Civil Law > Common Law
>>499182
If you're a lawyer with an interest in getting wealthy, then definitely.
>>499182
>Civil Law
>good
>>499188
Surely it's the other way round. Civil law is less esoteric than common law and more accessible, so laypeople engage a lawyer less often.
Not that I support civil law. Common law masterrace here.
a clear, well defined set of laws created by elected bodies representing the populace
vs.
a cronyist system based on muh feels and just how well the decrepit 90yo judge felt after waking up, oscillating between bullshit made up on the spot sentences that absolutely don't fit the crime, and relying on decades year old precedents with no relevance in >the current year
>>501949
That's why English Law is the set law for international commercial trade. Because common law is subjective and forged by the opinion of out of touch judges.
Keep dreaming, kid. What are you anyway? A student? Someone thinking about being a student? How can you say something that ignorant.
Common law is cancer.
If I co-habitate with a woman for more than 2 years we are de facto "married".
This will invariably fuck me over some time down the line, I can just feel it.
>>502009
HAHAHAHAHAH, what the fuck. Did you look up "common law" and find "common law marriage" and assumed that represents the principle of common law jurisprudence? Fuck me, you're ignorant.
>>502019
So you're saying common law marriage has absolutely zero to do with common law jurisprudence?
Don't make me tip my fedora fag.
>>502027
No, I am saying it doesn't represent the principle of common law jurisprudence. See how I clarified my statement by using the exact same words I used in the original statement; if you just opened your eyes, you'd be able to clarify these things by yourself and not look like such an idiot.
Do you mind telling me how you can be ignorant? What is your background in law?
>>502045
I have zero background in law, just like you.
>>502062
>I have zero background in law
It shows, my friend. Best resign yourself to posting your idiotic opinions on /pol/ and /b/. You're not welcome here.
>>502070
Or you could be nice and enlighten me though, instead of being a shitposting asshole.
>>502101
I already said that it doesn't represent common law. The reason behind that is because such an "inequitable" arrangement, in your eyes, could easily arise in civil law systems. The thing to consider, as well, is that even though common law marriages naturally derive from judge-made law, the legislature has addressed principles surrounding tenancy rights and housing rights but refused to overturn the common law principle of de fact marriage. This means government has passively accepted that this is a good idea and decided to keep it.
>>502114
>the legislature has addressed principles surrounding tenancy rights and housing rights but refused to overturn the common law principle of de fact marriage.
Seems weird. Any idea why they would do that?
>>499182
Don't you ever fucking post this again.
>>502123
It works for them, either because they think it's equitable or because it confers some practical benefit on taxation or property rights. Very few common law countries actually have something called "common law marriages", so it depends on each jurisdiction why they decided to have it and why they decided not to have it.
>>502070
> You're not welcome here.
This is a sfw boards, so you being a dick isn't exactly welcome either.
>>502148
I have respected all the rules of this board.
>>502144
Appreciated the insights. Thanks.
>>499182
>law derived from rulers > law derived from citizenry
yurocuck detected
What about: different systems for different countries??
>>502160
No problem, man. Law is interesting and you should try to study it if you ever get the opportunity.
>>502168
this is far too sensible shush
>>502162
It's not exactly derived from the citizenry. No elected official was such a comprehensive political mandate to include the thousands of laws he votes on. Maybe 98% of his votes concern issues he neglected to mention in his mandate and 2% is stuff actually "selected" by the citizenry when they voted in him.
>muh common law
>muh imperial system
>muh shitty voting systems
>muh free market fetish
Why are anglo's always so fond of their backward systems like there's no good alternative while everything just werks(™) in continental yurop?
>>502216
>muh
Prefacing something with "muh" does not equate to your having a persuasive argument, or any argument at all. You simply sound like a child.
>>501949
>DEERRRRRRPPPP LOOK EVERYONE I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT
There are pros and cons to both, really. With Civil law, it's written quite clearly and in theory 'easier' to look up exact laws and their punishments, etc. But civil law statutes are a real bitch to change or repeal when the time comes (as happens in any stable enough long-term democracy). So once it is formally law, you can get stuck with them when it no longer makes sense.
Common law is codified in a lot of cases these days, but its roots are flexible, and overall allows for some variance in interpretation over time. This is not done willy-nilly, but with great consideration for how it will effect the future as well. It is an infinitely more mindful system, as it must be. You thus do not have to rewrite laws or constitutions often, if at all, but simply a group of learned scholars will agree (after debate) on what the sensible interpretation for the times is.
>>502223
>muh 'patrician' debating style on muh elitist board
Sure man, you're cool.
>>502242
We're not talking about elitism. You're not excluded here. All you have to do is present actual argument.
>>502227
To be fair, it varies. Some laws are modified quite often when issues with it come to light, sometimes because mass media happened to put focus on a particular issue with the legislation. Others stay the same for a very long time.
Isn't the point of law to be as concise and fair as possible? With all these unknown precedent cases and heavy dependence on interpretation of the jurisprudence doesn't it lead to unfair treatment of the accused? I just can't wrap my head around it - am I missing something here.
>>502183
elected officials have nothing to do with it, common law is derived from the customs of the citizenry
e.g. there's no legislation making murder illegal in many common law countries, but murder is definitely illegal
>>502329
Common law countries derive law from statutes, seminal judgments from leading judges in a particular field establishing practical law, and there are a few areas of law based on customs. This last category is very slim and it does not define how common law works in most common law countries.
Also, I was talking about the dynamics of civil law countries, not common law countries.
What are you working with/studying at the moment? I'm writing an essay on tax law at the moment.
