ABSTRACT
General Much has been written recently about ‘taxonomy’ or, more specifically, about the classification of our law of obligations, particularly by Professor Birks.1 Drawing comparisons with the science of Charles Darwin, Birks argues for greater awareness by lawyers of the importance of classification and for better taxonomy in our law. Leaving aside for now the doubts one may entertain about the merits of Birks’ quasi-zoological approach to classification,2 or about whether such
* Thanks are due to Rick Bigwood, Jim Davis, Pauline Ridge and Andrew Robertson for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this chapter.
