LogIn / RegistrationArticles for sale
- Head office address: Moscow, 123317, Moscow City, 8th Floor, Presnenskaya Embankment, 6, bldg. 2
- article@123mi.ru
- Сортировка:
- по горящим
- по цене
- по дате
#11701. Examining the Structure of Remedial Law
| August 2026 | publication date |
| Proposal available till | 10-06-2025 |
| 4 total number of authors per manuscript | 0 $ |
| The title of the journal is available only for the authors who have already paid for |
| Journal’s subject area: |
| Law; |
| place 1 | place 2 | place 3 | place 4 |
| Free | Free | Free | Free |
| 2350 $ | 1200 $ | 1050 $ | 900 $ |
Contract №11701.1   | Contract №11701.2 | Contract №11701.3 | Contract №11701.4 |
1 place - free (for sale)
2 place - free (for sale)
3 place - free (for sale)
4 place - free (for sale)
Abstract:
Conventionally, a judicial private law remedy (JPLR) is understood as a court order made following two types of events: a violation of a legally recognised right, or a threatened violation of a legally recognised right. In Rights, Wrongs, and Injustices: The Structure of Remedial Law, Stephen Smith rejects the prevailing explanation of the primary and secondary duties in JPLRs. Smith argues, first, that although certain JPLRs are made on the ‘grounds’ of threatened rights violations, many of the JPLRs that courts issue are instead made on the ‘grounds’ of ‘wrongs’ or ‘injustices’. Secondly, Smith argues that the idea of ‘secondary legal duties’ is largely misplaced and that, prior to a judicial ruling, rights violations only give rise to legal liabilities. This review makes three principal claims: first, the reasons that Smith provides against the existence of a ‘secondary’ legal duty to pay ‘compensatory damages’ are unpersuasive; second, the taxonomy of damages awards that Smith advances should largely be rejected; and third, Smith’s argument that all restitutionary orders following ‘defective transfers’ are made on the ‘grounds’ of ‘injustices’ is doubtful. As explained below, these criticisms substantially undermine the ‘structure’ of ‘remedial law’ that Smith defends.
Keywords:
Judicial private law; rights violations; legal liabilities; compensatory damages
Contacts :
2 place - free (for sale)
3 place - free (for sale)
4 place - free (for sale)
Abstract:
Conventionally, a judicial private law remedy (JPLR) is understood as a court order made following two types of events: a violation of a legally recognised right, or a threatened violation of a legally recognised right. In Rights, Wrongs, and Injustices: The Structure of Remedial Law, Stephen Smith rejects the prevailing explanation of the primary and secondary duties in JPLRs. Smith argues, first, that although certain JPLRs are made on the ‘grounds’ of threatened rights violations, many of the JPLRs that courts issue are instead made on the ‘grounds’ of ‘wrongs’ or ‘injustices’. Secondly, Smith argues that the idea of ‘secondary legal duties’ is largely misplaced and that, prior to a judicial ruling, rights violations only give rise to legal liabilities. This review makes three principal claims: first, the reasons that Smith provides against the existence of a ‘secondary’ legal duty to pay ‘compensatory damages’ are unpersuasive; second, the taxonomy of damages awards that Smith advances should largely be rejected; and third, Smith’s argument that all restitutionary orders following ‘defective transfers’ are made on the ‘grounds’ of ‘injustices’ is doubtful. As explained below, these criticisms substantially undermine the ‘structure’ of ‘remedial law’ that Smith defends.
Keywords:
Judicial private law; rights violations; legal liabilities; compensatory damages
Contacts :
