Nowadays it is generally held, that the owner who brought an actio legis Aquiliae usually claimed no more than his loss, perhaps already in Ulpian’s time, for certain in Justinian’s. For the sum of condemnation based upon the estimation-clauses of the lex Aquilia would only then exceed his damages, if either the injured object’s value had decreased in the last year or 30 days (Inst. 4,3,9) or the wrongdoer had denied having caused the damage (C. 3,35,4). There is, however, a third reason, which the Roman texts fail to mention: a possible residual value of killed lifestock, wounded slaves, and damaged objects, which benefitted the owner. Only a few later jurists took this into account: in medieval times Jacques de Révigny and Pierre Jacobi, Johann Oldendorp in the Early Modern era. The notion prevailed that the lex Aquilia obliged to pay at least the object’s full value.
When Thomas Craig (c.1538-1608) wrote his great treatise on Scottish feudal practice, the Jus feudale, he devoted a considerable part of the first book to legal origins. This article deals with Craig’s treatment narrative on the origins of feudal law and tenure in the fourth and fifth titles of the first book. By close examination of the text, the detailed formulation of Craig’s argumentation and technique is uncovered as well as the myriad classical, mediaeval and humanist sources upon which his literary project was based. In this way, the deep relationship between Craig – and by extension Scots law – and the historico-legal product of the French legal humanists is explored.
This article examines the origins, differentiation, and migration of constitutional entrenchment clauses from the beginning of modern constitutionalism until today. It is based on a broad understanding of ‘entrenchment clauses,’ covering all constitutional provisions that make amendments either to certain parts of a constitution or under certain circumstances more difficult to achieve than ‘normal’ amendments or even impossible, i.e., legally inadmissible. In particular, the article answers three questions: (1) When, and in which contexts, did the different types of constitutional entrenchment clauses emerge? (2) How have these types spread globally? (3) Which constitutional subjects do such clauses protect, and thus, which main functions do they aim to fulfill? The article is based on the new and unique Constitutional Entrenchment Clauses Dataset (CECD), which comprises 860 written national constitutions worldwide from 1776 until the end of 2015.
Reflections on Josiah Wedgwood (1730-1795)
The article explores the role of patent or lack thereof in Josiah Wedgwood’s business. It first discusses the motive behind his opposition of extension of Richard Champion’s patent and then delves into his defence of his own patent in the dispute with the alleged infringer. It aims to show the incongruence of words and deeds of a tradesman with respect to patents; more importantly, it sets out to demonstrate that the claim of patent as an incentivising measure does not bear out as far as Wedgwood is concerned; rather, it is lack of patent protection that facilitates innovation in his pottery business.