corrective justice.

This book discusses the dominant corrective justice and distributive justice approaches to private law and identifies their strengths and weaknesses. It goes on to propose a general approach to private law, including contract, tort and private property, and explains how it can provide solutions to some longstanding problems. Two general ideas inform this approach: the 'standpoint limitation' and 'remedial consistency'. The standpoint limitation explains the distinctive character of private law, that is to say why it is focussed mainly, though not (...) exclusively, on particular individual interests rather than the common welfare. Remedial consistency explains the way in which remedies depend on and give effect to primary rights. The book also discusses the nature of common law legal reasoning and its relationship to the suggested understanding of private law. (shrink)

ABSTRACT Some commentators recognise a distinction between policy and principle and regard private law as exclusively a matter of principle. Variants of this approach are found in Dworkin and corrective justice and ‘rights’ theorists. For these commentators, the distinction is fundamental to the character of private law, and to its development through the common law. Other commentators, in particular proponents of policy-oriented accounts, including the economic analysis of law, deny that there is any basis for such a distinction. I discuss (...) in outline some of the attractions and difficulties of these approaches, and I set out a version of the principle/policy distinction in terms of the ‘standpoint limitation’, which I argue determines the character of private law. I consider how the standpoint limitation gives rise to the characteristic structural features of private law, focussing on contract and negligence in tort. I also show how, on one approach to the common law, the standpoint limitation is implicit in ordinary common law reasoning. (shrink)