Jurisdiction Clauses in New Zealand Law

The Trans-Tasman Proceedings Acts 2010, mirror legislation in New Zealand and Australia, regulate the allocation of jurisdiction in trans-Tasman civil proceedings. The legislation includes provisions dealing with the effects of jurisdiction clauses. This article considers the treatment of jurisdiction clauses under the statutory regime and the common law regime which provides for the effect of jurisdiction clauses that are outside the scope of the legislation, how these regimes differ, and their relative strengths and weaknesses

The Market Tort in Private International Law

Perhaps the most troublesome of all choice of law questions arises when a plaintiff asserts a cause of action for injuries arising from a contractual exchange entered in a market situation. This description embraces some of the most important case types in modern litigation: products liability, securities litigation, industrial accidents, medical negligence, and so on. Outside of private international law cases, these have represented the battlefields of recent tort crises and subsequent reforms. We shall refer to these cases as market torts . They represent the principal subject of analysis in this work. The rules that should apply where a choice of law does not exist is a question about the optimal form of default rules. This question can be answered with reference not only to the scholarship of contract default rules, but to the second analogous literature: the economics of adjudication by rules and standards. A choice of law rule is the product of what Cass Sunstein and Edna Ullmann-Margalit describe as a second-order decision. A strategy used in order to avoid the need to confront a decision-making situation is a second-order strategy; the choice of such a strategy is a second-order decision. Thus, choice of law rules avoid the need for a judge to choose a rule on the basis of a direct comparison, according to some cost-benefit calculus and the facts of the particular case. Instead, a choice of law rule provides a means to avoid the need for such comparison, by permitting the matter to be resolved according to the approach embodied in the second-order choice of law rule. Thus, choice of law rules can be differentiated according to whether or not the second-order choice of law rule takes a simple, low-cost formulation, and whether or not that rule permits the eventual first-order adjudication (wherein the law of the cause is selected) to be simple and low-cost. We show how choice of law methods can usefully be described by this taxonomy, and how, with the benefit of the economic literature on rules and standards, we might choose between and give content to these approaches

The Market Tort in Private International Law

Perhaps the most troublesome of all choice of law questions arises when a plaintiff asserts a cause of action for injuries arising from a contractual exchange entered in a market situation. This description embraces some of the most important case types in modern litigation: products liability, securities litigation, industrial accidents, medical negligence, and so on. Outside of private international law cases, these have represented the battlefields of recent tort crises and subsequent reforms. We shall refer to these cases as market torts . They represent the principal subject of analysis in this work. The rules that should apply where a choice of law does not exist is a question about the optimal form of default rules. This question can be answered with reference not only to the scholarship of contract default rules, but to the second analogous literature: the economics of adjudication by rules and standards. A choice of law rule is the product of what Cass Sunstein and Edna Ullmann-Margalit describe as a second-order decision. A strategy used in order to avoid the need to confront a decision-making situation is a second-order strategy; the choice of such a strategy is a second-order decision. Thus, choice of law rules avoid the need for a judge to choose a rule on the basis of a direct comparison, according to some cost-benefit calculus and the facts of the particular case. Instead, a choice of law rule provides a means to avoid the need for such comparison, by permitting the matter to be resolved according to the approach embodied in the second-order choice of law rule. Thus, choice of law rules can be differentiated according to whether or not the second-order choice of law rule takes a simple, low-cost formulation, and whether or not that rule permits the eventual first-order adjudication (wherein the law of the cause is selected) to be simple and low-cost. We show how choice of law methods can usefully be described by this taxonomy, and how, with the benefit of the economic literature on rules and standards, we might choose between and give content to these approaches

Training and supervision as elements of school organization

This item was digitized by the Internet Archive. Thesis (M.A.)--Boston Universityhttps://archive.org/details/trainingsupervis00key

Do Antibiotic Intramedullary Dowels Assist in Eradicating Infection in Two-Stage Resection for Septic Total Knee Arthroplasty?

Background Evidence suggests approximately 40% of intramedullary (IM) canals are culture positive at resection for infected knee arthroplasty. While commonly utilized, no clinical data on the efficacy of antibiotic-eluding IM dowels exist. We quantified treatment success with and without the use of antibiotic-eluding IM dowels in two-stage treatment of periprosthetic knee infection using static and articulating antibiotic cement spacers. Methods 109 consecutive patients who underwent two-stage treatment for periprosthetic knee infection were reviewed. Treatment failure, defined as repeat resection before reimplantation or recurrent infection within 6 months of reimplantation, was evaluated based on spacer type and use of IM dowels, accounting for infection type and systemic host and local extremity grade. Results After exclusions for confounds, articulating spacers without IM dowels were used in 49 (57.7%) cases, articulating spacers with IM dowels in 14 cases (16.5%), and static spacers with IM dowels in 22 (25.9%) cases. Treatment success regardless of infection classification was 85.7% for articulating spacers with IM dowels, 89.8% for articulating spacers without IM dowels, and 68.2% for static spacers with IM dowels (P = .074). In chronically infected poor hosts with compromised extremities, treatment success remained highest in patients with articulating spacers with (90.9%) or without (92.9%) IM dowels compared with static spacers with IM dowels (68.4%) (P = .061). Conclusion Findings suggest that the use of IM dowels did not enhance infection eradication above and beyond that observed for articulating spacers alone, including in the worst cases involving chronically infected poor hosts with compromised extremities