In this paper I will offer some methodological reflections on legal science and its relations with the natural and human sciences. The first part of the paper (sections 2-4) deals with the relation between legal science and the natural sciences. The thesis I put forward is drawn from my book Teorie della scienza giuridica e teorie delle scienee naturali. Modelli e analogie, and restates the main points of my argument there against approaches founded on neopositivism and in favour of a post-positivist approach. The second part (sections 5-7) deals with some aspects of the relations between legal and human sciences, and develops some rather more tentative ideas which go beyond the conclusions reached in the book.

One of the dramatic developments in contemporary administrative law is the result of a radical approach to the basis and scope of error of law on the face of the record as a ground of judicial review of administrative decisions. Despite the impeccable antecedents of this rubric of judicial review in English administrative law, courts as well as writers in England have strenuously assailed in recent times the legitimacy of the continued invocation of this head of review. Lord Diplock has suggested that the concept of patent legal error has become redundant in consequence of expansion of the scope of jurisdictional criteria.

The purpose of this paper is to explore further some remarks of Professor Treitel, in his Law of Contract, in relation to the extent to which a foreseen or foreseeable event may preclude the operation of the doctrine of frustration and to offer an alternative role to foresight than is suggested by Trietel's analysis. A consideration of foresight is of more than passing interest since it touches upon the foundation of the doctrine, the object of which, it is said, is ‘to find a satisfactory way of allocating the risk of supervening events.’

Criminal liability for failing to do something is as much a part of the law as criminal liability for anything else, and a very familiar feature of any developed legal system. Enforceable duties are created by law to discourage people from going about their business in unacceptable ways, to ensure proper participation in activities and programs that are important to the life of the community, and to make sure that people who occupy a position of responsibility or are in some special relationship which leads others to rely on them do what might reasonably be expected of them. Most crimes of omission on the books are there for some such reason, though there are other sorts of reasons for creating enforceable duties that are equally good.

The well known dictum of Lord MacMillan in Donoghue v Stevenson that ‘the categories of negligence are never closed’ is illustrated in striking fashion by a series of recent cases concerned with the liability of a builder or manufacturer for financial loss suffered by an owner or purchaser of defective property. Junior Books Ltd v Veitchi Co Ltd, a decision of the House of lords, is the latest and arguably the most significant of these cases. The effect of the decision, at least in England, has been to assimilate to a large extent the principles governing liability for negligent words with those governing negligent conduct.

At one time it would have been possible to say with firm confidence that contributory negligence was never a defence to battery except, perhaps when the conduct of the plaintiff was so clearly the cause of the harm that had befallen him that it could be treated as contributory intent.

In more recent years, however, a number of qualifications to any such terse summary have appeared and somewhat surprising conflicts of opinion between various common law jurisdictions have arisen, both on the principal question and a number of associated problems.