Abstract
The US approach to the rule against abstract claims is important both because Canadian courts are willing to consider foreign law as persuasive authority, and because the US Supreme Court has provided a clearly articulated rationale for the rule. In this article I argue that the US doctrine is inconsistent with Canadian law, and that none of the rationales offered by the US Supreme Court to support its approach are sound. The Canadian position, in contrast, is supported by a compelling policy rationale. Consequently, US Supreme Court jurisprudence should not be followed by Canadian courts.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
