<<
>>

Piecemeal Solutions v. Overriding Principle

Thirdly, a remark about stereotypes in comparative legal discourse. It is often said that English law develops incre­mentally; it finds piecemeal solutions in response to demonstrated problems.[540] This is seen as part of the prag­matic tradition of the common law.

Recognition of overrid­ing principles and general legal institutions, on the other hand, are widely regarded as characteristic of the continen­tal approach. But this is an oversimplification. An overrid­ing principle of good faith, as contained in § 242 BGB, in reality, is hardly more than an invitation, or reminder, for courts to do what they do anyway: to develop the law in accordance with the perceived needs of their time.[541] It would neither require English judges 'to give up the time- tested tradition of going cautiously from this case or that case to the next case'[542] nor does it prevent German judges from doing just that. Apart from that it should be kept in mind that the implication of terms in law under the aegis of a standard of reasonableness, as recognized in English law, is a device of considerable generality and flexibility, as unconducive to 'predictability of the outcome of a case'398 as a general standard of good faith. Or we may look at the institution of the trust. It is a unitary conception that is famous for its flexibility and adaptability. Continental legal systems, on the other hand, have to rely on 'a whole panoply of extremely heterogeneous legal institutions'399 in order to satisfy the needs for which English lawyers use the trust.

<< | >>
Source: Zimmermann R.. Roman law, Contemporary law, European law. Oxford University Press,2004. — 113 p.. 2004

More on the topic Piecemeal Solutions v. Overriding Principle:

  1. Compromise solutions
  2. The mongoose principle
  3. 1. The principle of noxality
  4. Different meanings of 'legal principle'
  5. 1. The classical principle of "Konsumptionskonkurrenz”
  6. In principle, a sui iuris Roman citizen enjoyed all the rights of citizenship and could own property as well as perform legal acts.
  7. A structural approach to the distinction
  8. Comparative Evidence and Historical Explanation
  9. Forfeiture of the penalty
  10. 5. PRIVITY OF CONTRACT
  11. Formal and Informal Contracts
  12. Contractual Agreements in Favour of a Third Party
  13. The road to total war
  14. CHAPTER XXVI. FREEDOM INDEPENDENT OF MANUMISSION.