...
首页> 外文期刊>The Journal of Legal History >The Negotiability of Promissory Notes and Bills of Exchange in the Time of Chief Justice Holt
【24h】

The Negotiability of Promissory Notes and Bills of Exchange in the Time of Chief Justice Holt

机译:霍尔特首席大法官时期的期票和汇票的可流通性

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

This paper explores the development of bills of exchange and promissory notes in England during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It will be argued that the early law of negotiability was founded on a principled interpretation of the common law and that parliament's eventual rejection of this law resulted in a half-century of confusion. This time period, however, was fundamental in the development of the modern principle of negotiability as the courts struggled to create a workable framework for the transfer of written instruments. This paper examines the early conceptual difficulty of transferring written instruments and studies why bills of exchange were capable of transfer, despite the common law's bar on the assignment of choses in action, whereas promissory notes were not considered transferable at common law prior to the eighteenth century. The most important figure for the development of this area was Chief Justice Holt, whose legal interpretation of the transferability of bills of exchange was based on clearly defined and long-standing principles of common law. This interpretation of the common law was viewed as a hindrance to trade, and in response to Holt CJ's decisions, parliament passed the Statute of Anne 1704, allowing promissory notes to be transferable in the same manner as bills of exchange. This began to collapse the distinction between bills of exchange and promissory notes, which created numerous conceptual difficulties in the law of negotiable instruments. It was not until the case of Grant v Vaughan, heard in 1764, that the courts fully developed a new framework for the negotiability of written instruments. This early law displays the difficulty that courts had in developing the underlying principles of the assignment of written instruments, and deciphering its development is fundamental in understanding the modern principle of negotiability.View full textDownload full textRelated var addthis_config = { ui_cobrand: "Taylor & Francis Online", services_compact: "citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,more", pubid: "ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b" }; Add to shortlist Link Permalink http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01440365.2010.496931
机译:本文探讨了十七,十八世纪英格兰的汇票和本票的发展。可以争论的是,早期的可谈判性法律是建立在对普通法的原则性解释之上的,而议会最终拒绝该法则导致了半个世纪的混乱。然而,这段时间对于现代可转让性原则的发展至关重要,因为法院努力创建一个可行的框架来转让书面文书。本文探讨了转让书面文书的早期概念难度,并研究了尽管普通法对选择权的分配存在障碍,但汇票为何能够转让,而期票在18世纪之前并未被普通法视为可转让。 。对于这一领域的发展,最重要的人物是霍尔特首席法官,他对汇票的可转让性的法律解释是建立在明确定义和长期的普通法原则基础上的。这种对普通法的解释被认为是贸易的障碍,为了响应霍尔特·乔伊的决定,议会通过了《安妮1704年规约》,允许以与汇票相同的方式转让本票。这开始破坏了汇票和本票之间的区别,这在流通票据法上造成了许多概念上的困难。直到1764年审理的Grant v Vaughan案,法院才为书面文书的可转让性充分发展了一个新框架。这项早期法律显示了法院在制定书面文书转让的基本原则时遇到的困难,而破译它的发展对于理解现代流通性原则至关重要。查看全文下载全文相关的var addthis_config = {ui_cobrand:“泰勒和弗朗西斯在线”,services_compact:“ citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,可口,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,更多”,发布号:“ ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b”};添加到候选列表链接永久链接http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01440365.2010.496931

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号