'Yancin kwangila

'Yancin kwangila
Bayanai
Ƙaramin ɓangare na	'yanci

Yancin kwangila

'Yancin kwangila shi ne tsarin da daidaikun mutane da kungiyoyi ke kulla kwangiloli ba tare da takunkumi na gwamnati ba. Wannan ya saba wa dokokin gwamnati kamar dokokin mafi ƙarancin albashi, dokokin gasar, takunkumin tattalin arziki, ƙayyadaddun farashi, ko ƙuntatawa kan kwangila tare da ma'aikata marasa izini. 'Yancin yin kwangila shi ne tushen tattalin arziki na laissez-faire kuma shine ginshiƙi na 'yancin walwala na kasuwanci. Masu ba da ra'ayi sun yi imanin cewa ta hanyar "'yancin kwangila", mutane suna da 'yancin zabar wanda za su yi kwangila, ko za su yi kwangila ko a'a, da kuma sharuddan kwangilan da su bi.

Sanarwar Yancin Kwangila

Tarihi

Henry James Sumner Maine ya ba da shawarar cewa tsarin zamantakewa ya samo asali daga matsayin da aka samo daga matsayin zamantakewa zuwa waɗanda suka dogara da 'yancin kwangila. kafa wajibai da dangantaka ta haihuwa, amma kwangila yana ɗauka cewa mutane suna da 'yanci kuma daidai. 'Yanci na zamani, irin wanda Robert Nozick ya ci gaba, yana ganin 'yancin yin kwangila a matsayin furcin yanke shawara masu zaman kansu na mutane daban-daban suna biyan bukatun kansu a ƙarƙashin " ƙananan ƙasa ."

Amurka

Lochner v. New York

A shekara ta 1902, an ci tarar wani ma'aikacin biredi na New York mai suna Joseph Lochner saboda karya dokar jihar da ta kayyade adadin sa'o'in da ma'aikatansa za su iya yin aiki. Ya kai karar jihar ne bisa dalilin tauye masa hakkinsa na “tsari da ya dace”. Lochner ya yi ikirarin cewa yana da 'yancin yin kwangila da ma'aikatansa ba tare da adalci ba kuma jihar ta yi katsalandan cikin rashin adalci. A cikin 1905, Kotun Koli ta yi amfani da juzu'in tsari don bayyana dokar jihar New York da ta sanya iyaka akan sa'o'i na aiki. Rufus Wheeler Peckham ya rubuta ga masu rinjaye: "A karkashin wannan tanadi babu wata kasa da za ta hana kowane mutum rai, 'yanci, ko dukiya ba tare da bin doka ba. Haƙƙin siye ko siyar da aiki wani ɓangare ne na 'yancin da wannan gyaran ya kare."

Da yake rubuta rashin amincewa, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. ya zargi akasarin su da kafa hukuncin da ya yanke kan akidar laissez-faire . Ya yi imanin cewa tana yin doka bisa tattalin arziki maimakon fassara kundin tsarin mulki. Ya yi imanin cewa "'Yancin Kwangila" ba ya wanzu kuma ba a yi niyya ba a cikin Kundin Tsarin Mulki.

Bayan haka

A cikin "Liberty of Contract" (1909), Roscoe Pound ya soki dokokin 'yanci na kwangila ta hanyar gabatar da shari'ar bayan shari'ar da Kotun Koli na jihohi da tarayya suka kashe 'yancin aiki. Pound ya bayar da hujjar cewa hukunce-hukuncen kotuna sun kasance "kuskure ne kawai" daga mahangar doka ta gama gari kuma "har ma daga na mutum-mutumi mai hankali" (482). Pound ya kara kwatanta yanayin dokokin aiki a lokacinsa zuwa ra'ayi na kowa game da riba da kuma cewa su biyun "na iri ɗaya ne" (484). Pound ya koka da cewa gadon irin wadannan hukunce-hukuncen shari'a na "ilimi" da "na wucin gadi" na 'yancin yin kwangila sun haifar da "rasa girmamawa ga kotuna" amma ya yi hasashen makomar "haske" ga dokar aiki (486-487).

