Faced with this evidently unjust result, the English Court of Appeal simply refused to follow the operative black-letter rule, on the basis that doing so would be “legalistic”318 — the sort of “triumph of form over substance”319 that would inhibit “the impulse to do practical justice.”320 Similarly, it would surely be “legalistic” to deny a retiree recovery for economic losses suffered as the result of the destruction of his retirement fund on the basis that, in truth, it is the investment trustee who owns the fund, and the retiree is only its beneficiary (such that the retiree’s resulting economic losses are pure rather than consequential). As a matter of common social understanding, it is the trust beneficiary in such cases who is its owner, morally speaking — it is the trust beneficiary who has a moral right against the asset’s destruction, not the investment manager or legal entity that legally owns the asset and holds it on trust. Faced with the exceptional case in which the formal structure of the legal duty of care was inadequate to provide a trust beneficiary with just recovery for losses arising from the negligent and foreseeable damaging of an object that was obviously its property — in morality, as recognized in social custom and indirectly in law — the Court of Appeal was readily willing to disregard the relational formal structure of the duty of care in order to enforce the negligence tort’s animating moral instincts.
8点1氪丨阿联酋宣布承担所有滞留旅客费用；宗馥莉砍掉娃哈哈机器人业务；五粮液回应董事长被查
，更多细节参见wps
第一百零五条 海上旅客运输合同，是指承运人以客轮、邮轮等适合的船舶经海路运输旅客及其行李，由旅客支付票款的合同。
На Украине захотели заблокировать все соцсети и назвали их абсолютным злом20:42