Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Week 1 - Introduction
24 October 2014
Resit: 25 January 2015
f.m.j.verstijlen@rug.nl
050 363 5773
WEEK 1
Frank M.J. Verstijlen
Programme
Study Materials
I.
The material in the syllabus:
L.P.W. van Vliet, Transfer of movables in German, French, English and
Dutch Law, Nijmegen 2000, pp. 31-71 and 91-132.
K. Zweigert & H. Ktz, An Introduction to Comparative Private Law,
Oxford 1998, pp. 180-204.
L. Ho, Trusts: the essentials, in: L. Smith (ed.), The worlds of the trust,
Cambridge 2013, pp. 1-20.
M. Grimaldi and F. Barrire, Trust and Fiducie, in: A.S. Hartkamp et al.
(eds.), Towards a European Civil Code, Fourth Revised and Expanded
Edition, Alphen aan den Rijn/Nijmegen 2011, p. 1085-1100.
II.
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough
Council [1996] 2 All England Law Reports, pp. 961-1022 (available in
library, text available via Nestor).
III.
Everything that is discussed during the classes.
IV.
Additional material to be announced and/or distributed during the classes
and/or via Nestor.
Examples:
What specific protection exists for victims of traffic accidents?
Under what circumstances can an offer be withdrawn?
What factors are relevant in determining which party has the onus of
proof?
What are the requirements for a transfer of property?
Under what circumstances can a director of an insolvent company be held
liable by the creditors of that company?
But...
What is comparative law?
Why practice comparative law?
Functions of comparative law
Aid to the legislator
Tool of construction
Component of the curriculum of universities
Contribution to the systematic unification of law
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-82172
Example
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/contract/files/european-private-law_en.pdf
Draft Common Frame of Reference
Development of a private law common to the whole of Europe
But...
15a
InsO
Antragspflicht
bei
juristischen
Personen
und
sptestens
Zahlungsunfhigkeit
aber
oder
drei
Wochen
berschuldung,
nach
einen
Eintritt
der
Insolvenzantrag
zu
stellen. [...]
Artikel 6:162 BW
1. Hij die jegens een ander een onrechtmatige daad pleegt, welke hem
kan
worden
toegerekend,
is
verplicht
de
schade
die
de
ander
Legal Families
Romanistic legal family (France and all the systems which adopted the
French Civil Code, along with Spain, Portugal and South America);
Germanic legal family (Germany, Austria, Switzerland and a few affiliated
systems);
Anglo-American legal family;
Nordic legal family;
Law in the Far East (China, Japan);
Religious legal systems (Islamic law, Hindu law).
Categorization of systems
Historical development
Mode of legal thinking
Legal institutions
Sources of law
Ideology
Choosing legal systems to compare...
The functional method is not without theoretical problems (R. Michaels,
The Functional Method of Comparative Law, SSRN-id839826)
It is doubtful whether it can provide a 'blueprint for just law'
It takes a reductionist approach of legal culture
But it can provide a tool for interpretation and improvement of law
See however the criticism of
R. Michaels, The Functional Method of Comparative Law, SSRN-id839826
It is a poor instrument for evaluation
It is designed to 'look behind the rules' and not suited to build a system of
rules
It focuses on the functional equivalence of legal institutions and therefore
unification of the law has little to add
Lecture 1
macrocomparison (spirit and style of one legal system; look at the whole system -->
questions: what tehniques of legislation are used? are there laws for these techniques?
with what techniques are statutes interpreted?Most countries also allow to look at the
intent of the legislator, but others say that you must abide by the law and not look at the
intent of the legislator. Is there judicial review? How are disputes resolved
(jury/proffesional judges; do you need a leave to take someone to court)? What is the
authority of precedents? what courts are bound by previous decisions? can courts do as
they please?) and
microcomparison (you look at specific institutions, not the whole system. Questions> Is
there any specific protection for victims of traffic accidents? Some participats in traffic
are more vulnerable. Under what circumstances can an offer be withdraw? What factors
are relevant in determining which party has the onus of proof? What are the requirements
for a transfer of property? Under what circumstances can a director of an insolvent
company be held liable by the creditors of that company?).
