T
h eU
n ju s t i f ie dE
n r ic h m e n t inP
o l is hC
o d e o fO
b l ig a t io n s o f19 3 3
d r Ja n Ha l b e r d a
This paper is concerned with the law of restitution that was in force in Poland during the inter-war period. After 1918 Poland was divided into five legal regions (section 1.1). The state authorities nominated the Committee of Drafters whose task was to unify the law (1.2). In respect of unjustified enrichment the drafters took into account contemporary laws— Code Napoleon, ABGB, BGB, Obligationenrecht (1.3). After more than one decade the code of obligations (1933) finally went into force in 1934.
The code provided for the premises (2.1) and the object of the action founded on unjustified enrichment (2.2). The code lacked however the regulation that might answer the question on this remedy’s nature, namely whether it was a subsidiary or an independent one (2.3). While the drafters took into account Austrian, French, German and Swiss civil codes, it seems that the Polish unjustified enrichment was more alike to German and Swiss laws (3).
1. INTRODUCTION
1. 1.
DIVERSITY OF L E G A L SOURCES
After World War I Poland recovered its independence. For more than one century the country was partitioned between three empires— German, Russian and Austro- Hungarian.
In 1918, when Poland became sovereign, there existed five legal regions. In respect of civil law western Poland was ruled by German law with its Biirgerliches Gesetzbuch (1896). As BGB, in force since 1900, followed a pandectist structure, it included law of obligations in its second book (§§ 241-833).
The central part of the country with its capital—Warsaw—was governed by mixture of French and Russian regulations. The law of obligations was set by the provisions of French Code Napoleon (1804). Since its introduction in the Duchy of Warsaw in 1808 this civil code was still in force. The subsequent amendments (1818, 1825) concerned the matrimonial and hypothecary laws. Thus the law of obligations remained untouched. As the code divided law into three segments: persons, property, acquisition of property, its third book concerned obligations.
In the country’s eastern regions that today belong to independent Belarus and Ukraine, Russian law was binding. The law of obligations was underdeveloped. It found its regulation in Svod Zakonov (1832-1835).
Ja n H \l b e r d a
Southern Poland, the region of Galicia, with Kraków and Lwów was governed by Austrian law, and in respect of private law - especially by Allgemeines Biirgerliches Gesetzbuch (1811). ABGB, likewise Code Napoleon, followed a threefold structure based on Roman “Institutiones”. The Austrian code divided itself into three books:
persons, property, common provisions. The last one included regulations concerning obligations.
The fifth region was the smallest one. In villages of Orava and Spis (located nearby Polish-Slovak border) Hungarian regulations were still in force. These were predominantly customary laws that were repealed in 1922 when binding force of ABGB had been extended hereto.1
Polish lawyers while performing their profession were observing respective laws in each of these regions. After World War I nothing has been changed as there still subsisted several legal regions. Hence, it is not a surprise that Poland was one of the first states that developed the separate statutes concerning the conflict of laws. On the same day in 1926 the parliament (Sejm) enacted the private international law act and private interregional law act.
Nevertheless, the multitude of legal orders caused variety of problems that deeply influenced commerce, business and everyday life. These were among the many reasons why Polish stated authorities decided to unify the law.
