Lexacom

Ignorance of Common Law concepts and terminology can be a handicap to fully understanding English law courses or text books on specialist subjects. For example, courses or publications on Loan Documentation or Intellectual Property will assume a basic knowledge of the Common Law. Such knowledge will also be of help in evaluating advice and opinions from English lawyers and seeking clarification with informed questions. In his book: “An Introduction to Comparative Law” (Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung), Professor Hein Koetz of The University of Hamburg says:

"As yet there is no comprehensive codification of family law or the law of succession or the law of contract or the law of tort. For this purpose England still prefers special statutes which deal with particular questions, such as the law of matrimonial property, intestate succession, adoption, illegitimacy, administration of estates, or credit transactions, and even these statutes can be understood only against the background of the unwritten Common Law, for they use the concepts and categories and invariably presuppose the rights and doctrines which have been developed by the courts." (italics added)

We provide clear comprehensive coverage of the essential elements of the Common Law system, its terminology, and its culture. We can offer in-house Consultancy on a regular or ad hoc basis and / or comprehensive courses. This provides an insight into the way English lawyers and judges approach legal problems, and how this differs from the Civil Code approach. We cover substantive law, terminology, legal English, negotiating skills and contract drafting.

Example

British and Commonwealth Holdings plc v Quadrex Holdings Inc, Court of Appeal, Civil Division

The case involved a contract or contracts for the sale of shares in a private company for £280m plus other consideration. There was uncertainty as to when the transaction had to be completed and one party (A) sought to fix a completion date by serving notice to make "time of the essence" under Common Law (and Equity), usually only applicable when the other party (B) is guilty of delay. The Court had to decide whether, in the circumstances of this case, that notice should be upheld, entitling A to treat the contract as rescinded.