COMPLETE Jurisprudence by John Salmond-mas

DivMS · Post by **DivMS** » November 16th, 2018, 9:59 pm

TriciaG wrote: ↑November 11th, 2018, 5:12 pm I'll claim sections 36 and 38, please. I might come back to do 35, but it has a lot of terms in a lot of languages - I'll have to work myself up to it and do some research before taking that one on!

Thank you Tricia! MW updated

linny · Post by **linny** » November 17th, 2018, 7:51 am

I'll finish PLing section 37 today. I hope you enjoyed your trip.

linny · Post by **linny** » November 17th, 2018, 11:04 am

Mike,
Thank you for your patience. There are a few PL notes for section 37. Nicely done. I enjoyed your disclaimer.

5:28 word change – There was no general principle that an agreement, as such, had the force of law.
I hear assignment

12:52 missing text - …and a precedent may be contrary to established law, and yet authoritative for the future. See section 66.

14:51 repeat – That is to say, the substantive law should determine the scope of the law of procedure, and not vice versa.

15:01 word change – Legal procedure should be sufficiently elastic and comprehensive to afford the requisite means for the protection of all rights…
I hear prerequisite.

linny · Post by **linny** » November 17th, 2018, 11:34 am

DivMS and MaryAnn,
It's been 7 months since I stepped in to help Ava out. Looks as if you are stuck with me for the duration.

Would it be ok to be added as DPL so the project shows in my listing?

Post by **MaryAnnSpiegel** » November 17th, 2018, 11:45 am

Switch made. Thanks for all your help on this Linny.
MaryAnn

linny · Post by **linny** » November 17th, 2018, 11:49 am

Thank you! I generally rely on the quick links for my posts but the DPL listing is a handy double check.

Mfassio · Post by **Mfassio** » November 21st, 2018, 5:39 pm

Hi,
Here is section 33 for PL

https://librivox.org/uploads/maryannspiegel/jurisprudence_33_salmond_128kb.mp3 [27:37]

Mfassio · Post by **Mfassio** » November 25th, 2018, 4:07 pm

Here is section 34 for PL

https://librivox.org/uploads/maryannspiegel/jurisprudence_34_salmond_128kb.mp3 [11:29]

Post by **TriciaG** » November 28th, 2018, 6:13 pm

Section 36 - 24:33
https://librivox.org/uploads/maryannspiegel/jurisprudence_36_salmond_128kb.mp3

linny · Post by **linny** » November 29th, 2018, 11:11 am

Michael,
Great job with section 33!

One small correction to make.

0:20 missing part of section title – Chapter 22: The Law of Procedure part 1

Post by **TriciaG** » November 29th, 2018, 1:55 pm

And section 38 - 17:03

https://librivox.org/uploads/maryannspiegel/jurisprudence_38_salmond_128kb.mp3

I included a rendering of the chart at the end of the appendix (page 486). If it's not needed or if it's too confusing, I can cut it out.

(I took the liberty of adding my sections and section 34 to the MW.)

linny · Post by **linny** » November 29th, 2018, 2:35 pm

Michael,
Nice work with section 34. I heard one word change which impacts intent.

7:23 – Here, if anywhere, the demerits of law are at a maximum, and those of the opposing system at a minimum.
I hear minimum

linny · Post by **linny** » November 29th, 2018, 2:36 pm

TriciaG wrote: ↑November 29th, 2018, 1:55 pm (I took the liberty of adding my sections and section 34 to the MW.)

Thank you! I was going to but you got there first.

Mfassio · Post by **Mfassio** » November 30th, 2018, 3:56 pm

Thank you for spotting those!
Here are the corrected Sections 33 and 34.

https://librivox.org/uploads/maryannspiegel/jurisprudence_33_salmond_128kb.mp3 [27:38]

https://librivox.org/uploads/maryannspiegel/jurisprudence_34_salmond_128kb.mp3 [11:28]

linny · Post by **linny** » December 1st, 2018, 9:33 am

TriciaG wrote: ↑November 28th, 2018, 6:13 pm Section 36 - 24:33
https://librivox.org/uploads/maryannspiegel/jurisprudence_36_salmond_128kb.mp3

8:54 Not only is it uncontrolled within its own province, but that province is infinite in extent.
I hear controlled

20:40 And if a statute can be made unrepealable for ten years, how is it legally impossible that it should be made unrepealable for ever?
I hear seven (I likely wouldn’t have mentioned this one except that two sentences prior they also indicate ten years)

I really like the extra pause you left after that long quote. It makes a great transition.