{"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.