Atsevišķi galvojuma institūta aspekti profesora Aleksandra Būmaņa un Senāta judikatūras atziņās

Erlens Kalniņš
{"title":"Atsevišķi galvojuma institūta aspekti profesora Aleksandra Būmaņa un Senāta judikatūras atziņās","authors":"Erlens Kalniņš","doi":"10.22364/juzk.80.06","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article considers certain aspects of the institute of suretyship, reflecting the insights into the relevant issues that can be found in the dissertation “Suretyship in Civil Law” by Professor Aleksandrs Būmanis (1881–1937), defended in 1933, and expressed in the recent case law of the Senate. Although the final conclusions (leading theses) of A. Būmanis and the Senate coincide in all aspects discussed in this article, not all of these conclusions have been supported by the same arguments. Therefore, the article explores the differences or similarities in the reasoning used by A. Būmanis and the case law of Senate in order to support the above-mentioned final conclusions.","PeriodicalId":413617,"journal":{"name":"Latvijas Republikas Satversmei – 100","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Latvijas Republikas Satversmei – 100","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22364/juzk.80.06","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article considers certain aspects of the institute of suretyship, reflecting the insights into the relevant issues that can be found in the dissertation “Suretyship in Civil Law” by Professor Aleksandrs Būmanis (1881–1937), defended in 1933, and expressed in the recent case law of the Senate. Although the final conclusions (leading theses) of A. Būmanis and the Senate coincide in all aspects discussed in this article, not all of these conclusions have been supported by the same arguments. Therefore, the article explores the differences or similarities in the reasoning used by A. Būmanis and the case law of Senate in order to support the above-mentioned final conclusions.
本文考虑了保证制度的某些方面,反映了对相关问题的见解,这些见解可以在亚历山大教授Būmanis(1881-1937)的论文“民法中的保证”中找到,该论文于1933年辩护,并在最近的参议院判例法中得到表达。尽管A. Būmanis和参议院的最终结论(主要论点)在本文讨论的所有方面都是一致的,但并非所有这些结论都得到了相同论据的支持。因此,本文探讨A. Būmanis与参议院判例法的推理差异或相似之处,以支持上述最终结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信