Ecole de verite = school of truth. Comparative law enriches and extends the supply of
solutions and offers the oportunity of finding the better solution for the comparatist's time and
place. you have a wider range of solutions to choose from. See in advance how a certain
solution workss, plays in practice.
more practical reason: legislators and courts use it< if you dont know it, you shut yourself
out of your own system.
aid to the legislator: when the legislator decides there should be some law for a certain
area of society
more strategic or technical reasons: in some areas of law there is sort of competition
between legislator (ex. competition law, company law, property law)
tool of construction: you already have a rule, a law, but it is unclear; you use comparative
law to find the actual meaning of that rule; example> http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng
--> J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v. United Kingdom, The European Court of Human
Rights, Grand Chamber (2007?) chapter 4 point 70,71, 72
contribution to the systematic unification of law --> development of private law common
to the whole Europe -- > example Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR)
Critics by R. Michales:
it is designed to 'look behind the rules' and not suited to build a system of rules. It is
not designed to draw up new rules.
Advantage: But it can provide a tool for interpretation and improvement of law.
Week 2
8th Sept, 2014
9h-11h
Mr. Dr. Rosalie Koolhoven
R.koolhovel@rug.nl
"Legal system": System for interpreting and enforcing law - there as many as there are
countries
"Legal family": a group of systems that are somehow comparable or similar. Zweigert and
Kotz went back to the first main civil codes, like for instance the German Code or the
Napoleon Code, and tried to understand the changes. They looked a lot at the influence of
Roman law.
3. Style of statutes
He wanted it to be near to the reality of life and nothing like the German Code. This is
mainly why it is considered a legal family.
2. BGB
With the wish for a Civil Code spreading through Europe, also the Germans wanted one.
Instead of writing down every decisions, they felt that if you'd write Roman law in a very
structured way, it would be a written down conceptual world that you could use to always find
la.
They studied law not from a historical perspective but they took the Roman law and
organized it a very structured way and adopted it as a whole.
That created a logical Code, result of wisdom and not chance. This way it was the most
certain Code.
What's very important to distinguish: it was imperial and not grown into the society.
Why was it not adopted by other countries? If it was newer? Because lots of countries that
had the belief that they needed a civil code, they just adopted the French code - but why?
The French imperial power was much accelerated, and the Germans didn't have many
colonies. And for instance, regarding Holland, the French code was simply enforced.
3. Style of Statutes
Characteristics: Very abstract concepts; categorizing Roman law form a non-historical way;
whereas the Napoleon Code was very close to people, the German law is very professional
and exact/accurate/precise.
For example: In German law we need to know when to use a certain claim, whereas in
Holland we can vindicate something but at the same time can ask for damages. If something
doesn't work, make other claims until something works.
In Germany, if something doesn't work, it doesn't.
1. The laws of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Iceland: one family through
political and cultural ties
They are put into one group due to a geographical reason.
Special note: There are no foreign elements. The basis is all German laws.
There is a very strong emphasis on Case Law. They have some codifications but not one civil
ode like BGB or the Napoleon Code.
They do however, work with a lot of analogies: if we have a sails contract and need to know
something about damages, they would apply analogies. They don't have a more abstract Civil
Code, they just use analogies and focus on Case Law.
2. Background of tiny bit of Roman law and customary law together with partial
codification
3. Emphasis on judicial decisions
V. Anglo-American family
1. Historical development
It's the only Common Law Family - that's what makes it different.
It's an action based family. They have no civil codes, just the decisions/case laws.
It has no Roman influences because, in the Middle Ages, by the time that the Roman law was
rediscovered, the English already had their understanding of what was The Law.
"The binding force of precedent" - that's the distinctive characteristic.
Besides the long tradition, there is something else that is special:
The system became too rigid - you had to be very specific on what you wanted. If you didn't
get it totally right, you'd be lost. Then people started petitioning the King himself. All of those
who didn't get justice would petition him and he would decide in Equity - a different Court
from the Common Law Court.
Also, there were too few remedies.
In the end, the Courts merged. Also, this doctrine of Precedent was somehow more flexible
over the years. In 1966, all the Law Lords concluded that it should be possible, in some cases,
when Judges were sitting all together, there could be a different decisions - more just. That
was a necessary development! Because if you're too strict, you might not find justice after all.