Poland was not the only state that after World War I had to face the issue of diversity of legal orders. The similar dilemma had arisen in several other states that became sovereign after the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In Czechoslovakia there existed two regions—Austrian ABGB was binding in Bohemia while in Slovakia customary Hungarian laws were still in force. In the new country of Yugoslavia there subsisted even six legal regions, though predominantly influenced by ABGB.2
1.2. DRAFTING OF THE CODE
As early as in June 3, 1919, Sejm created the Committee of Drafters (Komisja Kodyfikacyjna). The number of forty four most prominent Polish lawyers, among them Ernest Till, Roman Longchamps de Berier and Fryderyk Zoll junior, became the members of this body. During two decades of its proceedings, the Committee has recast the Polish law. Among the statutes that were issued were the codes of both criminal (1928) and civil procedure (1930), the penal code (1932), the code of obligations (1933), the commercial code (1934). Also the aforementioned conflict of laws acts were prepared by the Committee. The drafters however did not succeed in preparing the ci
vil code. Still it is worth mentioning that the civil law regulations enacted after World War II have been predominantly based on the drafts that had been developed during
1 Dziadzio, A.: Powszechna historia prawa. Warszawa, 2008, 255= Dziadzio; P łaz a, S.: Historia prawa w Polsce na tle porównawczym. Część III. Okres międzywojenny, Kraków, 2001, 33-34= Płaza 2 Płaza 58-70
T h e U n ju s t if ie d E n r ic h m e n t in P o lis h C o d e o f O b l i g a t i o n s o f 1933
the inter-war period by the Committee (matrimonial laws of 1945-1946, property law of 1946, common provisions of civil law of 1946).3
Drafting of the code of obligations took more than one decade. In 1923 professor Ernest Till from University of Lwów published in print his own draft of the gen
eral part of law of obligations. In response to his effort two counter-drafts had been prepared by Warsaw attorneys— Ludwik Domański and Henryk Konic. After Ernest Tills death in 1926 professor Roman Longchamps de Berier (also from University of Lwów) took the leadership as the draftsman of the code. Ludwik Domański became the co-draftsman. Thereafter the Committee of Drafters created the subcommittee whose task was to work out the code of obligations. After four years the draft became the statute. Adopted on November 10, 1933, in the form of the Presidents regulation, the code of obligation went into force on July 1, 1934.4
Polish law-drafters in the twenties and the thirties have developed the methodology that is today applied by comparative law scholars. The reason for that was the existence of five legal regions in Poland. Even small legal offices in the countryside were expected to operate in diversity of rules that emerged from different states and cultures. Polish lawyers were accustomed therefore with Austrian, French, German and Russian regu
lations. This knowledge was common. It was impossible to successfully perform legal duties if one was accustomed to the particular one legal system.
During the attempts to make up the code of obligations’ draft, the Committee members took into account the aforementioned regulations that had been observed in Poland: Austrian ABGB, French Code Napoleon and German BGB. Additionally the drafters resorted to Swiss Obligationenrecht of 1911 and to the French-Italian draft of code of obligations of 1927. The scholars intended to benefit from experiences that had been gathered by others who performed codification efforts in the past. They wanted to avoid mistakes that had been committed by law-drafters under different legal systems. Several legal doctrines encompassed by the code of obligations bear the sign of this comparative methodology. The unjustified enrichment may be shown as its example. There existed features that derive from different legal doctrines?
1.3. THE CONTEMPORARY LAW OF UNJUSTIFIED ENRICHM ENT
If we take into account civil law regulations that were in force in Poland, it is worth noting that only German BGB provided for general provisions on unjustified enrichment (§812). BGB was the newest among the codes observed in Poland. The regula
tion of “Ungerechtfertigte Bereicherung” found its place in the second book (law of obligations), in §§ 812-822. These sections included also the passages on
condictiones.
3 Dziadzio 255-259, 274-281; Płaza 35-45.
4 Płaza 157-159. Rozporządzenie Prezydenta RP z dnia 27 października 1933 r. - Kodeks zobowiązań (Dz.U.R.P. nr 82, poz. 598).
