Jump to content

Legal relationship: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Reflist
remove some confusing and uncited text that doesn't seem to belong here; add Hohfeldian classification of legal relations; misc
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Relationship between subjects of law}}
{{short description|Connection between two people or entities}}
A '''legal relationship''' or '''legal relation''' is a legal connection between two persons or entities.<ref>{{Cite book
'''Legal relationship''' is a relationship between subjects of [[law]], that is, participants regarding an object in which rights and [[obligation]]s arise.
| title = Black's Law Dictionary
| page = 2625
| year = 2004
| edition = 8th
| editor-first = Bryan
| editor-last = Garner
}}</ref> It may also be known, particularly in the [[law of India]], as a '''jural relationship'''. A legal relationship may exist, for example, between two individuals or between an individual and a government. Examples of legal relationships include [[contract]]s,<ref>{{Cite book
| url = https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/11282/22_26YaleLJ169_1916_1917_.pdf?sequence=2
| access-date = 2022-06-24
| journal = Yale Law Journal
| author-first = Arthur L.
| author-last = Corbin
| page = 169
| volume = 26
| issue = 3
| date = January 1917
}}</ref> [[marriage]], and [[citizenship]].<ref>{{Cite book
| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=JyR-DAAAQBAJ&pg=PA3
| page = 3
| title = Ethnic Citizenship Regimes: Europeanization, Post-war Migration and Redressing Past Wrongs
| author-first = A.
| author-last = Maatsch
| publisher = Springer
| year = 2011
| isbn = 9780230307391
| quote = Defined narrowly, citizenship concerns the legal relation between an individual and a state, enshrined in domestic law.}}</ref>


A systematic theory of legal relations was put forward by the US legal scholar [[Wesley Hohfeld]] in 1913<ref>{{Cite journal
In the overwhelming majority of legal relations, each of the participants simultaneously has rights and bears obligations. However, in some legal relations, the entitled person has only a subjective right, and the obliged person has only a subjective obligation.
| title = Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning
| author-first = Wesley Newcomb
| author-last = Hohfeld
| journal = The Yale Law Journal
| volume = 23
| number = 1
| date = November 1913
| pages = 16-59
| doi = 10.2307/785533
}}</ref> and remains widely influential.<ref>{{Cite journal
| title = Understanding Hohfeld and Formalizing Legal Rights: The Hohfeldian Conceptions and Their Conditional Consequences
| author-first = Réka
| author-last = Markovich
| journal = Studia Logica
| volume = 108
| pages = 129–158
| year = 2020}}</ref> In Hohfeld's framework, there are four types of legal relations (or "jural correlatives"): [[right]] and [[duty]]; [[privilege (law)|privilege]] and no-right; [[power (law)|power]] and [[liability (law)|liability]]; and [[immunity (law)|immunity]] and [[disability (law)|disability]].<ref name="nyquist-240">{{Cite journal
| author-first = Curtis
| author-last = Nyquist
| title = Teaching Wesley Hohfeld's Theory of Legal Relations
| journal = Journal of Legal Education
| volume = 52
| year = 2002
| page = 240 }}</ref> In each case, one person has the first position and another person has the second position.<ref name="nyquist-240"/> If someone has a "right" under Hohfeld's system, someone else has a duty to act in accordance with that right. If someone has a "privilege" to do something, someone else has a "no-right", because they have no right to stop the first person from acting. Someone with a "power" can change a legal relation of someone else, who has a "liability". Someone with an immunity ''cannot'' have a given legal relation changed by someone else, and that second person has a disability.<ref name="nyquist-240"/> Thus, for example, in contract law, a plaintiff's failure to [[mitigate damages]] gives the defendant a privilege not to pay damages.{{sfn|Nyquist|2002|p=247}} Although originally intended to describe legal relations in [[private law]], Hohfeld's framework has been extended to [[constitutional law]], notably by the German scholar [[Robert Alexy]].<ref>{{Cite book
| isbn = 9781402055959
| title = Constitutionalism and Legal Reasoning
| author-first = Massimo
| author-last = La Torre
| publisher = Springer Science & Business Media
| year = 2007
}}</ref>


To create a [[contract]], in [[common law]] jurisdictions, three elements are necessary: [[offer and acceptance]], [[consideration]] and the [[intention to create legal relations]]. Thus, an agreement may be unenforceable if a court believes that reasonable people would not have intended the agreement to be legally binding, such as is often the case in social arrangements and domestic arrangements.<ref>{{cite journal|url=https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2716&context=clr|title=Promises of Silence: Contract Law and Freedom of Speech|at= at "3. Lack of Objective Intent to Make a Legally Binding Contract" and footnote 97|journal=Cornell Law Review|volume=82|issue=2year=1998}}</ref>
Individuals are always only people; from a legal point of view, they are characterized by legal capacity.

Legal entities - commercial and non-commercial organizations are always fully legal personality, that is, they always have full legal capacity. A legal entity is understood as an organization acting in civil circulation under its own name, having property on the right of ownership or other rights, and can be a [[plaintiff]] and defendant in court.

