1.

Record Nr.

UNINA9910784263003321

Titolo

Good faith in contract and property / / edited by A.D.M. Forte

Pubbl/distr/stampa

Oxford ; Portland, Oregon, : Hart Publishing, 1999

ISBN

1-4725-5889-8

1-280-80799-7

9786610807994

1-84731-056-7

Edizione

[1st ed.]

Descrizione fisica

1 online resource (240 pages)

Disciplina

346.41102

Soggetti

Contracts - Scotland

Good faith (Law) - Scotland

Contracts

Good faith (Law)

Lingua di pubblicazione

Inglese

Formato

Materiale a stampa

Livello bibliografico

Monografia

Note generali

Includes index

Nota di bibliografia

Includes bibliographical references and index.

Nota di contenuto

1. Introduction -- A.D.M Forte -- 2. Good Faith in the Scots Law of Contract: An Undisclosed Principle? -- Hector L. MacQueen -- 3. Good Faith: A Matter of Principle? -- Ewan G. McKendrick -- 4. Good Faith in Contracting: A Sceptical View -- Joseph M. Thomson -- 5. Good Faith and Utmost Good Faith: Insurance and Cautionary Obligations in Scots Law -- A.D.M. Forte -- 6. Good Faith in Scots Property Law -- D.L. Carey Miller -- 7. Good Faith and the Doctrine of Personal Bar -- J.W.G. Blackie -- 8. Good Faith: A Principled Matter -- Scott C. Styles -- 9. Good Faith in Consumer Contracts: Rule, Policy and Principle -- Chris Willett

Sommario/riassunto

Good faith is already a familiar concept in international commercial law and a recognised principle of substantive law in several major legal systems. In the United Kingdom,however, a role for good faith and, more fundamentally, the issue of whether or not there ought to be a general principle of good faith informing English and Scots contract and property law, are still matters for debate. This book, containing the papers delivered at the Symposium on Good Faith in Contract and Property Law held in Aberdeen University in October 1998, engages in



that critical debate. While its central core reflects on good faith from the perspective of a mixed legal system (Scots Law), papers on good faith from an English and European perspective locate the debate, properly, within a broader jurisdictional context