4. Countries?
USA, Canada, New Zealand, UK.
Legal transplants:
The transplanting of law and legal institutions from one system to another, Alan Watson
Week 3
15th Sept
9-11h
Frank. M. J. Verstijlen
For instance, about The Netherlands: Originally they belonged to the Romanistic legal Family
because France ruled TN for a while. After that, when they had their own Civil Code, it was
kind of a translation of the French civil code still.
However, when you look at it, it looks like the Germanic system had much more influence.
It's important to keep in mind that transferal of movables is in the middle of Property Law. It's
a certain part of law in which the position of 3rd parties are very important - it describes the
rights that a person has towards a certain thing: I own this book. And this right of ownership
can be enforced towards the whole world!
This means that my right of ownership is important, eventhough we have no contract. It's an
absolute right and therefore we need to keep in mind 3rd parties.
How do we distinct?
Well, according to Roman Law, the requirements for transfer are:
A reason, a cause, it has to be based on something. Usually one person sells the thing to
another person
Delivery - the thing needs to be handed over in order to have the transfer taking place.
Entitlement transferor
If I do not own this book, I cannot transfer it to you. This is basically common to all systems,
at least as a primary point - there are exceptions to this rule.
When it is not necessary to have a legal reason - causa - to have a transfer, in those systems,
we speak of an abstract system, because the transfer is seen abstractly, separately, from the
underlying contract.
"Retention of title" - you can agree that ownership will only pass upon payment of the price.
And this is part of an European directive - in every member state you should have such a
protection of title clause.
Actually, the differences are mitigated. You get ownership immediately but it doesn't mean
you can enforce your right until you yourself fulfil your end of the bargain. The end result
will be nearer the delivery system.
TRADITION SYSTEM
The transfer of ownership in principle requires traditio, transfer of the possession of the
thing.
Usually because the thing is actually handed over. At least in some systems - the German
system, for instance - just handing over the thing is not enough, you need an additional
agreement aimed at ownership actually passing // "the real agreement"
Frist step: contract of sale, on the basis of which the other party is obliged to transfer
ownership
Second step: to actually transfer ownership you need too actually hand over the thing.
Or, in addition: there has to be a meeting of the wills and at that moment, ownership
is to pass.
Whereas in a consensual system the contract, that is, consensus between the parties suffices,
in a tradition system the contract merely creates an obligation to transfer the thing. In the
latter system ownership will pass only after the legal act of transfer/traditio has taken place.
Second distinction:
ABSTRACT AND CONSENSUAL SYSTEM
The cause for the transfer, the underlying reason for the transfer to take place - usually a
contract of sale - needs to be valid.
Also, a trade or a gift. It is not necessary to have a quid pro quo - there's nothing wrong with a
person actually donating a thing without requiring a purchasing price.
The distinction is: The existence of this cause is crucial for the transfer.
In an abstract system, it isn't. If there is something wrong with the underlying contract, it
means that the transferal doesn't take place / on the other hand, in an abstract system, the
transferal remains valid, when it comes to the abstract system.
A causal transfer system demands that the transfer be based on a valid legal ground, a valid
causa traditionis.
In a consensual system, where the contract of sale itself is said to pass ownership, it is
obvious that avoidance of the contract will lead to ownership reverting to the seller with
retroactive effect.
In a consensual system the transfer of ownership depends on the validity of the contract.
A consensual system therefore is a causal system.
There are cases in which something different than a contract can function as a valid legal
basis:
For instance, based on a wrongful act - person A concludes a contract of sale with person B,
they sell a house or 100.000. And person C is willing to pay more than that and puts pressure
on A to sell it to him, instead of transferring it to B. The fact that C is provoking, forcing A to
commit breach of contract can be an unlawful act. Eventhough A has transferred ownership to
C, the Court will decide that it has to go to B, because the original contract is valid and has to
be enforced.
In a consensual system, the transfer of ownership depends on the validity of the contract.
A consensual system therefore is a causal system.
Because in a tradition system, the second stage - traditio - is a different act; therefore, there
can be something wrong with the underlying relationship. But if the second step has been
taken, there are 2 solutions:
When the delivery has been made and the object has been handed over, the fact that
the delivery has taken place is decisive. We speak of abstract systems, if it transfer is
still valid.
