Freedom of Contract in the EU and China
In modern contract law, freedom of contract is of an underlying principle that people have struggled for centuries. Both China and Europe fully realized its value, although in distinct ways that are deeply rooted in the two regionsâ€™ historical and cultural backgrounds. In Europe, freedom of contract is restricted by principles of good faith, fair dealing, social justice and fundamental rights, whereas in China, except for those limitations set by the Europe, the traditional notion of contract voluntariness is rather limited by the collective interests and interests of the state. This paper is intending to describe the different understandings of freedom of contract in the EU and China.
Atiyah's Introduction to the Law of Contract
1. Introduction 2. Definition and Classification PART I: FORMATION OF CONTRACTS 3. Offer and Acceptance 4. Beyond Offer and Acceptance: Formalities, Intent to Create Legal Relations, and Consideration PART II: THE CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT 5. Express Terms 6. Implied Terms 7. The Force and Scope of Contractual Obligations: Standards of Care, Mistake, Frustration, Breach, and Notice 8. Unenforceable Contracts and Terms PART III: EXCUSES FOR NON-PERFORMANCE 9. The Duty to Disclose Material Facts 10. Misrepresentation 11. Duress and Undue Influence 12. Unfair Contracts PART IV: ENFORCING THE CONTRACT 13. Third Party Rights 14. Remedies For Breach of Contract
Test security in medicolegal cases: proposed guidelines for attorneys utilizing neuropsychology practice.
In the context of forensic neuropsychological assessments, the professional interaction of law and psychology is viewed primarily as one where the retaining attorney or court dictates its needs to psychologists when resolving legal disputes. While this perspective is conceptually accurate, the positive and practical collaboration of law and psychology also relies on attorneys adhering to basic protections of sensitive psychological assessment procedures and tests. Objective testing is undermined when a practitioner of law engages in actions prior to, during, or following a neuropsychological examination in a manner that threatens the test security. An appreciation among practitioners of law and psychology regarding the necessity of test security is essential. This article reviews attorney actions that can affect test security, proposes a distinction by psychology between appropriate and problematic client preparation for a neuropsychological examination, integrates the available legal precedent regarding test security, and suggests productive measures to protect test security in medicolegal settings.