Vertragstypenzwang im Code civil? Die Gültigkeit gegenseitiger Verträge in der Judikatur der Freien Stadt Krakau (1815–1846)

Q3 Arts and Humanities
A. Dziadzio
{"title":"Vertragstypenzwang im Code civil? Die Gültigkeit gegenseitiger Verträge in der Judikatur der Freien Stadt Krakau (1815–1846)","authors":"A. Dziadzio","doi":"10.1515/zrgg-2022-0011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Contract-nominalism in the Code civil? The validity of bilateral agreements in the judicature of the courts of the Free City of Krakow (1815–1846). The courts of the Free City of Kraków, when applying Article 1325 of the Code civil, adopted a different direction from the courts in Baden or the French judiciary, both of which modified its strict content. In addition to the differences between the Polish, German and French judicatures, there were inconsistencies between individual judgements relating to the form of bilateral agreements in all three cases. As a result, the citizens of the Free City of Kraków, the Grand Duchy of Baden, or France, had no sufficient certainty as to whether their contracts would be adequately protected in the event of a dispute between the parties. The analyzed cases show a convergence of the jurisprudence of the Baden and French courts, which presented a bolder approach to the issue of the validity of bilateral agreements, thereby protecting the Code Civil principle of the freedom of contracts. Kraków courts refrained from such a creative interpretation of the article 1325 and based their rulings on its literal wording. This was partly due to the fact that Polish scholars and judges did not have easy access to the achievements of French jurisprudence at that time. The courts of Baden adjudicated in more favourable conditions, because French and German legal thoughts on the implementation of Code Civil intertwined and complemented each other.","PeriodicalId":39347,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fur Rechtsgeschichte, Germanistische Abteilung","volume":"34 1","pages":"270 - 283"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fur Rechtsgeschichte, Germanistische Abteilung","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zrgg-2022-0011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Contract-nominalism in the Code civil? The validity of bilateral agreements in the judicature of the courts of the Free City of Krakow (1815–1846). The courts of the Free City of Kraków, when applying Article 1325 of the Code civil, adopted a different direction from the courts in Baden or the French judiciary, both of which modified its strict content. In addition to the differences between the Polish, German and French judicatures, there were inconsistencies between individual judgements relating to the form of bilateral agreements in all three cases. As a result, the citizens of the Free City of Kraków, the Grand Duchy of Baden, or France, had no sufficient certainty as to whether their contracts would be adequately protected in the event of a dispute between the parties. The analyzed cases show a convergence of the jurisprudence of the Baden and French courts, which presented a bolder approach to the issue of the validity of bilateral agreements, thereby protecting the Code Civil principle of the freedom of contracts. Kraków courts refrained from such a creative interpretation of the article 1325 and based their rulings on its literal wording. This was partly due to the fact that Polish scholars and judges did not have easy access to the achievements of French jurisprudence at that time. The courts of Baden adjudicated in more favourable conditions, because French and German legal thoughts on the implementation of Code Civil intertwined and complemented each other.
公民权利合同条款克拉科夫自由城市法律制度的有效性(1815—1846)
民法典中的契约唯名论?克拉科夫自由市法院司法中双边协议的有效性(1815-1846)。Kraków自由市法院在适用《民法典》第1325条时,采取了与巴登法院或法国司法机关不同的方向,两者都修改了其严格的内容。除了波兰、德国和法国司法机关之间的差异之外,在所有三个案件中,个别判决之间关于双边协定的形式也有不一致之处。因此,自由城市Kraków、巴登大公国或法国的公民,对于他们的合同在双方发生纠纷时是否会得到充分保护,没有足够的确定性。所分析的案例表明,巴登法院和法国法院的判例趋于一致,它们对双边协定的效力问题提出了更为大胆的办法,从而保护了《民法》关于合同自由的原则。Kraków法院没有对第1325条作出这种创造性的解释,而是根据其字面措辞作出裁决。这在一定程度上是由于波兰的学者和法官不容易接触到当时法国法理学的成就。巴登法院在更有利的条件下作出裁决,因为法国和德国在执行《民法典》方面的法律思想相互交织,相互补充。
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
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
76
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信