Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wincenworks" data-source="post: 9229256" data-attributes="member: 7038835">It's pretty much the number one issue discussed with Access to Justice is that the system is largely impenetrable to regular people because of the complexity and the procedural issues.  In the Common Law system, it becomes particularly frustrating when you see how many of these systems were simple but ran into arguments about what was exploitation, and what was just fair use of the system.It also hasn't been helped by the detail that back in ye olde days when it was "simple" some judges used to make very... interesting decisions. My favourite being Stilk v Myrick where there were two, equally interesting reports of the judge's decision (judges used to simply give verbal judgements back then, and they would be recorded by barristers who were attending either as reporters... or representing a party):1. He concluded that a crew agreeing to continue working short-handed when the captain could not replace missing/deserting members was, in no way different to them agreeing to have worked with a full crew... so there was no consideration - it was just a regular part of their job and everyone understood that; or2. He concluded that a captain would only agree to split the wages that would have been paid to the missing/deserting members was that a captain clearly feared if he did not agree to they'd scuttle the boat in the middle of the freezing ocean (it was the middle of winter and the destination port was in London) just to spite the captain for making them work short handed.It will probably not surprise you to learn this judge was known for being extremely classist, in favour of the mercantile and aristocrats - thus had a habit of reaching for literally any doctrine that secured them the decision against a worker.  This didn't stop his decision becoming a cornerstone of English contract law for 200 years though because it was very simple and convenient.</blockquote>

Verification