What is the fundamental difference between custom and customary law?

The fundamental difference between custom and customary law is that custom is not a law and
customary law is a law.
Custom is an activity or circumstance that is not a law.
So, custom is an activity or circumstance or situation, but customary law is not merely activity, it is a
law.
But how could a custom be a law? How could a custom become a customary law? How could a
custom become a customary law?
The activity could be recognized by a community and it becomes a custom.
A custom is widely recognized by a community, but it cannot be a law. How could a custom become a
law?
We have a lot of customs, but a few of them become law, because they are recognized by the
government
So we know that a custom has to be recognized by the government in order to become a customary
law, and a customary law is not a custom anymore.
It is a law, because it establishes a rule principle in the legal system.
But how about precedent? Is it a law system? No.
And is it needed to be recognized by the government in order to be law? To precede. To precede the
precedent.
How could a precedent become law or rule? Could a precedent become a law or become a rule?
So how a precedent could be a law or a rule? Is it obviously law?
Is it needed to be recognized by the Supreme Court? There is no country in the U.S. like Vietnam.
In Vietnam, as Mr. said, a precedent should be an authority since it's declared and recognized by only
the Supreme Court.
But in the UK, the story is very different. And we will figure out in this subject, in this lesson,
Doctrine of Precedent.
In our lesson, we will figure out the concept of precedent. We will answer the question, what is a
precedent?
And is a precedent like a case law? What is the difference between precedent and case law?
Second, we will learn about the doctrine of precedent. Thirdly, we will study and discuss about the
components of precedent.
Then, the classifications of precedent. Characteristics of precedent. And how to apply this regard of
precedent.
Requirements of the court system to apply the precedent. And practicing of precedent. What is a
precedent in the U.S., in the UK, and in the U.N. or system?
What is a precedent? In common sense and in legal sense.
According to Cambridge Dictionary, a precedent is an action, a situation, a decision, a circumstance. That already happened.
And that sets an example experience. And it is a reason why a similar action.

A decision should be performed, for example, very easy. This is a road. This is a road.

My road being a road is like the road of a children's road. This is a road and this is you.

You are going straight ahead in a road. Then you face a hole. You encounter a hole in the road. So what should we do?

We try to pass the hole, right? We try to pass the hole. We go straight ahead. But then we fall into the hole.

Because we cannot beat the gravity. So we fall down. And we learn a lesson. We learn an experience. That we should avoid
the hole, right?

And then we continue to go straight ahead. Then we encounter another hole in the road. What should we do now? Be side.

Go be side. Meet you before. OK. So what should we do? Jump around. Jump. Go around the hole. We avoid the hole, right?
Jump. We should. Because. Why?

Why we avoid the hole? Because we have an experience. We learn something. We learn a lesson here. And this is a
precedent. This is a precedent in the common sense. We have an example here.

We learn a lesson. We have a principle. We have a movement. So whenever we encounter a hole, we avoid it. OK. So this is
a precedent.

And a precedent in the common sense is an action on every situation, on every decision that already
happened.
And it should be followed from similar actions or decisions.
But in the legal sense, the concept of precedent is more narrow.
A precedent refers a court decision that is considered as authority for deciding subsequent cases
involving identical or similar facts or similar legal issues according to common law.
Or according to the Black Discernity, a precedent is a decided case that furnishes a precedent. A
precedent is a basis for determining subsequent cases involving similar facts or issues.
So this is a different definition. But they are not quite different because they have some same
meaning.
So according to those definitions, we know that precedent is a court decision.
It could be never an administrative decision or a legislative decision. It should be a judicial decision.
An only judicial decision.
And it establishes(thành lập ) a basis principle of example for similar cases in later.

