Sobre los orígenes de la doctrina de la frustración del fin del contrato : comentario al fallo Krell v. Henry
The failure of consideration doctrine has not been peacefully accepted in the\nstudy of Contracts. The decision on Krell v. Henry case is, within the causalist doctrine,\nthe first case where consideration was deemed an element of the contract. However,\nif we read thoroughly the judgment of the Cou...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo publishedVersion |
| Lenguaje: | Español |
| Publicado: |
Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Derecho. Departamento de Publicaciones
2012
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | http://www.derecho.uba.ar/publicaciones/lye/revistas/90/garaventa-manin.pdf http://repositoriouba.sisbi.uba.ar/gsdl/cgi-bin/library.cgi?a=d&c=pderecho/lecciones&cl=CL1&d=HWA_1038 http://repositoriouba.sisbi.uba.ar/gsdl/collect/pderecho/lecciones/index/assoc/HWA_1038.dir/1038.PDF |
| Aporte de: |
| Sumario: | The failure of consideration doctrine has not been peacefully accepted in the\nstudy of Contracts. The decision on Krell v. Henry case is, within the causalist doctrine,\nthe first case where consideration was deemed an element of the contract. However,\nif we read thoroughly the judgment of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil\nDivision) we will find that principles laid down therein may be more properly identified\nwith neocausalist than with causalist doctrine. This work intends to analyze Krell\nv. Henry case and to make a critical review of the failure of consideration doctrine and\nits possible application in our legal system, taking into account the three theoretical\napproaches on this question: anticausalist, causalist and neocausalist |
|---|