论文部分内容阅读
对受诺人必须提供约因的规则和相互关系的理论,可以从两个层次加以批评。首先,从理论层次上看,判决中陈述的规则和教科书中阐述的规则与法院实际适用或可能适用的法律不符。以1946年汽车保险者协会与交通部长之间的协议为例,根据该协议,保险者协会对被未投保的驾驶者撞伤的受害者进行补偿。很显然,受害者不是协定的当事人。但在“加德纳诉莫尔”案中,上议院却对此协议视而不见。海尔塞姆法官认为,对受害者求偿的法理依据最好不要深究。然而最恰当的例子大概还是银行的商业信用。银行商业信用中产生的某些关
The theory that the promisee must provide the causal rules and interrelations can be criticized on two levels. First, at the theoretical level, the rules set forth in the judgments and the rules set forth in the textbooks are not in conformity with the law that the court actually or may apply. Take the agreement between the Association of Car Insurers of 1946 and the Minister of Transport as an example, under which the Association of Insurers compensates victims of injuries sustained by uninsured drivers. Obviously, the victim is not the party to the agreement. However, in the case of Gardner v. Moore, the Lords turned a blind eye to this agreement. Judge Helmsham believes it is best not to go deep into the legal basis for the claims of victims. However, the most appropriate example is probably the bank’s commercial credit. Some of the bank credit generated in commercial credit