5 Płaza 157-161.
Ja n Ha lb e r d a
The comparable regulation existed in Swiss Obligationenrecht (art. 62-67) and French- Italian draft of code of obligations of 1927 (art. 73ff).6
On the contrary, French Code Napoleon provided only for some clauses on un
due payment (art. 1235, art. 1376-1381). Hence, if
solvens
had paid money that was not due, he could sue his vis-a-vis—accipiens
— for restitution. There was however no general principle that he, who has unjustly received a benefit at the expense of other party, is obliged to restore it. This was not the code but the courts and scholars that had developed the doctrine of unjustified enrichment (“enrichissement sans cause”,“enrichissement injuste”). The significant change took place in 1892 when Cour de Cassation adjudged the Boudiers case. Before that date the courts were reluctant to adjudicate if neither contract nor tort could be found in place. The doctrine of unjusti
fied enrichment has been built as a result of the construction of independent legal institutions such as undue payment,
negotiorum gestio
or relations between an owner and a possessor.7In the Austrian code (ABGB) there existed the general clause on restitution (“Nut- zliches verwendung”, meaning the beneficial occupation). However, the rights of a plaintiff were very limited. The statute provided also for clauses on undue payment (§§l432ff), but these were separated from general provision concerning unjustified enrichment (§104l).8
The Russian law was ignorant of unjustified enrichment doctrine. The cases that would be today qualified as restitution were sometimes regarded as
negotiorum gestio
or even as tort.9It is worth noting that the codes that emerged at the beginning of the 19th century regarded the contract as the most important source of obligation. If neither contract nor tort occurred there was just a slight chance to receive the benefit from someone who has not promised to give it back. The general principle of unjustified enrichment has come up only in the statutes enacted at the turn of the 20th century.
6 Dom.iński, L.: Instytucje Kodeksu zobowiązań. Komentarz teoretyczno-praktyczny. Część ogólna.
Warszawa, 1936, vol. 3, 343-344, 365= Domański; Longcbamps de Berier, R. (ed.) Uzasadnienie pro
jektu Kodeksu zobowiązań z uwzględnieniem ostatecznego tekstu kodeksu. Warszawa, 1936, Komisja Kodyfikacyjna, Podkomisja prawa o zobowiązaniach, vol. 4-6, 175= Longchamps de Berier, 1936 7 Domański 564-565, Gutteridge, Ii. С.- David, R .: The Doctrine o f Unjustified Enrichment. Cambridge
Law Journal, 5/1933-1935, 207-211, 222= Gutteridge-David; Lentz, W : Bezpodstawne wzbogacenie.
In Encyklopedia Podręczna Prawa Prywatnego, Warszawa (no date of publishing), vol. 1, 70-78=
Lentz; Zweigert, K.- Kótz, H.: An Introduction to Comparative Law. Volume II, The Institutions of Private Law, Amsterdam-New York-Oxford, 1977, 2l6-2\8=Zweigert- Kotz
8 Domański 566; Lentz 86.
9 Lentz 108-110; Ohanowicz, A.: Niesłuszne zbogacenie. Warszawa, 1956, 428-429= Ohanou icz, 1956;
Waskowski, E.: Kodeks zobowiązań a 1 część X tomu Zwodu Praw. Wileński Przegląd Prawniczy, 6/1934, 110, 191.
Th e Un ju s t if ie d En r ic h m e n tin Po lish Co d e o f Ob l ig a t io n so f 1933
2. UNJUSTIFIED ENRICHMENT IN THE CODE OF OBLIGATIONS
Let us now move to the presentation of unjustified enrichment as it was set in the Polish code of obligations. The statute provided for threefold division of sources of obligations (art. 1). Apart from obligations created by declaration of will (contracts, art. 29-114) or commission of tort (art. 134-167), the code recognized those founded on “other events” (art. 115-133). The third cathegory encompassed sources of obligations that Romans would call “quasi-contracts”. This chapter covered the provisions concerningnegotiorum gestio
(art. 115-122), unjustified enrichment in general (art. 123-127) and undue payment (art. 128-133). Thus, the unjustified enrichment was regulated as an independent source of obligation. The undue payment was treated as lex specialis vis- a-vis unjustified enrichment. Polish framework resembled German as it provided for the general principle of unjustified enrichment.2.
