Talk:Loss of right in English law

Worried about original research

Isn't the correct title of this article Chester v. Afshar? The Denningesque extrapolation to a general principle feels like it goes too far. Is this verifiable or is it original research? If this article had nothing to discuss other than Chester and its implications then that's the correct title.Cutler 00:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Article too vague

This article needs more explanation as to specifically what "Loss of right" is and how it differs from causation.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Loss of right in English law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060223144232/http://www.lawinabox.net/lbnewswire07e.html to http://www.lawinabox.net/lbnewswire07e.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)