Correspondence
| Author | P. Gerber |
| Date | 01 July 1970 |
| Published date | 01 July 1970 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1970.tb01289.x |
JULY
1970
REVIEWS
477
Mr. Springfield provides concise and generally unobjectionable answers
to
many of the questions likely to be -raised by the busy executive
or
the
inquiring
student.
LEGAL
CASES
FOR
TEACHERS. By
G.
R.
BARRELL. [London:
Methuen
&
Co. Ltd.
1970.
480
pp. inc. index.
€5
net.]
THIS
is
a
case-book containing summaries and extracts from
the
judgments of
nearly
150
cases
concerning legal aspects of education
in
schools ranging
from the administration of education and of schools, conditions of service,
parents, punishment, negligence, defamation of teachers and even
a
few
cases concerning universities.
It
is a companion volume
to
the author‘s
Teachers
and
the Law.
BUILDING
SOCIETY
LAW:
CASES
AND
MATERIALS.
By
C.
E.
I.
[London: Sweet
&
Maxwell.
THIS
is designed to be a companion vol&ne to Wurtzburg and Mills’
Building
Bociety Law.
It
will serve primarily students and practitioners of building
society practice but,
in
spite of thc fact
that
the extracts from cases
are
very
short, it will be
of
interest to a wider public concerned with the law relating
to mortgages.
THORNTON
rn
J.
P. MCBRIEN.
1970.
151
pp. inc. index.
El
5s.
paperback.
€2
hardback.]
MANUAL
OF
PUBLIC
INTERNATIONAL
LAW. Edited by
MAX
SOBENSEN.
[London: Macmillan.
1968.
980
pp.
inc.
index.
$8
88.
net
hardback,
18s.
paperback.]
THIS
work was reviewed at
(1969)
32
M.L.R.
467
by Mr. A. Samuels who
suggested that a paperback edition should be made available for the benefit
of students. A paperback edition is now available in England at
18s.
CORRESPONDENCE
THE
EDITOR,
Sir,
In his penetrating and refreshing analysis of
Boys
v.
Chaplin
[1969]
2
All
E.R.
1M,
in
(1970)
iB
M.L.R.
1,
Dr. McGregor, after establishing what the
case did
not
decide, suggested that the following propositions could be
advanced
:
“
(1)
the issue is not one of procedure, and therefore English law
is
not
to be applied as the procedural law;
(2)
Machado
v.
Fontes
is overruled,
and therefore English law is not
to
be applied as the dominant substantive
law;
(3)
no proper law doctrine is accepted, and therefore English law is
not to be applied as
the
proper law. Hence Diplock
L.J.’s
dissent in the
Court of Appeal stands and Maltese law is applied!” (at p.
14)
These logistics are not unlike saying because two and two
is
neither three,
five, nor ten, arithmetic must be spiced with nutmeg. However, my reason
The Modern
Lazu‘
Review.
To continue reading
Request your trial