If you’ve ever wondered how the law works, you’ll want to know about common law vs civil-law divorce. These two systems are similar in most aspects, but they serve different purposes. The two systems are different because they allow for varying levels of discretion when it comes to reallocating assets and determining alimony. Common-law divorce, for example, is much easier to obtain than it is under civil law.
In addition to consistency, common-law courts can respond quickly to new trends in society. They can challenge precedents, replace them with new ones, and change the law according to changing social norms. Furthermore, common-law systems allow for changes more quickly than parliamentary laws. Changing the law over a decade or two is possible. However, there are drawbacks as well. The legislative process can be cumbersome, and legislators tend to delay action until it is untenable.
Among the pros and cons of civil law, this system is better suited for unforseen cases. As parliament cannot anticipate every possible issue, common law has to adapt to real-life situations. The doctrine of precedent is a powerful source of legal certainty. Because precedents have been developed by judges in higher courts, the decisions made on them are easy to understand. Further, they tend to be more likely to be derived from senior judges in higher courts, lending authority and experience to the decisions.
Tort laws are rooted in common law. Victims of torts can sue for medical expenses, loss of earnings, emotional distress, and disfigurement. The law also allows for the filing of a lawsuit for all traditional damages. This is especially useful if one party suffers bodily harm as a result of another party’s negligence. Further, common law is easier to enforce.