What are the differences beteween US and English common law

Résumé du document

Initially it seems interesting to correctly define the common law which is a jurisprudential right, it is a law resulting from the lawsuits, of the judgements. This law plays a particularly important part: Courts of Appeal bind the lower courts which judge other businesses. Thus the common law is different from the codified right. Jurisprudence indicates the whole of the decisions returned by the High national jurisdictions (example the courts), it is the great difference with Germanic countries romano which do not accept the laws created by the courts but only those created by the legislator. In this case we talk about civil code as in France. The term of common law means the common right. It is important to do the distinction between common law and equity because this difference is as important as that the difference between private law and public law for the French right. Thus equity is the name given to the decisions of court of the chancellery which only come to complete the common law. This complement was essential because during the XVIème century the common law was fixed in rules which were difficult to modify, the judges were bound by jurisprudence. To be really clear we can say that the common law is not just a common law based on tradition, and not completly a jurisprudential right. At the beginning the common law comes from England, it is only after, at the time of the American revolution, which it is exported in the United States. It is in XIIème century in England that the common law was created. Gradually this right replaces the local habits of the kingdom of England thanks to courses royal's actions. Thus we have a law created by judges and not by the law. At the beginning it is set up by the kings and is centered on the production of the right by the royal judges. More generaly we can talk about common law as a referring for the legal system of England, so we can say that understand common law says understand one of the two large legal systems of our world. The other system is illustrated by the French right. The two systems are different but at the beginning, in XIIème century in France, the teaching of the right is given in the universities and is based on the Roman law and the codes are the bases of the legal decisions. The English universities taught the Roman law, but their influence was negligible. The jurisdictions which applied the habits disappeared (contrary to what occurred in France) in the benefit of the royal courts regarded a long time as excption jurisdictions. These courts created a new right so the Roman law had minor role in England. So we can see that England (except Scotland) and Ireland also adopted common law but there is also Canada and the United States (except the lousiane, California and Puerto Rico). However it is interesting to know if the US common law and English common law are the same ones, if the US law system finds roots in the English common law.

Extraits

[...] It is in XIIème century in England that the common law was created. Gradually this right replaces the local habits of the kingdom of England thanks to courses royal's actions. Thus we have a law created by judges and not by the law. At the beginning it is set up by the kings and is centered on the production of the right by the royal judges. More generaly we can talk about common law as a referring for the legal system of England, so we can say that understand common law says understand one of the two large legal systems of our world. [...]

[...] The procedure of the equity is also different from the procedure of the Common law. It is about a written procedure of inquisitorial type, which never comprises of jury. In spite of the operated jurisdictional bringing together, the distinction between Common Law and equity remain quite as fundamental, but transformed. The equity came to apply to new matters such as the company law by action, in certain cases the bankruptcies This extension comes to the fact that today, to choose between the procedure of Common law or equity we do not not base oneself any more historical but procedural considerations”. [...]

[...] But, the reversal of jurisprudence will have to result from a court of a state, and not of a federal jurisdiction. Because, of rare exceptions, there does not exist federal common law. The federal jurisdictions must decide according to the right of a State, they cannot create a distinct federal legal system. Actually, the English right and the American right, both containing common law will develop one of the other distinctly. How could it be different when the United States are a federal republic and England a centralized monarchy? [...]

[...] What are the differences beteween US and English common law Introduction Initially it seems interesting to correctly define the common law which is a jurisprudential right, it is a law resulting from the lawsuits, of the judgements. This law plays a particularly important part: Courts of Appeal bind the lower courts which judge other businesses. Thus the common law is different from the codified right. Jurisprudence indicates the whole of the decisions returned by the High national jurisdictions (example the courts), it is the great difference with Germanic countries romano which do not accept the laws created by the courts but only those created by the legislator. [...]

[...] To understand the common law and to see how it is released in the United States it is initially necessary to return in the past. The historical shutter is most important, in a certain direction, because one cannot absolutely understand the system of the common law without leaning the history. If we have a look on the legal charter of Europe we find primarily two factors of separation between the world of Common law and the world of the civil law. [...]