Changing Company Law
Sealy wrote in 1984 of 'a widespread concern among law teachers that company law has become unteachable'.' If that concern is justified, it may follow that it has become impossible to write a satisfactory company law textbook, and that it would therefore be unreasonable to criticise Farrar and his colleagues for not achieving the impossible. They have produced a book which the majority of students declare to be readable2 and which seems to fill the gap created in the market for degree course level company law text books by the decision to update Gower's classic text through supplements rather than a new edition.3 It is not, however, unreasonable to question whether Farrar has made a contribution beyond filling a gap in the student market on a temporary basis. When the long awaited new edition of Gower is published, will it resume its pre-eminent position, or will it have been replaced? Arguably, the authors of Farrar set themselves the wrong task. The constant developments in the law which affects companies and the consequent rumblings of change in company law teaching mean that what was needed was a completely fresh approach to the study of the law governing business entities rather than another traditional company law text book. What we have is a traditional textbook with some contextual material, at the expense, in places, of thorough case analysis. Farrar's Company law is not (and does not claim to be) a blueprint for curriculum reform in the way that Gower's Principles of Modem Company Law was when first published in 1954. However, the authors' stated objectives are not unambitious; the back cover of the book claims that 'Its character is unique, combining as it does some elements of a traditional approach with a clear theoretical structure, contextual treatment and practical new perspectives.' This is a good example of the type of work which legal publishers now appear to be encouraging, especially in fields where they feel there 'should' be a wide (and profitable) market; a kind of 'pick and mix' approach to legal writing, offering a wide menu from which the reader can make a personal selection. Yet ultimately, in its attempt to please all, this book fails to take a new direction and present a thesis of its own about its subject. It is essentially derivative and, like all works which aim to please everyone, risks satisfying