Misleading appearances in the tort of deceit

This article explores certain key features of the tort of deceit which, if looked at only superficially, are apt to mislead as to the gist, nature, and province of this tort. In particular, the article addresses three main issues. The first is the way in which the reliance test used in this tort comes apart from a simple (more familiar) test of causation, and why this has important theoretical ramifications. Secondly, the article seeks to reveal the true gist and province of this tort. In this regard, it is argued that it is a mistake – made by many – to suppose that the infliction of economic loss forms the gist of deceit. Instead, it is suggested that the tort is better seen as being rights-based and that, consequently, it ought not to be seen as a specifically economic tort, but rather as one which protects the victim's decision-making autonomy. Lastly, the article unearths the juristic explanation for the curious fact that, in the tort of deceit, the operation of the contributory negligence defence is excluded while the mitigation principle is applied openly. (The incoherence here inheres in the fact that both these principles are animated by the self-same concern: a desire to exclude the recovery of losses that are attributable to an unreasonable lack of self-regard on the part of the claimant.) The juristic explanation I unearth is then subjected to critical analysis in the course of which I suggest that we ought not to confuse explanation with justification. I conclude that there is no sound reason of principle to exclude the operation of the contributory negligence defence in this tort

Hybrid Torts and Contemporary Tort Theory

This article examines the problem of fit caused by ‘hybrid torts’ for several contemporary, explanatory theories of tort law: those belonging to Ernest Weinrib, Robert Stevens, and John Goldberg and Benjamin Zipursky. The term hybrid tort is intended to capture a cause of action that is treated routinely by practitioners, judges and doctrinal jurists alike as a tort proper (even though its ingredients suggest that it is only part-tort and part something-else (like, for example, equity)). The central argument of the article is as follows. At tort law’s borders with other legal categories, there exists a range of hybrid actions that are widely acknowledged to be torts but which comprise a range of juridical components some of which are typical within tort law, and some of which are typical of some other legal category. This set of hybrid actions suggests that – whatever theoretical neatness might dictate – tort law’s boundaries are fuzzy and porous, not clearly defined and rigid. This fuzziness in the object of theorisation naturally casts doubt on the apple-pie neatness of the theories in view. In addition, the obvious response – that these juridically mixed causes of action are not proper torts (and therefore do not require explanation) – is shown to be unavailable the theorists whose work is examined given that each of them commits to explaining the law as it presents itself. Put differently: since the law as it presents itself clearly treats these hybrid actions as torts, they cannot be dismissed in this way. Nor, it is argued – for a combination of reasons that establish their practical significance – can these hybrid torts be dismissed as irrelevant

Evaluation of prototype air/fluid separator for Space Station Freedom Health Maintenance Facility

A prototype air/fluid separator suction apparatus proposed as a possible design for use with the Health Maintenance Facility aboard Space Station Freedom (SSF) was evaluated. A KC-135 parabolic flight test was performed for this purpose. The flights followed the standard 40 parabola profile with 20 to 25 seconds of near-zero gravity in each parabola. A protocol was prepared to evaluate the prototype device in several regulator modes (or suction force), using three fluids of varying viscosity, and using either continuous or intermittent suction. It was felt that a matrixed approach would best approximate the range of utilization anticipated for medical suction on SSF. The protocols were performed in one-gravity in a lab setting to familiarize the team with procedures and techniques. Identical steps were performed aboard the KC-135 during parabolic flight

The impact of measures to promote equity in the secondary education certificate examinations in Malta : an evaluation

When the national Secondary Education Certificate (SEC) examination system was established in Malta in 1994 as an alternative to the General Certificate of Education Ordinary Level (GCE O-Level) offered by English examination boards, the opportunity was taken to promote equity among candidates of different attainment levels, gender and social backgrounds. The measures included the setting of examination papers at different levels; the introduction of an element of school-based assessment in several subjects; relatively low examination fees; avoidance of cultural and gender bias in the examination papers, and restriction of registration to "those candidates who were either in the final year of compulsory schooling or aged 16 or over. These measures were expected to attract candidates with a wider range of abilities and social backgrounds than those sitting for the GCE examinations, and to avoid cultural and gender bias. These targets had to be reached against a background of scepticism about the worth, credibility and viability of examinations set by a local examination board when compared to the prestigious GCE examinations set by well-established English examination boards. This paper evaluates the results of the first three years of operation of the SEC examination in order to gauge its impact on equity. The analysis is based on examination statistics, examiners' reports and comments on each of the measures. Access and performance in six major subjects (Maltese, English, Mathematics, Physics, and Italian) are analysed by gender and type of school. Some conclusions are offered about the influence of examinations on promoting equity in an intrinsically inequitable education system.peer-reviewe