DAL DOLUS BONUS ALLA RÉCLAME NON OBIETTIVA. A MARGINE DEI DUE SAGGI DI GIOVANNI CRISCUOLI

Il saggio analizza due articoli di G. Criscuoli: Il criterio discretivo tra dolus bonus e dolus malus, in Annali del Seminario giuridico della Università di Palermo, vol. XXVI, Palermo, 1957; La réclame «non obiettiva» come mezzo di inganno nella formazione dei contratti, in Rivista di diritto industriale, 1968, I, 22. L'unitarietà del messaggio dello Studioso nei suoi diversi scritti può riassumersi nel netto rifiuto della tesi secondo cui i raggiri comunemente giustificati dalla società e tollerati nella pratica del commercio siano per ciò stesso leciti anche sul piano giuridico. A questa diffusa lettura reagisce il nostro Autore affermando che raggiro è qualunque mezzo che cagioni l’inganno della vittima e che la valutazione di illiceità dei mezzi di dolo debba avvenire non già in base all’astratta potenzialità di cagionare l’inganno, secondo un giudizio di idoneità alla stregua della coscienza sociale, ma soggettivamente, in ragione del fatto che nel caso concreto la volontà del deceptus sia stata viziata

Sul significato di "rimedi"

The purpose of this essay is to reframe the conceptual division between rights and remedies by identifying those issues that are generally raised in the legal discourse when dealing with the two perspectives. The focus will be particularly on: policies that govern rights and remedies, judicial discretion, and judicial interpretation. While the traditional account based on a sharp opposition of rights and remedies proved to be untrustworthy, the proposed conceptualization helps to outline the distinction in a more realistic way

Dall'impresa gerarchica alla comunità distribuita

This article describes the emergence of collaborative production systems, that is those decentralized systems, different from markets and firms, where a community a loosely connected people, with a range of diverse and primarily intrinsic motivation, engage in a large scale collaboration whose outputs are governed as commons (e.g. open software, open hardware, etc.). After a description of the relationship between market system and managerial hierarchy, and the costs connected to each of these systems, the article exposes how peer production is usually organized and identifies the relative advantages of this organizational model over markets and firms under given circumstances. In the last part, the author makes a first attempt to describe the effects of the ongoing organizational innovation on law and governance

PLURALISMO JURÍDICO E A DIFUSÃO DOS DIREITOS / LEGAL PLURALISM

The purpose of this essay is to describehow a pluralistic view of law reshapes the currentlegal discourse. The focus will be particularly on:sources of law, legal families and legal traditions,and legal transplants. While the traditional accountbased on State law and on a sharp opposition oflegal/non legal and official/unofficial law provedto be untrustworthy and oversimplifying, the proposedconceptualization helps to outline the distinctionin a more nuanced and realistic way.Keywords: Legal Pluralism. Comparative Law.Souces Of Law. Legal Families. Legal Transplants

I criteri di determinazione del danno nelle model rules e nel diritto comune europeo

The article describes the many criteria that actually determine recoverable damages in contract, analysing similarities and differences among European legal systems and in Model Rules. In the second part, it identifies shared criteria and verify how they can be translated in a future European contract law

The sharing economy as a way to urban commoning

Sharing economy and urban commons are inherently intertwined. New technologies and business models for the production and consumption of goods and services are rapidly transforming cities across the world in many ways: carsharing, ridesharing, short-term rentals, shared housing and workspaces. These not only put into question how urban transportation and tourist accommodation are planned, but also disrupt traditional local services, influence housing affordability and redesigning city spaces, thus often making existing local rules obsolete. These profound changes raise many issues. What kind of city is molded by peer-to-peer activities? Is a sharing economy the way to a commons-based urban economy? And what kind of rules are required, if any? This paper aims at examining the delicate relationship between a sharing economy and urban commons and investigating how regulation can affect it. While part of the current debate is sometimes polarized between devotees and decriers of peer-to-peer economic activities, many observers emphasize their multifaceted effects. New technologies are potentially powerful tools for sustainable economic models based on genuine sharing and cooperation, permitting optimum use of existing resources and reinforcing social networks. However, many of these phenomena are characterized by conflicting tendencies. Elinor Ostrom’s empirical findings about the design principles that can lead towards a successful common regime give a great importance to the existence of rules in accordance with local circumstances and to a participative decision process. Assuming the wide variety of peer-to-peer economic models and the significant differences from city to city, we should appreciate, on a case-by-case basis, how these practices impact on local economic growth, democratize access to goods and services, foster sustainable urban development, influence the urban environment and impact on job creation and labor conditions, and we should identify the distributive consequences on the city and its inhabitants (underserved neighborhoods, people with disabilities, low-income communities). On that note, in order to instigate a truly commonsbased urban economy it is critical to identify pros and cons of these practices in a given milieu and to generate distinct strategies accordingly, resisting any temptation of “one-size-fits-all” solutions

