In Defence of Weinrib’s and Beever’s Interpretive Theories of Negligence

There have been a number of rights-based theories of private law which have emerged in recent years. Among these are the theories advanced by Ernest Weinrib and by Allan Beever, which, taken together, present a theory of negligence based on corrective justice and Kantian right. Weinrib’s and Bee...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Allcock, Martin
Other Authors: Dietrich, Joachim
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: LexisNexis Australia 2017
Subjects:
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/77954
_version_ 1848763923511115776
author Allcock, Martin
author2 Dietrich, Joachim
author_facet Dietrich, Joachim
Allcock, Martin
author_sort Allcock, Martin
building Curtin Institutional Repository
collection Online Access
description There have been a number of rights-based theories of private law which have emerged in recent years. Among these are the theories advanced by Ernest Weinrib and by Allan Beever, which, taken together, present a theory of negligence based on corrective justice and Kantian right. Weinrib’s and Beever’s rights-based theories have been the subject of much criticism, primarily for their use of rationalist and interpretive techniques of reasoning. This article serves two primary purposes. The first is to provide a summary of these criticisms and the responses to them, made primarily by Beever. The second is to advance further argument in response. The primary contention in this article is that the criticisms made of Weinrib’s and Beever’s interpretive theories are themselves arguably based upon theoretical assumptions which are not without controversy. It is suggested that future debate should focus on resolving the more fundamental theoretical issue as to what constitutes appropriate grounds of law.
first_indexed 2025-11-14T11:11:10Z
format Journal Article
id curtin-20.500.11937-77954
institution Curtin University Malaysia
institution_category Local University
language English
last_indexed 2025-11-14T11:11:10Z
publishDate 2017
publisher LexisNexis Australia
recordtype eprints
repository_type Digital Repository
spelling curtin-20.500.11937-779542020-05-12T04:42:45Z In Defence of Weinrib’s and Beever’s Interpretive Theories of Negligence Allcock, Martin Dietrich, Joachim 1801 - Law There have been a number of rights-based theories of private law which have emerged in recent years. Among these are the theories advanced by Ernest Weinrib and by Allan Beever, which, taken together, present a theory of negligence based on corrective justice and Kantian right. Weinrib’s and Beever’s rights-based theories have been the subject of much criticism, primarily for their use of rationalist and interpretive techniques of reasoning. This article serves two primary purposes. The first is to provide a summary of these criticisms and the responses to them, made primarily by Beever. The second is to advance further argument in response. The primary contention in this article is that the criticisms made of Weinrib’s and Beever’s interpretive theories are themselves arguably based upon theoretical assumptions which are not without controversy. It is suggested that future debate should focus on resolving the more fundamental theoretical issue as to what constitutes appropriate grounds of law. 2017 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/77954 English LexisNexis Australia restricted
spellingShingle 1801 - Law
Allcock, Martin
In Defence of Weinrib’s and Beever’s Interpretive Theories of Negligence
title In Defence of Weinrib’s and Beever’s Interpretive Theories of Negligence
title_full In Defence of Weinrib’s and Beever’s Interpretive Theories of Negligence
title_fullStr In Defence of Weinrib’s and Beever’s Interpretive Theories of Negligence
title_full_unstemmed In Defence of Weinrib’s and Beever’s Interpretive Theories of Negligence
title_short In Defence of Weinrib’s and Beever’s Interpretive Theories of Negligence
title_sort in defence of weinrib’s and beever’s interpretive theories of negligence
topic 1801 - Law
url http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/77954