Marco Cappelletti – författare

Comparative Reflections in Private Law celebrates the scholarly legacy of Professor Simon Whittaker, whose work has left a profound mark on the field of comparative law. Reflecting the breadth and depth of his influence, the volume brings together leading scholars to explore central themes in private law from a comparative perspective. The volume is split into three distinct parts. The first part of the volume focuses on contract law, examining topics ranging from defects in the formation of a contract, interpretation, illegality, the doctrine of change of circumstances, and remedies. These chapters reflect Whittaker's commitment to doctrinal precision, analytical depth, and the value of comparative law as a means of understanding other legal traditions and re-examining one's own with a fresh perspective. The second part turns to tort law, with contributions exploring topics such as the role of violation of a right, the concept of foreseeability, the justifications for the non-recoverability of pure economic loss, and the treatment of illegality in product liability. These essays engage critically with fundamental concepts while also offering comparative insights into the functions and structure of tort law, an approach that reflects Whittaker's distinctive ability to draw deep connections between legal systems, both in their doctrinal rules and in the principles and goals that underpin them. The final part of the volume turns to private law intersections, addressing challenges that cut across traditional boundaries, such as the doctrine of the subsidiarity of unjustified enrichment and the difficulty of devising harmonized contract law in the European Union from the plurality of laws and languages of the Member States. Taken together, the contributions included in this volume highlight the distinctive blend of intellectual rigour, curiosity, and openness to both tradition and innovation, which has so distinctively characterized Simon Whittaker's scholarship.

The imposition of strict liability in tort law is controversial, and its theoretical foundations are the object of vigorous debate. Why do or should we impose strict liability on employers for the torts committed by their employees, or on a person for the harm caused by their children, animals, activities, or things? In responding to this type of questions, legal actors rely on a wide variety of justifications. Justifying Strict Liability explores, in a comparative perspective, the most significant arguments that are put forward to justify the imposition of strict liability in four legal systems, two common law, England and the United States, and two civil law, France and Italy. These justifications include: risk, accident avoidance, the ''deep pockets'' argument, loss-spreading, victim protection, reduction in administrative costs, and individual responsibility. By looking at how these arguments are used across the four legal systems, this book considers a variety of patterns which characterise the reasoning on strict liability. The book also assesses the justificatory weight of the arguments, showing that these can assume varying significance in the four jurisdictions and that such variations reflect different views as to the values and goals which inspire strict liability and tort law more generally. Overall, the book seeks to improve our understanding of strict liability, to shed light on the justifications for its imposition, and to enhance our understanding of the different tort cultures featuring in the four legal systems studied.

The imposition of strict liability in tort law is controversial, and its theoretical foundations are the object of vigorous debate. Why do or should we impose strict liability on employers for the torts committed by their employees, or on a person for the harm caused by their children, animals, activities, or things? In responding to this type of questions, legal actors rely on a wide variety of justifications. Justifying Strict Liability explores, in a comparative perspective, the most significant arguments that are put forward to justify the imposition of strict liability in four legal systems, two common law, England and the United States, and two civil law, France and Italy. These justifications include: risk, accident avoidance, the ''deep pockets'' argument, loss-spreading, victim protection, reduction in administrative costs, and individual responsibility. By looking at how these arguments are used across the four legal systems, this book considers a variety of patterns which characterise the reasoning on strict liability. The book also assesses the justificatory weight of the arguments, showing that these can assume varying significance in the four jurisdictions and that such variations reflect different views as to the values and goals which inspire strict liability and tort law more generally. Overall, the book seeks to improve our understanding of strict liability, to shed light on the justifications for its imposition, and to enhance our understanding of the different tort cultures featuring in the four legal systems studied.

The imposition of strict liability in tort law is controversial, and its theoretical foundations are the object of vigorous debate. Why do or should we impose strict liability on employers for the torts committed by their employees, or on a person for the harm caused by their children, animals, activities, or things? In responding to this type of questions, legal actors rely on a wide variety of justifications. Justifying Strict Liability explores, in a comparative perspective, the most significant arguments that are put forward to justify the imposition of strict liability in four legal systems, two common law, England and the United States, and two civil law, France and Italy. These justifications include: risk, accident avoidance, the 'deep pockets' argument, loss-spreading, victim protection, reduction in administrative costs, and individual responsibility. By looking at how these arguments are used across the four legal systems, this book considers a variety of patterns which characterise the reasoning on strict liability. The book also assesses the justificatory weight of the arguments, showing that these can assume varying significance in the four jurisdictions and that such variations reflect different views as to the values and goals which inspire strict liability and tort law more generally. Overall, the book seeks to improve our understanding of strict liability, to shed light on the justifications for its imposition, and to enhance our understanding of the different tort cultures featuring in the four legal systems studied.

The imposition of strict liability in tort law is controversial, and its theoretical foundations are the object of vigorous debate. Why do or should we impose strict liability on employers for the torts committed by their employees, or on a person for the harm caused by their children, animals, activities, or things? In responding to this type of questions, legal actors rely on a wide variety of justifications. Justifying Strict Liability explores, in a comparative perspective, the most significant arguments that are put forward to justify the imposition of strict liability in four legal systems, two common law, England and the United States, and two civil law, France and Italy. These justifications include: risk, accident avoidance, the 'deep pockets' argument, loss-spreading, victim protection, reduction in administrative costs, and individual responsibility. By looking at how these arguments are used across the four legal systems, this book considers a variety of patterns which characterise the reasoning on strict liability. The book also assesses the justificatory weight of the arguments, showing that these can assume varying significance in the four jurisdictions and that such variations reflect different views as to the values and goals which inspire strict liability and tort law more generally. Overall, the book seeks to improve our understanding of strict liability, to shed light on the justifications for its imposition, and to enhance our understanding of the different tort cultures featuring in the four legal systems studied.

Comparative Reflections in Private Law celebrates the scholarly legacy of Professor Simon Whittaker, whose work has left a profound mark on the field of comparative law. Reflecting the breadth and depth of his influence, the volume brings together leading scholars to explore central themes in private law from a comparative perspective. The volume is split into three distinct parts. The first part of the volume focuses on contract law, examining topics ranging from defects in the formation of a contract, interpretation, illegality, the doctrine of change of circumstances, and remedies. These chapters reflect Whittaker's commitment to doctrinal precision, analytical depth, and the value of comparative law as a means of understanding other legal traditions and re-examining one's own with a fresh perspective. The second part turns to tort law, with contributions exploring topics such as the role of violation of a right, the concept of foreseeability, the justifications for the non-recoverability of pure economic loss, and the treatment of illegality in product liability. These essays engage critically with fundamental concepts while also offering comparative insights into the functions and structure of tort law, an approach that reflects Whittaker's distinctive ability to draw deep connections between legal systems, both in their doctrinal rules and in the principles and goals that underpin them. The final part of the volume turns to private law intersections, addressing challenges that cut across traditional boundaries, such as the doctrine of the subsidiarity of unjustified enrichment and the difficulty of devising harmonized contract law in the European Union from the plurality of laws and languages of the Member States. Taken together, the contributions included in this volume highlight the distinctive blend of intellectual rigour, curiosity, and openness to both tradition and innovation, which has so distinctively characterized Simon Whittaker's scholarship.