The law of contracts is an important part of any legal system. A major challenge in this regard is how sanctions are determined in the event of the breach of a contract. Consistent with a set of ...pre-determined goals, all legal systems have made certain rules for the breach of contractual obligations. In the law of the United States, a strict liability system governs in terms of preservation of a contract as well as compensations for the damages of a contract breach. Nevertheless, drawing on the different aspects of the consequences of this liability, researchers have developed new perspectives on the fault-based enforcement of liability in recent decades. The Iranian Law, rooted in the Islamic jurisprudence (the Fiqh), limits the claim for contractual damages circumstantially to the affirmation of parties, customary law, or civil laws due to the differing opinions of Islamic jurists (the Foqahā) on the issue. Following the aims of the laws of civil liability in fully compensating for the damages incurred to contract parties, the loss can be estimated according to its attributability to the offending obligator. Use was made of the descriptive, analytical, and comparative methods in carrying out the present study.
Penelitian ini membahas soal prinsip terhadap kerugian yang dialami nasabah akibat kealpaan perbankan. Penelitian ini membahas konsep terhadap kealpxaan perbankan melalui tinjaun normatif dan ...tinjauan dari dogmatik hukum. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum dalam penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum normatif, yaitu suatu proses untuk menemukan suatu aturan hukum, prinsip-prinsip hukum, maupun doktrin-doktrin hukum guna menjawab isu hukum yang dihadapi. Adapun Pendekatan yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah pendekatan perundang-undangan (statute approach), “yaitu penelitian terhadap produk hukum. Dalam penelitian ini penulis menemukan bahwa konsep stirct liability belum diakomodir dalam hukum perbankan di Indonesia. Konsep Strict Liability merupakan konsep yang dimana korporasi (perbankan) dapat dituntut untuk mempertanggungjawabkan kesalahan (kealpaan) yang telah mereka lakukan. Selanjutnya, dalam penelitian ini penulis menemukan dalam hukum perbankan Indonesia belum mengadopsi konsep Strict Liabiility. Pada hukum perbankan beban kesalahan dilimpahkan pada individu dalam perbankan yang melakukan kealpaan dalam proses operasi perusahaannya yang mengakibatkan kerugian bagi nasabah. Konsep Strict Liability memberikan implikasi hukum dimana perbankan dapat dituntut untuk bertanggungjawab secara pidana atas kealpaan yang mereka timbulkan. Hal ini didasari dimana posisi perbankan yang merupakan suatu entitas yang terlahir dari sebuah pemikiran dan determinasi manusia, digerakkan oleh manusia, serta dapat melakukan kesalahan atau kealpaan layaknya seorang manusia.
The concept of distributed moral responsibility (DMR) has a long history. When it is understood as being entirely reducible to the sum of (some) human, individual and already morally loaded actions, ...then the allocation of DMR, and hence of praise and reward or blame and punishment, may be pragmatically difficult, but not conceptually problematic. However, in distributed environments, it is increasingly possible that a network of agents, some human, some artificial (e.g. a program) and some hybrid (e.g. a group of people working as a team thanks to a software platform), may cause distributed moral actions (DMAs). These are morally good or evil (i.e. morally loaded) actions caused by local interactions that are in themselves neither good nor evil (morally neutral). In this article, I analyse DMRs that are due to DMAs, and argue in favour of the allocation, by default and overridably, of full moral responsibility (faultless responsibility) to all the nodes/agents in the network causally relevant for bringing about the DMA in question, independently of intentionality. The mechanism proposed is inspired by, and adapts, three concepts: back propagation from network theory, strict liability from jurisprudence and common knowledge from epistemic logic.
This article is part of the themed issue ‘The ethical impact of data science’.
According to the general rule of liability, a person is responsible for their own acts or acts committed under their instruction. Therefore, liability arising from the act of another person has ...exceptions and is contrary to the general rule. Another form of liability arising from the act of another person is known in common law as "vicarious liability," which is interpreted as proxy liability. In the civil liability sources of common law, the discussion of employer's liability for the actions of their employees has been addressed under the same title. This article, using a descriptive-analytical method, examines the latest theories on the foundations and conditions of this liability in Iran’s and England’s laws. According to Article 12 of the Iranian Civil Liability Law, employer's liability is based on the theory of fault and its specificity lies only in the fact that it arises from the act of another person. In contrast, in English law, this liability is considered distinctive from two perspectives: firstly, it is contrary to the principle of personal liability, and secondly, it falls within the framework of the theory of strict liability and is solely based on the element of harm.
Cross-cultural research on moral reasoning has brought to the fore the question of whether moral judgements always turn on inferences about the mental states of others. Formal legal systems for ...assigning blame and punishment typically make fine-grained distinctions about mental states, as illustrated by the concept of
, and experimental studies in the USA and elsewhere suggest everyday moral judgements also make use of such distinctions. On the other hand, anthropologists have suggested that some societies have a morality that is disregarding of mental states, and have marshalled ethnographic and experimental evidence in support of this claim. Here, we argue against the claim that some societies are simply less 'mind-minded' than others about morality. In place of this cultural main effects hypothesis about the role of mindreading in morality, we propose a contextual variability view in which the role of mental states in moral judgement depends on the context and the reasons for judgement. On this view, which mental states are or are not relevant for a judgement is context-specific, and what appear to be cultural main effects are better explained by culture-by-context interactions. This article is part of the theme issue 'The language of cooperation: reputation and honest signalling'.
PDF