they use the precedent when they talk about the court decision. But not for the decision of the
administrative office. Because every administrative decision
is very particular and specific to a very specific case. And those administrative decisions cannot
establish any principle
or any example for the future case. Because case in administrative law seldom similar. Same as the
previous case. Khái quát nd câu trả lời vì cơ quan hành chính đưa ra qd riêng, cụ thể khó có thẻ trở
thành nguyên tắc khi áp dụng precedent và vì các trường hợp hành chính thg ko giống nhau
And why we need precedent as a court decision? We will learn it in the next week. OK.
And can you guys study the subject of camaraderie law? We all. We are very familiar. Yeah. We are
familiar. Do you remember?
How many legal system are there in the world
\We're counting.
They are unlimited. They're two and the right, and the right are... One law. People law. How many
nations or how many countries are there in the world? One.
One to two hundred. Nearly 200. Roughly 200. So there are roughly 200 legal systems in the world.
Why? Hmm.
because every country has their own legal system, right? We cannot find the identical legal system of
two countries. For example, legal system in Vietnam and legal system
in China, they are different, right? The legal system in France is different from the Chinese legal
system. And the legal system in UK is not the same as the legal system in the US. There are over 200
legal systems, but for the research purpose, and merely for research purpose,
we have to divide those legal systems into classification, and there are four classification
of legal system, common law, civil law, religious law, and socialist legal system. But why we call it
civil law?
Because it's, it's characteristic, it's involved around a civil code, a civil code.
The civil law is developed around a civil code in the legal system. For example, in France, in
Germany, they have a civil code from their own country,
that's from Vietnam, the bank of China. So sometimes people sort our legal system into the, the civil
law, because we have a civil code.
But in the US, in the UK, you cannot find a civil code. But why people call it common law? For
common people.
. Because it mainly use the common law.
In the legal system, the common law is the main source of law. And what is the common law? It
includes the customary law, it includes the previous decision of the court, as known as the case law of
the precedent, of the opinion of the judge. So it called common law.
It called common law and civil law,
because it use different, the source of law, when they want to apply the law in order to handle a case.
Okay, so we already know the concept of precedent. And now we learn the doctrine of precedent. The
doctrine, what the doctrine mean? Học thuyết
Yeah, that every idea, every opinion, every opinion, every opinion, every opinion, about something, that's the
doctrine. The doctrine of precedent, or the theory of precedent,

derives from the Latin message, stare decisis et non catemum praet. That literally means standing by the thing
decided and do not disturb the plan.

Stare decisis become the very principle of the common law. Standing by the thing decided .

So the doctrine of precedent is the rule that a legal principle that has been established by a court in a
decision of a particular case should be followed in other similar cases by that court and lower court.
This principle that has been established by a court should be established in a court decision in a very
particular or specific case. And it should be followed in other similar cases by that court and lower
court.
And this is very different in Vietnam, right? This is very different in Vietnam. And the doctrine of
precedent operates both horizontally and vertically. In horizontally, if a court establishes a precedent,
that court should follow its own precedent. NGANG DỌC
And in vertically, a lower court should follow its own precedent.
For example, we have a high court of a country.

We have a high court of a country.

And it handle a case A by a decision.

And we call it decision A for handle the case A.

Then this high court face a case B. So it's

a decision, a sentence, a decision B for handling the case B.

And this decision B should be aligned to the decision A with a very condition that the case B is similar to the case A.

So if the case B is similar to the case A in terms of fact, in terms of issue, in terms of legal matter, then the decision for
handling case B should be

follow the decision, the previous decision. In the same court, and in the vertical, in the other hand,

if a lower court it face a case C,

and for handling the case C, for showing the case C, should they decide a decision?

That's decision C, to handle the crisis. So do the lower court have to follow the decision A?

Should the decision C follow the decision A? The lower court is lower than the high court, obviously.

And the lower court have to resolve and to handle the crisis by a decision.

So do this decision, have to follow this decision.

And this decision is the precedent.

Should this decision follow this precedent?

To my question. Should the decision C follow the precedent?

A?

Yeah, that's not the right answer. Thank you.

Mr. Dia. It's not to say that the lower court must follow the decision A with the precedent.

To follow the precedent, there's one condition that the case must have, must be to the precedent. Yes, yes.

If not, we do not have the ability to follow it. Yeah, you cannot answer my question, right? Because the lower court must
follow the decision A. Yes, yes.

So my question lacks a fact that if the case C is similar to the case A or not, so if the lower court wants to apply the
precedent to handle the case C, they have to prove that this case C is similar to the case A.

So if this case C is not similar. Yeah. If this case C is not the same fact as the case A, then this lower court should not follow
this precedent, okay?

So this case C should be similar to the case A, then this decision C should follow the decision A, okay?

So if a lower court wants to apply a precedent, they have to prove that this case, the issue in this case are similar. Yeah.

So if a lower court wants to apply a precedent, they have to prove that this case is similar to the issue or the facts in the
previous case.

And if they don't want to follow this precedent, they have to prove that this case is different from the previous case. You get
it?
Okay, so if we want to apply a precedent, we have to prove that our case is similar to previous case.
Okay.
And why don't we have to follow the logic of precedent?
Why the lower court or that court should follow our previous precedent? Why?
Because we need to follow the legal prescription of the correctness of judicial decisions.
We have a Latin massive judgment to be accepted and correct. And what if they are not correct?
Legal presumption of the correctness of judicial decisions.
We follow the precedent of previous decision because we have to presume that that decision is
correct.
And what if that isn't correct? What if that's errorless?
We follow a decision, right?
We follow a decision as long as a precedent.
Because we presume that this decision is right, is correct, is rightful.
But what if this decision is not correct? What if this decision is errorless? Errorless. Errorless.
Errorless.
What if this is not right? Errorless. Should we follow this precedent?
Should we follow this precedent even if this is errorless?
Because we always presume that a decision,
a decision of a court is correct and we cannot question any decision of the court.
There is a principle established by a case law, rest versus success.
In that case law, the law of Howard said that justice should not only be done, but should
manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.
This literally means any decision should be seen as justice. No matter how you consider this justice is,
because justice is, the concept of justice is based on individual.
So every person may have their own definition or concept of justice, but within principle, any
decision should be seen as justice.
And no one should be questioned the decision that established by the court. Okay.
So every decision of the court should be presumed as correct and that should be seen as justice.
Unless we can prove that that decision is wrong in procedure. But if it is in the proper procedure,
we should be seen that decision is justice. So a matter of once formally decided is decided. Okay.
In the UK, the judge is respected and a judge's opinion is given.

Whether it is right or wrong, according to the public opinion, according to the opinion of each individual, the judge must be
seen as logical and right. And no one is questioned about that.

A judge who has the right to judge is always right. Because they have the principle of the end of the justice.

Because in a case, there are always 2 parties, right? If there is a case, there is no way to let the 2 parties win. Only 1 out of 2
wins. Therefore, the justice of the judge is different from the justice of the judge.
The justice of the defendant is different from the justice of the victim. And if we do not accept the case, what is the justice?
Then the justice has no end and people will continue to argue. That is the reason why the judge is right.

Another reason why the judge is right is that we should return the correctness of the judicial decisions.

Every decision of the court should be returned as correct, as right, as justice. And no one questions that again.

A matter once formally decided is to be decided once for all, from every similar basis. And the court will listen to know.

And if there is no indication that they have been mistaken, nor will they be open on matter once litigated and determined.

So something that is only determined is never determined again. It is never determined again.

When a court handles a case, for example case A, when a court handles a case A,

they not only handle, they do not only handle this particular or specific case,

but they handle the legal matter or the legal issue. Right? They handle this legal issue.

And if the court handles another case, for example case B, that is pretty similar to the case A,

then they have the same legal, legal issue. Yeah. They have the same legal issue.

So if a court handles a legal issue, in one way, they should handle this legal issue, in the same way. Because this legal issue
in the case A

is very similar to the legal issue in the case B. Okay? So one matter is decided, one, it should be decided,

once for all, in the same way, not different way. Very easy. Do you understand? You should understand.

Please say, uh, very, very important. I will decide it. I will decide your middle result by the Doctrine
of Precedent. So you should understand this deeply
and fully. Okay? In order to ensure your result. The court will listen to your that they have been
mistaken.
What? The second round of the Doctrine of Precedent is maintaining the consistency of applied laws
and judicial decision.
So what if a decision is wrong? Should we follow it?
A question has once been judicially considered and answered. It must be answered in the same way in
all subsequent cases
and with the same question again arises. Because we have to choose between the right of the law and
the cconsistency of the law.
We have to choose between the consistency. TÍNH NHẤT QUÁN
The consistency of the law are some surface. And sometimes we have to choose between this, especially when the decision
of the court is alleged as wrong or not, or unjust. We need to choose between those. And what should we choose?

What should we choose? If we have to choose between those, should we choose the consistency of the law or the justice of
the law, the right of the law? In some cases, if the court's decision is wrong, what will we choose? Consistency of the law.
It's the consistency of the law.