If eventhough delivery has taken place, the fact that the underlying relationship is
flawed or even has never existed, in that case, that means that the transfer becomes
invalid, then we speak of causal systems.
So... does the invalidity of the underlying relationship affects the contract?
If the answer is no, we have an abstract system. If yes, we have a causal system.
Legal systems in which the validity of the transfer does depend on a valid causa traditionis,
for example the Dutch system, are called causal tradition systems.
If in such a system the contract is avoided with retroactive effect - the transfer is invalid and
ownership is deemed never to have passed to the buyer.
So
Example of the causal system: Dutch system
If the underlying contract has been avoided, then there is no transfer. And eventhough if the
thing has been delivered, no transfer has taken place and I will remain the owner eventhough
the thing is actually in your possession.
In an abstract system, this is different. The underlying contract does not actually affect the
transfer once there has been a valid traditio.
Ex: the German system
But what happens if the transfer has taken place, remains valid and the underlying contract is
invalid?
The end result is not very appealing because, for instance: if I traded a book (10) for a
computer (300; 290 difference) - it could be a valid contract, there is no reason for it not to
be; however, if I told you it was a very expensive book, very special book, and it is not true, if
I've lead you to believe in something false, then according to Dutch law, I would be able to do
something about it - I could invalidate this contract.
Conclusion: In an abstract system, the position of the seller who sells with an invalid basis is
much weaker than it is in a causal system. Because if the same thing happens in The
Netherlands, the fact that the contract has been avoided, means that there is no underlying
legal grounds. It has retroactive effects. The contract is deemed to never have happened.
So I can claim my computer and you can claim your book. I still own my computer and so I
have a much stronger claim - I have an absolute right, whereas in Germany it's just a personal
right.
1. Consensual system
B owns the bike. The contract itself transfers the ownership.
2. Causal tradition system
A owns the bike. Because it's a tradition system - it has happened. Delivery is required to
have a transfer of property.
3. Abstract tradition system
A owns the bike
1. Consensual system
B owns the bike
2. Causal tradition system
B owns the bike
3. Abstract tradition system
B owns the bike
1. Consensual system
A owns the bike.
2. Causal tradition system
On the 10th of January, A owns the bike. The definition of causal is that the transfer
DEPENDS on the underlying contract and it does not exist!
3. Abstract tradition system
The transfer is completed - B will own the thing. But by January 10th, there is a retroactive
effect - the contract is deemed to never have happened. There is no contract, there is no
transfer.
English Law:
Nemo plus iuris ad alium transferre potest, quam ipse habet nobody can transfer more right
than he himself has.
Nemo dat quod non habet no one gives what he does not have
In order to transfer a thing the transferor must have the power to dispose of the thing in
question.
But it does not say that we have to own it - there are circumstances in which someone else is
authorized to transfer ownership. The basic rule is that the one person to transfer ownership,
is the owner himself.
The exception is that by law we can do almost anything - we can give someone else the power
to transfer ownership. For example, the trustee in bankruptcy.
We have to put ourselves in the position of the person who thinks he his the owner upon
concluding the contract.
Since it is very difficult to find out who actually owns the book, we need to protect 3rd parties
somehow. Usually the law does this.
We put our trust in this person and then he turns out to be someone else? No. "Third party
protection" is supposed to fight that.
E.g.:
Transfer of movables in German law
> 929, 1st sentence BGB:
Zur bertragung des Eigentums an einer beweglichen Sache ist erforderlich, dass der
Eigentmer die Sache dem Erwerber bergibt und beide darber einig sind, dass das
Eigentum bergehen soll.
For the transfer of the ownership of a movable thing, it is necessary that the owner delivers
the thing to the acquirer and both agree that ownership is to pass. (translation:
Bundesministerium der Justiz)
The German abstract system distinguishes between the contract obliging to make the
transfer (Verpflichtungsgeschft) and the transfer itself (bereignung, Veruerung).
The transfer is valid even if the preceding contract is void or has been avoided with
retroactive effect.
If ownership has been transferred under a voidable contract avoidance will not automatically
revert ownership to the transferor.
The second stage is "both agree that ownership is to pass" - the real agreement