>>502989
I am preparing for an exam on European Union law. It's the most dreary area of law one can have the misfortune to study.
What are you studying for? LLB, JD, BCL?
>>503053
I'm Swedish so it's just a part of our law program. EU legislation is a bit of a mess, but luckily a lot of it is implemented in our national law or "don't infringe on muh four freedoms" cases.
>>503069
I see. I am not sure why, in the UK it's obviously incorporated but no one gives a shit. It makes the study thereof quite boring.
The law isn't too bad, it's just dull.
>>503089
>UK
Makes me think of the starbucks tax planning thing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TeZlt3dRig
I can understand that EU legislation feels boring if people don't seem to care, I've encountered some real EU legislation nerds among the professors.
>>502168
What are you on about
ITT people who did not read Ronald Dworkin.
>>503154
Would you like to elaborate on that?
>>503138
Yeah, Starbucks paying no tax was quite fun. It's quite interesting that you study tax. At my uni, we don't have that option open to us.
>>503172
Hm, we study all kinds of areas on a more basic introductory level. Tax law is pretty big so I feel like it's odd that you don't have it at all.
>>503257
For us, we do a law degree to become a legal practitioner. For that, you need to do several subjects: criminal, contract, constitutional, EU, land/property, and equity & trusts. There are optional subjects you can study alongside them, such as commercial law and human rights law, but very few places offer tax law.
I am not sure how big it is as a subject. It's a very niche area of law with only a few experts really practising it.
>>499182
Muh special rulebook!
>>502123
Common law marriage is to prevent a couple who've lived together for like 5 years, from breaking up and one person getting screwed over because of it
Like you're a chick and rely on your bf to pay the mortgage and shit then he dumps you after 5 years you're fucked
Civil law.
It's more accessible because you don't need to be able to name-drop precedents, you can just read the codes, less open to interpretation and personal biases of the judges, and more open to revision by your elected officials.
>>504375
You'd hope so.
>>501973
>That's why English Law is the set law for international commercial trade. Because common law is subjective and forged by the opinion of out of touch judges.
Yes exactly. It's the perfect environment for corporate lawyers.
More seriously, it's because the Eternal Anglo dominates commerce.
>>502027
>be in civil law country
>pass law stating that cohabitation for two years is equivalent to marriage
Wew lad.
Yeah this is totally a consequence of concept of common law.
>>504400
It's more complicated in that. A more statutory based version of contract law (US law) was devised for international commerce and largely rejected in favour of English Law. That's because English Law is more practical, amendable, and is the basis of much of US contract law anyhow.
>>504375
You still need precedents in order to clear up uncertainties and how the law is supposed to be interpreted. That said, I'm glad I live in a civil law country. I do prefer legislation over case law in general, as long as said legislation is at least decently made.
>>504294
Can you explain your reasoning behind your mockery of civil law?
>common law countries still use codes and statutes
>civil law countries still use precedent for jurisprudence
>fags on both sides still expend massive amounts of mental energy insisting their system is the best because muh basic principles
>>504854
This exactly. It's like there's hardly any difference at all anymore.
>Domestic law fags arguing over which of their inferior legal systems is better
>>504944
>intermemenal law
>>504944
>international """"law""""
>>504826
Muh special rulebook. I'm from Canada, I just don't like Quebec and they have a civil code.
Civil law and civil code are different. Civil law is the law which governs the relationships between people. So a tree on my property falls and hits your fence, that is a civil law matter. Civil code codifies or attempts to codify all of those grievances.
In based commonlaw, that is left to precedents. So instead of "the neighbour's tree falls onto your property restitution Act", the judge would look at the precedent set by previous instances of such events happening, and apply how those events were solved to the current issue. Makes sense?
>>505131
Except your own provincial assembly could easily pass a "the neighbour's tree falls onto your property restitution Act" and it would also be binding law, perhaps preferably to the remedies previously available in common law.
And in civil law countries if there is no "the neighbour's tree falls onto your property restitution Act", judges would have to reason from more basic legal principles or broader statutes covering property liability.
But let's keep dicking around about who's more "based".
>>505150
>Except your own provincial assembly could easily pass a "the neighbour's tree falls onto your property restitution Act"
They wouldnt though, because of the common law. Even if they did that would still be subject to common law, and the first major rulings based on that statute would define how that statute is to be applied in the future.
>>505173
>They wouldnt though, because of the common law.
Really, Canada's never passed a statute that amends or erases something previously decided in a common law court?
>the first major rulings based on that statute would define how that statute is to be applied in the future.
Which also happens in civil law countries if there's any ambiguity in the law as applied.
>>505193
>Canada's never passed a statute that amends or erases something previously decided in a common law court?
probably, but if it goes to the Supreme Court of Canada, then they can shut it down though
>>505231
Uh huh, and that's unlike other supreme courts around the world how?
>>505193
>Really, Canada's never passed a statute that amends or erases something previously decided in a common law court?
Unless it was a criminal court matter than probably not. The provincial government codified a lot of tort law to prevent insurance companies from suing each other with the Traffic Insurance Act which calls for no-fault insurance.
But that didn't overrule a commonlaw ruling, that just ended a bunch of disputes over which insurance companies pay damages depending on who's client was in the accident. Also motor vehicle act outlines all shit for like, road safety and laws like that. But that's mostly criminal matters. Civil court is almost all precedent based.
>>505236
>Uh huh, and that's unlike other supreme courts around the world how?
because common law supreme courts can "read in" legislation into codified law.
Why are you so defensive of you're special rulebook? Are you that swiss anon?
>>505276
>of you're special rulebook
Hey, high school student. Do share more of your common law knowledge.
