undefined | Better HN

0 pointscodethief5y ago0 comments

> but in practice just creates legal uncertainty for everyone involved.

Citation needed. Both civil law and common law seem to have their respective pros and cons. At least my understanding of common law is that in common law you need to be familiar with all past related cases dating back to who knows when, which doesn't exactly make interpreting and understanding the terms of a contract any easier.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

sixstringtheory5y ago· 1 in thread

It seems common sense enough that no citation is required.

Get a judge having a bad day in France and your case could go belly up regardless of merits, customs or precedent.

“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” So why retread the same legal wheel over and over? Why not study prior similar cases to at least see if they thought of something you didn’t?

codethiefOP5y ago

> Get a judge having a bad day in France and your case could go belly up regardless of merits, customs or precedent.

You're spreading FUD. 1) Few civil actions are decided in a day. 2) You can almost always appeal a decision. 3) Statutory law in Civil Law countries tends to be much more detailed and comprehensive (compared to statutory law in Common Law countries), precisely because no one likes to "retread the same legal wheel over and over", so law makers at some point decided to codify what already was (or was supposed to become) common practice. So judges have much less wiggle room in their decision than you and OP are implying.

This is also the reason why "commercial agreements drafted in civil law countries tend to be rather brief […] since there is no reason to restate codified law"[0].

[0]: https://www.vistra.com/de/node/905

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse