Name: Precedent and Statute: Lawmaking in the Courts Versus Lawmaking in Parliament (Ökonomische Analyse des Rechts i Economic Analysis of Law) (en Inglés)
Price: 370.73 PEN
Availability: InStock
Author: Orlin Yalnazov
ISBN: 9783658243845

portada Precedent and Statute: Lawmaking in the Courts Versus Lawmaking in Parliament (Ökonomische Analyse des Rechts i Economic Analysis of Law) (en Inglés)

Precedent and Statute: Lawmaking in the Courts Versus Lawmaking in Parliament (Ökonomische Analyse des Rechts i Economic Analysis of Law) (en Inglés)

Formato

Libro Físico

Editorial

Springer Gabler

Autor

Orlin Yalnazov

Año

2018

Idioma

Inglés

N° páginas

360

Encuadernación

Tapa Blanda

ISBN13

9783658243845

N° edición

Categorías

Economía

Precedent and Statute: Lawmaking in the Courts Versus Lawmaking in Parliament (Ökonomische Analyse des Rechts i Economic Analysis of Law) (en Inglés)

Orlin Yalnazov (Autor) · Springer Gabler · Tapa Blanda

Libro Nuevo Importado

Envío: 12 a 17 días háb.

S/ 823,84S/ 370,73

-55%

Costos de importación incluídos en el precio ✅

Libro Nuevo

Quedan más de 100 unidades

S/ 370,73

Llega entre el 19 Ago y el 27 Ago a CERCADO DE LIMA, Lima. Seleccionar ubicación

Agregar a lista de deseos

Reseña del libro "Precedent and Statute: Lawmaking in the Courts Versus Lawmaking in Parliament (Ökonomische Analyse des Rechts i Economic Analysis of Law) (en Inglés)"

Should laws be made in courts or in parliaments? Orlin Yalnazov proposes a new approach to the problem. He conceptualizes law as an information product, and law-making as an exercise in production. Law-making has inputs and outputs, and technology is used to transform one into the other. Law may, depending on input and technology, take on different forms: it can be vague or it can be certain. The `technologies' between which we may choose are precedent and statute. Differences between the two being sizeable, our choice has significant repercussions for the cost of the input and the form of the output. The author applies this framework to several problems, including the comparison between the common and the civil law, comparative civil procedure, and EU law. Perhaps most critically, he offers a critique of the `efficiency of the common law' hypothesis.