Sharing economy e modelli di organizzazione

Nel 2014 il Comitato Economico e Sociale Europeo ha pubblicato un Parere sull’impatto delle pratiche riconducibili alla “maniera tradizionale di condividere, scambiare, prestare, affittare e regalare (…) ridefinite attraverso la tecnologia moderna e le comunità”. Il riferimento è alle attività – solitamente accomunate sotto l’etichetta di sharing economy – di baratto (swap), banche del tempo, valute virtuali, scambio di attrezzi, di terreni, condivisione di giochi, uffici, co-housing, co-working, couchsurfing, car sharing, crowdfunding, bike sharing, noleggio p2p, car pooling. Il documento arriva a preconizzare che la loro diffusione determinerà la “trasformazione concettuale del lavoro” e “la soluzione alla crisi economica e finanziaria”, darà risposta alle emergenze sociali e contribuirà al rilancio della crescita economica, in linea con gli obiettivi di produzione e consumo sostenibili e di politica industriale sostenibile fissati da Europa 2020. Di fronte ad una novità così importante si impone una riflessione sui meccanismi economici e sulle regole di governo del fenomeno

Shareable! L'economia della condivisione

Affittare una casa su Airbnb, prenotare un passaggio da Bari a Firenze con Blablacar, chiamare un autista di Uber perch\ue9 sta diluviando e non ci sono taxi disponibili, condividere una scrivania in un co-working, creare un orto di condominio o di quartiere. Sebbene tutte queste azioni siano riconducibili alla cosiddetta sharing economy, tra di esse esistono molte differenze. La condivisione non \ue8 necessariamente un valore e ha precise conseguenze sociali ed economiche. Per questo occorre chiedersi: cosa significa davvero condividere? Nel 2009 i maggiori esperti di economia collaborativa fondano negli Stati Uniti Shareable.net, una rivista online non profit che si propone come guida ai nuovi mondi della condivisione. Da questo ricchissimo terreno di critica ed esplorazione nasce Shareable!, un\u2019antologia dei pi\uf9 importanti contributi usciti in questi anni sulla rivista per fare il punto, senza retorica, sui successi e sui fallimenti della sharing economy ed essere pronti ad affrontare seriamente le sue sfide

The Protection of the Weaker Parties in the Platform Economy

Known by many names – platform, sharing, peer-to-peer (p2p), collaborative economy, and so on - entirely new business models have emerged in recent years, whereby online platforms use digital technologies to connect distinct groups of users in order to facilitate transactions for the exchange of assets and services. This dramatic shift in business organisation and market structure has opened an intense debate on the persisting need for those regulatory measures that typically protect the weaker party in bilateral business-to-consumer transactions. Widespread calls for a more “levelled playing field” makes a strong argument for reconsidering the scope of regulation and delegating regulatory responsibility to the platforms. The chapter calls into question these assumptions. It demonstrates that platforms make frequent use of boilerplate, architecture and algorithms to leverage their power over users - whether customers or providers - and that it is still not clear to what extent effective market-based solutions are emerging to tackle these issues. Part I illustrates the reasons for the alleged reduction of disparities, and it explains why such conclusion fails to fully appreciate the many grounds to the contrary. Part II scrutinizes terms and conditions adopted by online platforms to assess whether they mirror an imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations. The article concludes that it is crucial to protect the weaker parties in these emerging markets, and it presents some brief recommendations