1. FOUR CONDITIONS OF THE ACTION
The general principle of unjustified enrichment was enacted in the art. 123 of the code:
he, who had unjustly received the benefit from the assets of another, was responsible to give it back. The clause provided for needed premises of successful restitutionary action. It was settled that there existed four conditions: enrichment on a defendants side, impoverishment on a plaintiffs side, a link between the enrichment and the im
poverishment, and absence of basis for the defendant’s enrichment.10
The name of the doctrine (in English as in Polish language) focused on the issue that the enrichment was unjustified (in Polish: “niesłuszne zbogacenie”). Nevertheless, that was the absence of basis and not the unjustness that was the condition of success
ful action. During the Committees proceedings that led to the code’s enactment, two groups of scholars presented their theories. Those led by Ludwik Domański, Ignacy Koschembahr-Łyskowski and Fryderyk Zoll junior were of the opinion that the doc
trine of restitution should focus on the unfairness or unjustness of the enrichment. The second group, this that ultimately had won the contest, presented the view that the law should abstain from resorting to extra-legal notions such as unjustness, unfairness.
They opted that the absence of legal basis, likewise in Germany, should be taken into the account. It is said that the first group of scholars gave the name to this branch of law, but the second— led by Ernest Till and Roman Longchamps de Berier— provided
10 This four-condition matrix was adequate for French, German and Polish laws; as regarding to the latter one, it was valid in respect to the code of obligations (1933) and the civil code (1964). In the Austrian law o f “Nutzliches vervendung” (§ 1041) the premises were as follows: a) a plaintiffs thing has been used b) for a benefit of a defendant c) and provisions of negotiorum gestio do not apply.
Gutteridge-David 212-216; Lentz 81, 86, 95; Ohanowicz, A.: Bezpodstaw ne wzbogacenie. In: System prawa cywilnego. Tom III. Część I. Prawo zobowiązań. Część ogólna, Ossolineum, 1981, 478= Oha
nowicz, 1981; Ohanowicz, 1956 57.
Jan Ha lb er d a
for its content.11 Polish civil code of 1964 that today is in force has changed the doc
trine’s name using the phrase “bezpodstawne wzbogacenie” that explicitly draws the attention to the absence of basis issue (art. 405).12
The notion of the defendant’s benefit was construed widely. The benefit might subsist in a positive or negative form. The defendant’s assets might increase (a positive form) or, on the other hand, his debts might decrease (a negative form). The impover
ishment was the counterpart of the enrichment. The link between the enrichment and the impoverishment was not of a causal genus. Both the enrichment and the impov
erishment were perceived as two aspects of the same event, namely the dislocation of wealth. The impoverishment encompassed both
damnum emergens
andlucrum cessans.
The pecuniary nature was the hallmark of the enrichment and the impoverishment.
Thus, a moral benefit was deemed irrelevant.13
The cause of the enrichment was insignificant. Therefore, the defendant’s property might accrue due to his own activities, as well as those performed by a plaintiff or a third party. The enrichment might also result as a consequence of natural forces or casus.14
The existence of both elements— the enrichment and the impoverishment was a condition prerequisite in German, French and Swiss laws. As a result the extent of the plaintiffs action was limited by lower one from those two amounts. The drafters of the Polish code followed this pattern. On the contrary, in Austrian law the plaintifPs impoverishment was unnecessary. Due to that fact, in order to protect innocent defen
dants, the notion of enrichment was interpreted more restrictively than in other legal systems.15
22.
THE OBJECT OF THE ACTION
As a rule a defendant was to restore the enrichment “in natura” (art. 123). He was expected to give back the very thing he had received from a plaintiff.
A maiore ad minus
the plaintiff’s remedy encompassed also accessions to the thing.16 In several cases restitution “in natura” was impossible. That was the issue if the defendant had sold the thing. Then he was to restore the original enrichment’s substitute - the “ersatz”11 O’Hinou icz, 1956408-410; Plaz.i 158; Rosenbltith, I. In: Korzonek, }.- Rosenbliith, I.: Kodeks zobowią
zań. Komentarz, Kraków, 1934, 246= Rosenbliith; Zoll, F. jun.: Zobowiązania w zarysie według pol