In [[common law]] jurisdictions, three key elements to the creation of a [[contract]] are necessary: [[offer and acceptance]], [[consideration]] and the intention to create legal relations. However, an agreement may not be enforceable if a court believes that reasonable people would not have intended the agreement to be legally binding, such as is often the case in social arrangements and domestic arrangements.<ref>{{cite journal|url=https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2716&context=clr|title=Promises of Silence: Contract Law and Freedom of Speech|at= at "3. Lack of Objective Intent to Make a Legally Binding Contract" and footnote 97|journal=Cornell Law Review|volume=82|issue=2year=1998}}</ref>


== Characteristics of legal relations ==
== Characteristics of legal relations ==
Line 31: Line 84:


{{Authority control}}
{{Authority control}}

{{law-term-stub}}


[[Category:Sociology of law]]
[[Category:Sociology of law]]
[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:Law]]


{{law-term-stub}}

Revision as of 04:35, 25 June 2022

A legal relationship or legal relation is a legal connection between two persons or entities.[1] It may also be known, particularly in the law of India, as a jural relationship. A legal relationship may exist, for example, between two individuals or between an individual and a government. Examples of legal relationships include contracts,[2] marriage, and citizenship.[3]

A systematic theory of legal relations was put forward by the US legal scholar Wesley Hohfeld in 1913[4] and remains widely influential.[5] In Hohfeld's framework, there are four types of legal relations (or "jural correlatives"): right and duty; privilege and no-right; power and liability; and immunity and disability.[6] In each case, one person has the first position and another person has the second position.[6] If someone has a "right" under Hohfeld's system, someone else has a duty to act in accordance with that right. If someone has a "privilege" to do something, someone else has a "no-right", because they have no right to stop the first person from acting. Someone with a "power" can change a legal relation of someone else, who has a "liability". Someone with an immunity cannot have a given legal relation changed by someone else, and that second person has a disability.[6] Thus, for example, in contract law, a plaintiff's failure to mitigate damages gives the defendant a privilege not to pay damages.[7] Although originally intended to describe legal relations in private law, Hohfeld's framework has been extended to constitutional law, notably by the German scholar Robert Alexy.[8]

To create a contract, in common law jurisdictions, three elements are necessary: offer and acceptance, consideration and the intention to create legal relations. Thus, an agreement may be unenforceable if a court believes that reasonable people would not have intended the agreement to be legally binding, such as is often the case in social arrangements and domestic arrangements.[9]

Characteristics of legal relations

  1. Social relations arise only between people and their associations and are directly related to their activities and behavior.
  2. Ideological relations pass through the minds of people, where a model of future relations is formed because of existing universal values and social priorities.
  3. Legal relations act as a legal expression of economic, political, family, and other relations.
  4. Legal relations arise, cease or change based on legal norms that affect people's behavior and are implemented through it.
  5. The subjects of legal relations are interconnected by subjective rights and legal obligations. The parties in legal relations act as authorized and obligated persons, where the rights and interests of some persons can be realized through the performance of duties by others.
  6. The mutual behavior of participants in legal relations is individualized and clearly defined. The subjects of legal relations (government agencies, individuals, or legal entities), as a rule, are known in advance, their actions are coordinated before the beginning of these relations, which is not the case in other social relations.
  7. The volitional nature of legal relations is because they arise and are realized based on the will of at least one of their participants, necessarily passing through their consciousness and expressing their will.
  8. Legal relations are protected by the state.

Bibliography

  • Hart, H.L.A., 1961, The Concept of Law, chapter 3, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Kelly, J.M. (1992). A Short History of Western Legal Theory. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-876244-7.
  • Weber, Max (1964). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (Edited with Introduction by Talcott Parsons – Translated in English by A. M. Henderson). The Free Press of Glencoe. ASIN B-000-LRHAX-2.
  • Marmor, Andrei (1934). "The Pure Theory of Law". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 9 February 2007.

References

  1. ^ Garner, Bryan, ed. (2004). Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.). p. 2625.
  2. ^ Corbin, Arthur L. (January 1917). Vol. 26. p. 169 https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/11282/22_26YaleLJ169_1916_1917_.pdf?sequence=2. Retrieved 2022-06-24. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ Maatsch, A. (2011). Ethnic Citizenship Regimes: Europeanization, Post-war Migration and Redressing Past Wrongs. Springer. p. 3. ISBN 9780230307391. Defined narrowly, citizenship concerns the legal relation between an individual and a state, enshrined in domestic law.
  4. ^ Hohfeld, Wesley Newcomb (November 1913). "Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning". The Yale Law Journal. 23 (1): 16–59. doi:10.2307/785533.
  5. ^ Markovich, Réka (2020). "Understanding Hohfeld and Formalizing Legal Rights: The Hohfeldian Conceptions and Their Conditional Consequences". Studia Logica. 108: 129–158.
  6. ^ a b c Nyquist, Curtis (2002). "Teaching Wesley Hohfeld's Theory of Legal Relations". Journal of Legal Education. 52: 240.
  7. ^ Nyquist 2002, p. 247.
  8. ^ La Torre, Massimo (2007). Constitutionalism and Legal Reasoning. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 9781402055959.
  9. ^ "Promises of Silence: Contract Law and Freedom of Speech". Cornell Law Review. 82 (2year=1998). at "3. Lack of Objective Intent to Make a Legally Binding Contract" and footnote 97.