Contract law is the backbone of civil jurisprudence and, at its core, the treaty itself in all its glory. Literature and case law have addressed the fundamental questions surrounding the contract: What gives effect to a contract? What is its essence? What are the conditions for its creation? When can it be declared disabled? What are the facilities in the event of an infringement? However, some of the issues that arise in the context of contract law relate to a fundamental level of criminal justice, one of the cornerstones of public law, in the context of criminal liability for omission — an omission. Such a link between contract law and criminal law, with an emphasis on the contract as the source of the duty to act required to convict an omission, has not yet been thoroughly investigated in the literature and case law, and this essay presents an original perspective on this subject. The answer to this question is rooted in the underlying justification for the distinction between act and omission in criminal jurisprudence. Many scientists have discussed this topic. (2) p. This essay focuses on two proposed central justifications for such a distinction, the justification of freedom and the justification of causality, and how each affects the determination of contracts that can serve as a source of duty to act. It is possible to look at the issue from two different angles. First, the criminal law of criminal convictions is based on contract law on the basis of contractual obligations; it is therefore necessary to examine whether the contract in question is valid and enforceable. From the second perspective, however, criminal law differs from contract law. Therefore, even if there is no valid contract or the contract is valid but unenforceable under contract law, it may be possible to convict a defendant on the basis of an obligation arising from the original contract. . Criminal justice makes an important distinction between an act that causes harm and an omission that causes harm.

That is, to convict someone of murder, any action that resulted in the death of a person is sufficient as long as the other necessary elements of the crime, such as causation and intent, are present. However, to convict someone for omission, it is necessary to identify a duty of action of the accused and prove that the violation of this obligation resulted in the death of the victim. The necessary obligation to act may arise from criminal obligations (e.g. B obligations of parents to their children) or civil obligations, but it is generally assumed that such an obligation may also arise from a contract. .

What Is Agreement In Jurisprudence | כללי | Comments (0)