Is it true that in the USA Courts make create laws to "fulfil the gaps" that

[Paola T]

are left by some laws whereas... in the UK Courts don't make their own laws?
If this is so, how is the British law "updated"? I mean.. if they don't create new laws, how do Courts cope with cases that have never happened before?

This information is very important for a final assignment on commerce.. please don't send me to Wikipedia..
I'd really appreciate your help..
Thanx
Maybe you need to know that I'm Argentinian and our system is the Continental.. so, due to that, it's not easy for me to understand the differences or the characteristics of Common Law. It's not that I don't want to read or look for specific bibliography.. it's simply a little difficult for me to understand..that's it.. I'm not doing homework, I'm preparing my final subject at university.. this is very important to me..thanx

[joe.finkle]

I don't know the way the British legal system works today(I'm pretty sure its a lot like the US system), but the power of courts to make laws is called common law and it is based on the British system. In the US it stems back to our days as British colonies.

Courts make laws in areas where written law is vague or absent. Some statutes are intentionally vague to leave room for judicial interpretation. The Sherman Act, which governs antitrust law (that's competition law if you're not in the US), is a good example. The law says almost nothing and there are volumes of material on the evolving court interpretations of it. Rather than clarify the law, the legislature has chosen to allow the courts to continue interpreting it as they see fit.

Other times, statutes exceed their authority under the constitution and courts interpreting the constitution rule them invalid. That's called judicial review.

There are some situations where there simply are no statutes, but that's getting more and more rare. In that case, the law is entirely governed by common law.

Of course the more popular way for law to be written is by statute. The legislative body (Congress for federal law, state legislature for state law) writes statutes and passes them and the executive signs them into law. These are valid unless they exceed the legislative power to enact under the constitution. The legislature doesn't have the "case and contraversy" limit of the courts, where they can only make decisions when cases actually come up before them.

[jtexas]

US legal system works like the British legal system.

two kinds of law, legislative and judicial. legislative is statutes. judicial is interpretation of the statute. people don't like the interpretation, they lobby their legislators to pass new statutes.

now, do your own homework.
===========================
ok, sorry about that "homework" wisecrack.

Commerce complicates things a bit in the U.S., because each state has it's own laws (and its own taxing authority), but the US Constitution grants to Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce.

When a court issues a decision on a case, that decision becomes the "law of the land", and in every case that comes to court thereafter with similar circumstances, the court is bound by the decision of the earlier court. This is referred to as "precedent." The court decides whether the facts of the later case are "close enough" to be bound by an earlier case. If there is no precedent, then the court decides the case on its merits, and that decision becomes de facto law.

But one state court is not bound by the decisions of other state courts. Where two or more states have conflicting laws, a person (individual, corporation or other organization) may petition the US Supreme Court to hear the case. All states are bound by decisions of the US Supreme Court.

I said judges are bound by earlier decisions, but occasionally a decision is issued that is contrary to the established precedent. If the losing party appeals, an appellant court might or might not restore the precedent.

At any time, the legislature may pass a law that overturns a judicial precedent, which law then becomes the new "law of the land."