Ah, the consistency of the law. Instead, what do we choose? Consistency of the law. What should we choose? The
consistency of the law or the justice of the law,

it really depends on the country. It really depends on the opinion of the scientists. But in the UK, they always choose the
consistency of the law.

They always choose the consistency of the law.

Because every foundation of the law depends on this consistency of law. Every contract in the social system depends on this
consistency of the law.

Then we should maintain the consistency of the law, because every foundation of the contract,
every foundation of commercial activity, depends on that foundation, that consistency of law, not the
judge of law.
So a question has once been judged or considered,should be considered and answered in the same way
if that question is addressed again in the similar cases.
And this provides, as I said, a really detailed answer for the questions
only for consideration in future cases. So that the lawyers or the companies already know that if they
bring a litigation, SỰ TRANH CHẤP
how the case should be handled, even before they bring the case before the court.
And the third ground on the noting of precedent is the law arises from the fact. The operation of
original precedent is the progressive transformation of precedent of fact into question of law.
Well, what is original precedent? What are questions of fact? And what are questions of law?
In Vietnamese, there is no word for original precedent. We are looking. We already have the
word and ấn lệ tiền lệ pháp , but not original precedent.
Because precedent, precedents are classified as original precedent and declaring precedent.
And what are questions of fact and questions of law? OK, you should write down this sentence
and I will explain it in the following lesson. And the judge do not make the law
by formulating and declaring it, but you make the law by applying it. OK, so we answer the question
in the very beginning of the lesson.
What is our first question of this lesson? A custom becomes a customary law
A custom becomes a customary law by recognizing by the government, right? But how could the
precedent
How could the precedent become a law? Or is it obviously a law?

What are the characteristics Of precedent?

What are the characteristics?.
First The decision of the course, right? Judicial decision.
Second characteristic. A precedent is judicial court, judicial decision. Is that right? Yes.
But not every judicial decision. Judicial decision. Consider after precedent. Just in this last case.
A precedent should establish, establishes a rule of principle of law, an example of law.
Okay. So not every judicial decision is precedent. A precedent is the judicial decision that establishes.
A principle or a rule or an example of the law. And that has to fill the gap in the legal system.
So a precedent may not have to be recognized by the government because they are already
issued by the government agency or the court, right? A custom is not a law because that's the activity,
that's the situation that happened in the community, not in the government.
But a precedent is a judicial decision that it is issued by the government already.
So that is obviously recognized by the court. And then a precedent establishes rule of principle or
example of law.
So a precedent is obviously law. And they don't need to be recognized by any agency or the
government.
Okay. I will turn to the next panel. Alex, can you explain it to the audience?
Custom is things happen in the community, right? In the community, a constitution is things,
activities or so-called things.
In a situation, it happens in the community. And in the community, it needs to have the recognition of
the government that it becomes a law. Because it's just the behavior of the people normally. It cannot
be a law. And this is what?
Precedent. It already. It has been issued by the government agency because it is judicial decision. It
is a court decision.
So a precedent has been issued by the government agency, the court, so it will be recognized by the
court. There is no need to have a procedure to recognize it, just like the customary law, right?
What is the second meaning? The second meaning is that the law is established, or in the law itself,
the law is established, so of course it has become a law.
Because it establishes the principles of the law, it establishes the whole law, it breaks the barrier in
the law system, so a precedent, of course, it is a law, it does not need to be recognized by any other
authority.

So in the, UK, United States, we have a principle that cannot be understood by Vietnamese.
The judges make law.
The judges make law. But in our country... Who can make law? National Assembly. National
Assembly.
Only the legislation, only the legislature can make law. But in UK, in the US, judges can make law.
Why in the UK and in the US?
Why in the UK, in the US, the judges have the authority to make law?

Because in the precedent, in legal decision, in court decision made by the judges, there are rules, there
are principles of law.
And they are recognized, already, obviously, as law. But in Vietnam, judges cannot make law.
In Vietnam, court decision is very particular and specific to a precedent.
And cannot be followed by the court in later.
In the UK, a decision is previously, sorry, in the UK, a decision is obviously a precedent.
They don't need to be recognized by the Supreme Court. But in Vietnam, a decision, a court decision,
is not a precedent, until it is recognized by the Supreme Court.