Civil law, also known as code law, is the most widely used legal system. Its benchmarks include that it’s based off of abstract principles and that it is predictable. The basis of this legal system is the creation of regulations in order to establish a more uniform sense of right and wrong. One major distinction of this type of law is that its principles can only be enforced if they are written and communicated to its subjects. There is less interpretation of this type of law because it is more direct.
Common law on the other hand, is not used quite as frequently. Rather than focusing on a single legal code, this legal system relies on precedent, or preexisting decisions. This type of law is more subject to interpretation rather than a single, …show more content…
company, which would traditionally practice Common law, the differences between these systems can present not only cultural, but transactional issues. One direct example of this is the fact that according to Sharia law, it is improper to charge interest on a loan which is common place in the United States because of the assumed time value of money. Should a company from Saudi Arabia, for example, choose to borrow money they could be highly offended by the audacity of a company to request payment larger than the initial amount owed. To continue with the challenges of complying with Sharia law that are not necessarily anticipated in the U.S., the company cannot have any investment or affiliation with other companies that sell: alcohol, tobacco, pork-related products, and entertainment. These limitations make most large corporations within the U.S. not compliant with Sharia law. More specifically, it prevents many southern states, like Kentucky, whose livelihood is tobacco, from conducting business with businesses that practice Sharia law.
Furthermore, the differences with Civil and Common law, although not as direct as in Sharia law, can also make conducting business challenging. Those who abide by Civil law may expect contracts to be more directly interpreted and consistent across the board, whereas the U.S. company’s Texas branch may interpret policies differently from its Connecticut branch. The lack of consistency within a U.S. company could prove to be the greatest
Common law on the other hand, is not used quite as frequently. Rather than focusing on a single legal code, this legal system relies on precedent, or preexisting decisions. This type of law is more subject to interpretation rather than a single, …show more content…
company, which would traditionally practice Common law, the differences between these systems can present not only cultural, but transactional issues. One direct example of this is the fact that according to Sharia law, it is improper to charge interest on a loan which is common place in the United States because of the assumed time value of money. Should a company from Saudi Arabia, for example, choose to borrow money they could be highly offended by the audacity of a company to request payment larger than the initial amount owed. To continue with the challenges of complying with Sharia law that are not necessarily anticipated in the U.S., the company cannot have any investment or affiliation with other companies that sell: alcohol, tobacco, pork-related products, and entertainment. These limitations make most large corporations within the U.S. not compliant with Sharia law. More specifically, it prevents many southern states, like Kentucky, whose livelihood is tobacco, from conducting business with businesses that practice Sharia law.
Furthermore, the differences with Civil and Common law, although not as direct as in Sharia law, can also make conducting business challenging. Those who abide by Civil law may expect contracts to be more directly interpreted and consistent across the board, whereas the U.S. company’s Texas branch may interpret policies differently from its Connecticut branch. The lack of consistency within a U.S. company could prove to be the greatest