Kotun koli ta yi amfani da 'yancin koyar da kwangila a cikin shekaru talatin masu zuwa amma gabaɗaya ta amince da dokar kawo sauyi a matsayin tana cikin ikon 'yan sanda na jihohi. A shekara ta 1937 Kotun ta sauya ra'ayinta a shari'ar West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish . A wannan yanayin kotu ta amince da dokar jihar Washington da ta tanadi mafi ƙarancin albashi .

Ƙasar Ingila

A ƙarshen karni na 19, ma'aikatar shari'a ta Ingila ta amince da "'yancin kwangila" a matsayin tsarin da ya dace da manufofin jama'a, wanda ya fi dacewa a karkashin dokan Printing and Numerical Registering Co v Sampson na Sir George Jessel MR. A cikin karni 20 da suka gabata, ra'ayin dokar na gama gari ya canza gaba daya. A cikin dokar George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd, Lord Denning MR ya kwatanta "'yancin kwangila" tare da zaluntar masu karamin karfi, a yayin da yake bayyana ci gaban da dokar ta samu.

Ranar fna musamman akan 'yancin kwangila

Babu ɗayanku a zamanin yau da zai tuna da matsalar da muka fuskanta - lokacin da aka kira ni kotu - tare da ƙa'idodin keɓancewa.  An buga su a 'yan ƙananan takaddu a bayan tikiti da fom ɗin oda da daftari.  An ƙunshi su a cikin kasida ko jadawalin lokaci.  An dauke su don kare duk wanda ya dauke su ba tare da wata hamayya ba.  Babu wanda ya taɓa yin adawa su.  Bai taba karanta su ko sanin abin da ke cikinsu ba.  Komai rashin ma'anar su ya tsayu akansu.  Duk wannan an yi shi ne da sunan "'yancin kwangila".  Amma ’yancin ya kasance a gefen babban abin damuwa wanda ke 'yan jaridu.  Babu 'yancin ga ɗan ƙaramin mutumin da ya ɗauki tikiti ko tsari ko daftari.  Babban abin damuwa ya ce, "Karɓi ko ka bar shi."  Karamin mutum ba shi da wani zabi illa ya dauka.  Babban damuwa zai iya kuma ya keɓe kansa daga abin alhaki don amfanin kansa ba tare da la'akari da ƙaramin mutum ba.  Ya kan ci moriyar hakan lokaci bayan lokaci.  Lokacin da kotuna suka ce wa wannan babbar damuwa, "Dole ne ku sanya shi a cikin kalmomi masu ma'ana", babbar damuwar nan kuwa ba ta da wani shakku kan yin hakan.  Ya sani sarai cewa ƙaramin mutumin nan ba zai taɓa karanta ɓangarorin keɓancewar nan ba ko ya fahimce su ba.

Lokaci ne mai tsanani ga dokar kwangilarmu.  An kwatanta shi da sharudda biyu, Thompson v. London, Midland da Scottish Railway Co. [1930] 1 K.B.  41 (wanda akwai keɓancewa daga abin alhaki, ba akan tikitin ba, amma kawai a cikin ƙaramin bugu a bayan jadawalin lokaci, kuma kamfanin ba shi da alhakin) da L'Estrange v. F. Graucob Ltd. [1934] 2  K.B.  394.

