Is the Pearson Airport Legislation Unconstitutional?: The Rule of Law as a Limit on Contract Repudiation by Government
Osgoode Hall Law Journal, Vol: 33, Issue: 3, Page: 411-452
1995
- 1Citations
- 1,229Usage
- 3Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations1
- Citation Indexes1
- CrossRef1
- Usage1,229
- Downloads1,040
- 1,040
- Abstract Views189
- Captures3
- Readers3
Article Description
It has long been assumed that Parliament has unlimited power to enact legislation cancelling valid contracts and denying compensation to any persons affected. This paper challenges that conventional wisdom. The author argues that the principle of the rule of law requires that governments be accountable in the ordinary courts for wrongful actions of government officials. This principle is undermined if government is absolved from any liability for breach of a fairly bargained and valid contract. Thus, legislation purporting to abrogate contracts and deny compensation is invalid, since it violates the implied limits on legislative authority associated with the rule of law. The author also explains how protecting contractual expectations in the manner suggested does not unduly limit Parliamentary sovereignty, and will not result in a wholesale constitutional entrenchment of property rights.
Bibliographic Details
Osgoode Hall Law School, York University
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know