FHR bought a long lease for €211.5 million. Cedar Capital conducted the negotiations on FHR's behalf, but also received a €10 million commission from the vendor. On becoming aware of this commission, FHR sought to recover it from Cedar Capital. As its negotiating agent, Cedar Capital owed fiduciary duties to FHR, and had not obtained FHR's fully informed consent to the commission. Cedar Capital therefore had to account to FHR for the commission. However, applying the Court of Appeal's decision in Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd. v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd. [2011] EWCA Civ 347, [2012] Ch. 453, Simon J. held that the remedy was purely personal; FHR could not assert a proprietary constructive trust over the €10 million: FHR European Ventures LLP v Mankarious [2011] EWHC 2999 (Ch). The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal as to remedy, distinguishing the facts from those in Sinclair v Versailles, but also casting some doubt on the correctness of that decision: [2013] EWCA Civ 17, [2014] Ch. 1. The Supreme Court was thus required to pass judgment on the voluminous debate as to whether English law should follow Lister & Co. v Stubbs (1890) 45 Ch.D. 1, or Attorney-General for Hong Kong v Reid [1994] 1 A.C. 324.

If Hohfeld's analysis of fundamental legal conceptions is valid it promises to afford a very simple means of confirming or refuting Maine's thesis that social progress has hitherto been from status to contract. Anthropology may elucidate the issues of human development thereby put at stake. Legal theory may corroborate or contradict the outcome of testing Maine with Hohfeld. Beyond that, however, the process of verification depends neither on empirical data nor speculative thought. Instead of social science or legal philosophy, it is the outcome of abstract logic. On this account Maine's thesis that status has hitherto given way to contract among the progressive societies is at risk of being dismissed as a logical fallacy.

Some years ago the position of the unborn child in the English law of tort attracted my attention and it is chiefly in connection with that branch of the law that I wish to discuss the topic. But, as almost invariably happens in legal research, I soon found that there were other aspects of the subject which at least deserved passing notice, and at most might be useful for analogy with or distinction from the aspect in tort. It is the old tale of going out to catch a whale and landing several other fish in the process. The three other branches of the law with which I made contact were the law of property, criminal law and the law of contract. I shall touch upon these, but I have no intention of investigating them in detail. There are plenty of books which cover the topic in Property Law and Criminal Law respectively. In the law of contract there is a significant blank. The order of discussion in this article will be:—

I—The law of property.

II—Criminal law.

III—The law of contract.

IV—The law of tort.