It is now widely accepted that English contract law does not deal equally well across the whole range of agreements that are made. The model which fits best to English contract law is one in which the parties move immediately from no contract to completed contract. There is great difficulty with situations where the parties spend a long time in an area where there are obligations and understandings but not yet a fully completed contract. This article considers an important development that attempts to deal with this difficulty. That is the increasing use by contracting parties of what may be called umbrella agreements.

Having supposed a super-norm we may indeed suppose another still superior norm, and so on ad infinitum, like the elephants and tortoise which have been supposed to support the earth. Clearly there is no help in that.

In 2007 the European Commission produced a Staff Working Paper seeking consultation on the development of auditors' liability in Europe. The present article represents the views of the Working Group on the subject set up by the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law in Hamburg.

There are two themes that recur in previous Sir David Williams lectures. First, that it is a considerable honour to be invited to give the lecture. Secondly, that it is a daunting task to do so in the presence of Sir David, particularly in a field in which he has expertise. Since that covers most of the law there is no escape from this dilemma. Let me then acknowledge the privilege of having been asked to give this year's lecture, and confess that it is with some trepidation that I do so. The subject, terrorism and human rights, is not exactly uncharted territory. When I looked into the internet for some guidance on what might be relevant to terrorism and human rights, the response to my Google search informed me that in .03 seconds 32,900,000 references had been found. This seemed to indicate that it was unlikely that I would be able to say anything that has not already been said. But there are some subjects that are of such importance that there is value in reminding ourselves of the issues that are at stake, and if necessary for that purpose, repeating what others have said. And it is with that in mind that I approach my chosen topic.

The modern law of unjust enrichment is unique in many respects. In one sense, it is the newest and most significant development in the private law for a very long time. While it can claim ancient roots, as a discrete body of law unjust enrichment has only emerged from the long shadows of the law of contract in the last 20 years. The development and content of the law of unjust enrichment has, to a greater extent than perhaps anywhere else in the private law, been driven and shaped by academic rather than judicial influences. The law of unjust enrichment is also distinguished from the other principal heads of civil obligation in that its focus is on stripping the defendant of gains made rather than making good losses suffered by the plaintiff. Perhaps most controversially, the role or function of unjust enrichment may differ from the other principal parts of the private law in that the source of the entitlement protected is not found within the law of unjust enrichment, but in other areas of the law.

Environmental permits come in many forms and control many activities. On occasion they can authorise one-off events, but more usually they provide authorisation for operations that will continue for some time. Even planning permission granted to construct a building has an enduring effect since it not only controls the building operation that may be completed within a short period but also determines what use of the land is authorised unless and until a new permission is sought. The precise life-span of many operations may be uncertain, but especially in view of the major capital cost of establishing chemical works, landfill sites, waste water treatment plants, etc., the operators' intention is to continue for a considerable time. Over that time circumstances may change so that the terms of the permit, or its very existence, are no longer considered appropriate. The aim of this paper is to explore the range of legal techniques that have been adopted for the variation of permits and the consequences of these in terms of enabling regulatory action and of protecting the various interests that will be affected by such exercises of power. The impact of such variation is most obviously felt by the operators, potentially threatening the viability, if not the fundamental legality, of their activities, but there is also an effect on third parties and the environment.

The dispute over the role desert should play, if any, in assessing criminal liability and punishment has a long and turbulent history. “Deserved punishment” - referred to variously as desert, just punishment, retributive punishment, or simply “doing justice” - has moved to center stage in the UK and is on its way in the US, both in academic debate and in real world institutions.