Correspondence
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1974.tb02397.x |
| Published date | 01 July 1974 |
| Author | J. M. Cartwright Sharp |
| Date | 01 July 1974 |
480
THE
MODERN
LAW
REVIEW
VOL.
37
in the
form
of the unpublished “About the Proper Law of Contracts
between States.” Another group deal with disputes arising out of state
contrticts and treaties before attention is turned to the Act of State
Doctrine” in
its
various manifestations.
More recently Dr. Mann has tackled multi-national companies
(
‘I
Inter-
nabional Corporat4ons and National Law”) and the problems of state suc-
cession
as
they
affect companies (“The Effect of State Succession upon
Corporations”). His versatility
is
further evidenced by “The
‘
Interpre-
tation
’
of the Constitutions of International Financial Organisations.”
However, it is appropriate that the
Btd’es
end with his
1987
analysis of
“
The Present Legal Status of Germany
”
and the
1967
‘I
Revisitatlon” of
that status.
It
is only
a
pity that
the
papers were collected for publication
at the end of
1972
before the dramatic events
OF
1973
could give Dr. Mann
the opportunity to add his views on where
‘I
Germany
’’
stands today.
Unless one
is
a
subscriber to the
British
Yaar
Book
and
the
Law
Qwxrtedy
Re&w
and
also
has the
set
of Grotius Society Transactions, this
volume will bring to one’s library
a
mv~t
substantial compendium of learning
on a speridised area
of
the law. But even if one includes the above journals
on
one’s shelves, the book
is
still a worthwhile acquisition-can one say
more?
D.
W.
GHEIO.
CORRESPONDENCE
TllE
ISnlmR,
Thb
Modern
Law
Rsview
It’ifs’s
Agency
of
Nocervity
Dcar
Sir,
Mr.
O’Neill
(36
M.L.R.
G42;
37
M.L.R.
360)
appears still to think that
the
wife‘s
agency
of
necessity, having been abrokated by Parliament in
1970,
ha
revived. This view is founded on the belief that section
38 (2)
(a)
of
the liiterpretation Act
1889
(thnt
a
repeal does not ‘Lrevive anything
not in force
or
existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect”) applies
nnly to the non-revival of repealed stntutes. But thtit
was
already taken
care
of
by
section
11
(1)
of
the
1889
Act (which had been the law since
1840).
Moreover,
Boddington
v.
Wbson
[I9511
1
K.U.
GO6
and
Coates
v.
Dimoit
[195l]
1
All
E.R.
890
make it clear that section
58
(2)
(a)
is
of
tnuch alder application; see
too
Halebury’s
LWS,
3rd ed., vd.
86,
p.
472,
note
(f).
Our view is that the intention of Parliament to abolish the agency
of necessity and to leave it abolished is plain. Yours faithfully,
J.
M. CARTWRIGIIT
SIiARP
Law
Conimission,
Congusst
HOWO,
87/38
John
Street,
Theobold’s Road,
London.
To continue reading
Request your trial