Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

Family solidarity and the mind-set of private law [2015] CFLQ 237

Sep 29, 2018, 22:45 PM
Solidarity - cohabitation - childcare - indirect contribution - contract - causation
Drawing on examples of legal reasoning by the Law Commission for England and Wales, the American Law Institute and the Norwegian Supreme Court, this article argues that the concepts and mind-sets of private law do not always capture the essence of committed living arrangements.
Slug : family-solidarity-and-the-mind-set-of-private-law
Meta Title : Family solidarity and the mind-set of private law
Meta Keywords : Solidarity - cohabitation - childcare - indirect contribution - contract - causation
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 6, 2016, 05:01 AM
Article ID : 116864
Keywords: Solidarity - cohabitation - childcare - indirect contribution - contract - causation

Drawing on examples of legal reasoning by the Law Commission for England and Wales, the American Law Institute and the Norwegian Supreme Court, this article argues that the concepts and mind-sets of private law do not always capture the essence of committed living arrangements. The application of private law concepts seems to be based on assumptions that are not present in many couple relationships. The thinking in private law is primarily developed with a view to market relationships. In the market, transactions occur in which one service is contractually conditioned upon a counter-service. In family relationships, transfers of assets, goods and services do not normally occur directly between the parties. Instead they are rendered to the family unit as a whole. The parties' services and work efforts are linked together in marriage and cohabitation, as well, but the connection is not of a contractual nature; it is rather grounded in actual economic mechanisms. When one spouse or cohabitant undertakes more than her or his share of the unprofitable consumption tasks in the family she or he could have contributed indirectly to the other party's accumulation of capital. However, such indirect contributions can easily become neglected in legal reasoning. The obligations are of a factual nature, and factual obligations have no name in law; they are not a part of the legal vocabulary.
Categories :
  • Articles
  • CFLQ
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from