Justifying the application of the theory of efficient breach specifically within the context of commercial contracting.

This thesis provides a functional, and justifiable application of the theory of the efficient breach of contract within the commercial context. Limiting the theory’s application in this way is the primary original contribution. This is because the theory of efficient breach has not been explicitly applied solely to the commercial setting previously. This is legitimate because the underlying intention behind commercial contracting is profit generation. As such, maximising the wealth which flows from commercial contracts will be the focus of the parties involved. An additional original contribution is that this thesis represents the first major discussion of efficient breach which applies the theory to English law. This thesis also makes additional contributions. A definition of “commercial” in a contract law context is established to frame the discussion that is to follow. It is then outlined that the fundamental structure of English contract law will remain the same whether a dispute concerns a commercial, or a non-commercial contract. However, there is a difference in the approach of the court where rights are pursued for commercial, profit driven reasons in contrast with rights that are of a personal nature. Next, it is set out that in English law, promise is not the basis of contract. As such, the efficient breach of commercial contracts cannot be discounted based on issues of morality which are linked to promise breaking. Numerous other criticisms which have been directed at efficient breach are also discounted. Ultimately, a legitimate formulation of the efficient breach of commercial contracts is outlined. This iteration is permissive, rather than mandatory. It provides efficient optionality, meaning that where a party has the opportunity to breach efficiently, it will not necessarily take place. However, should a party choose to breach, they will be justified. This is a departure from more prescriptive approaches

Review of legal frameworks, standards and best practices in verification and assurance for infrastructure inspection robotics

The purpose of this deliverable is to provide a single point of reference on the safety, regulatory and liability issues for operating robots in the European Union. The deliverable describes a state of the art and the well-known normative frameworks for assuring safety on the one hand and examines the regulatory and legal liability issues related to operating robots on the other. We organised the report based on the required structure of the deliverable with taking into consideration the different robots technologies, as recognised at the European Union and international level. This deliverable is closely related to other deliverables which describe the current state of the arts and normative framework from a different point of view. This review report is intended as a guiding document to be used by all project partners. There is currently no single framework to regulate robotics technology in Europe. Different types of robots, depending on where they operate—which Member State and in the air, on land, or in the waters—may be subject to various existing laws or regulations on the international, European Union, Member State levels. The regulations include legal standards and industry guidelines on the robot technologies themselves and on the developers, manufacturers, suppliers, and operators that must be met before these new technologies can be legally and safely deployed. Specific types of robots are subject to different regulatory regimes, and depending on the type of the robot, the applicable regulations may be harmonised across Europe or differ in each Member State. Current liability regimes on the EU and Member State levels govern the situations in which the humans associated with the robots are civilly liable for the damage they cause to property or injuries to persons. The appropriate legal regime could be fault-based, strict liability, or product liability depending on the particular circumstances. While existing laws are sufficient to address liability issues given the current state of the technology, further scientific advances that lead to increasingly sophisticated robots may raise problems on how to appropriately assign responsibility