Makamin sirri

Fuskantar wannan cin zarafi na mulki - ta masu ƙarfi a kan marasa ƙarfi - ta hanyar amfani da ƙananan sassan sharuddan - alkalai sun yi abin da za su iya don kawo karshen hakan.  Har yanzu suna da gunki a gabansu, "'yancin kwangila".  Har yanzu sun durƙusa, suka yi masa sujada, Amma sun ɓoye wani makami a ƙarƙashin mayafinsu.  Sun yi amfani da shi wajen caka wa gunki wuka a baya.  An kira wannan makamin "tsara aikin kwangila na gaskiya".  Sun yi amfani da shi da fasaha da basira.  Sun yi amfani da shi don su rabu da ma'anar dabi'a na kalmomin keɓewa da kuma sanya musu wani gini mai tsauri da rashin ɗabi'a.  A cikin yanayi bayan yanayi, sun ce kalmomin ba su da ƙarfi don ba da babbar damuwa daga abin alhaki;  ko kuma cewa a cikin yanayin babban abin damuwa bai cancanci dogara ga batun keɓancewa ba.  Idan jirgi ya kauce daga tafiyar kwangilar, mai shi ba zai iya dogara da batun keɓancewa ba.  Idan ma'aikacin sito ya ajiye kayan a cikin ma'ajin da bai dace ba, ba zai iya yin addu'a don taimakon ƙa'idar iyakancewa ba.  Idan mai siyar ya ba da kaya daban-daban da waɗanda aka yi wa kwangilar, ba zai iya dogara ga kowane keɓe daga abin alhaki ba.  Idan mai jirgin ruwa ya isar da kaya ga mutum ba tare da samar da lissafin jigilar kaya ba, ba zai iya tserewa alhaki ba ta hanyar la'akari da batun keɓancewa.  A takaice dai, a duk lokacin da faffadan kalmomi – a ma’anarsu ta dabi’a – za su haifar da sakamako mara kyau, alkalai ko dai sun yi watsi da su a matsayin abin kyama ga babbar manufar kwangilar, ko kuma a rage su da girmansu domin samar da kyakkyawan sakamako.  .  Ana misalta wannan da waɗannan shari'o'in a cikin House of Lords: Glynn v. Margetson & Co. [1893] A.C. 351;  London da North Western Railway Co. v. Neilson [1922] 2 A.C. 263;  Cunard Steamship Co. Ltd. v. Buerger [1927] A.C. 1;  kuma ta Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v The King [1952] A.C. 192 da Sze Hai Tong Bank Ltd. v. Rambler Cycle Co. Ltd. [1959] A.C. 576 a cikin Majalisar Keɓaɓɓu;  da kararraki marasa adadi a Kotun Daukaka Kara, wanda ya ƙare a Levison v. Patent Steam Carpet Cleaning Co. Ltd. [1978] Q.B.  69. Amma a lokacin da maganar ta kasance mai hankali kuma ta sami sakamako mai ma'ana, alkalai sun yarda da shi;  a kowane hali, lokacin da sashe bai keɓe alhakin gaba ɗaya ba amma kawai ya iyakance shi zuwa adadi mai ma'ana.  Don haka inda aka ajiye kaya a cikin dakin alkyabba ko aika zuwa wurin wanki don tsaftacewa, yana da kyau kamfanin ya iyakance abin da ya dace da su zuwa adadi mai ma'ana, dangane da ƙaramin cajin da aka yi don sabis ɗin.  An kwatanta waɗannan ta hanyar Gibaud v. Great Eastern Railway Co. [1921] 2 K.B.  426;  Alderslade v Hendon Laundry Ltd [1945] K.B.  189 da Gillespie Bros. & Co. Ltd. v Roy Bowles Transport Ltd. [1973] Q.B.  400.

Duba kuma

• Kwangila kyauta
• Lochner zamanin
• Rashin daidaito na ikon ciniki
• Dokar kwangilar Ingilishi
• Dokar kwangilar Amurka

Bayanan kula

• Atiyah, PS: "Tashi da Faɗuwar 'Yancin Kwangila" (Jami'ar Oxford, Amurka; Sabon ed; Dec 12, 1985) 
• Bernstein, David E.: 'Yancin Kwangila, Dokar George Mason & Takarda Binciken Tattalin Arziki Na 08-51 (2008)
• Trebilcock, Michael J.: "Iyakokin 'Yancin Kwangila" (Jami'ar Harvard Press) 

Hanyoyin haɗi na waje

• 'Yancin Kwangila Daga Dr. Edward Younkins