skiego Kodeksu zobowiązań. Warszawa, 1948, \\\A \2 = Z o ll
12 Ustawa z dnia 23 kwietnia 1964 r. - Kodeks cywilny (Dz.U. nr 16 poz. 93).
13 Domański 265-266; Lentz 81-82, 87, 96; Longchamps de Berier, 1936 177-178, OhanowLz, 1956 110, 140-141; Ohanowicz, 1981 484-485-
14 Lefitz 86, 88, 96-97; Longchamps de Berier, 1 9 3 6 178, Longchamps de Berier, R.: Niesłuszne zbogacenie.
In: Encyklopedia Podręczna..., vol. 2, 1935, 1080= Longchamps de Berier, 1935; Longchamps de Berier, R.: Zobowiązania. Lwów, 1939, 218= Longchamps de Berier, 1939\Ohanowicz, 1981 484, Foli 112.
15 Lentz 75-76, 89.
16 Domański 566, 568-569; Longchamps de Berier, 1 9 3 6 180, Rosenbliith 247.
T h e U n ju s t if ie d E n r ic h m e n t in P o lis h C o d e o f O b l i g a t i o n s o f 1933
(art. 124).17 For example, the defendant was to transfer to the plaintiff the money he had received from a buyer as a purchase price. If the object of the original enrichment had been stolen from the defendant, his tort action against the third party was the
“ersatz” that became the target of the plaintiffs action. On the other hand, in several cases it was impossible from the very beginning to restore the thing in natura because the enrichment was immaterial. That was the issue if the defendant benefited from the services rendered at the plaintiffs expense. Then the former one was expected to pay remuneration to the latter (art .123
in fine)13
What is important, the extent of the plaintiffs action was limited by the lower amount— either the enrichment or the impoverishment. Thus, if due to some external events the enrichment has gradually diminished, only this lower amount could be claimed by the plaintiff. If the enrichment has been lost with no one at fault, the de
fendant was not expected to reward the plaintiff. According to the maxim
“casus sentit dorninus
” that was the risk to be borne by the latter one. If the defendant has actedbona fide
, he was also authorised to resort to the change of position defense (art. 127).10 It meant that if he had exploited the enrichments object in such a way that he was no longer enriched; the plaintiff could not succeed against him in legal action. In accord with these rules, the defendant was authorised to claim the counter-restitution of the necessary outlays borne by him for the plaintiffs benefit (art. 126).20 The aforementioned rules were enforced also in French, German, Swiss laws. Austrian law in respect of undue payment provided for the similar rules. These however were unknown in ancient Roman law of condictiones and in Austrian regulations regarding “Nutzliches vervendung”— defendant was to restore the enrichment in its original amount regard
less the subsequent events.21
The drafters of the code had to' provide for the solution of case wherein the object of the enrichment had been transferred free of charge from the defendant to the third party. It was decided that the plaintiff should be granted remedy even against an in
nocent donee, legatee or heir (art. 125). Due to the maxim “
nemo plus iuris ad alium transferre potest
.,quam ipse habei\
the legal position of the third party should not be better than that of the original enrichee. In this respect the Polish code differed from BGB. According to German law the action against the third party was admissible provided that the plaintiff could not sue the original enrichee. If the latter one became insolvent this regulation caused hardship on the plaintiff’s side while it still precluded him from seeking redress against the third party. That was the reason why the Polishr Roser.uliith 249-250; Lentz 80, 105; Ohanowicz, 1981 498; Ohanowicz, 1956318.
1K Goldberger, S.: Niesłuszne zbogacenie w Kodeksie zobowiązań. Głos Adwokatów nr 2, 4/1938, 118, Rosenbliith 247-248.
v) Domański 576; Lentz 75, 77; Longchamps de Berier, 1935 1081; Rosenbliith 253-255.
20 Domański 570; Lentz 80, 85, 90, 105-106; Longchamps de Berier, 1 9 3 6 181; Obanowicz, 1981 499AOO, A. Ohanowicz, 1956 330-338.
21 Lentz 76-77, 87, 93; Longchamps de Berier, 1 9 3 6 175-177; Rosenbliith 254, Zoll 113.
Jan K \l b e r d a
scholars decided to modify this German rule and enable the plaintiff to elect the defen
dant. Polish law of the present day provides for the different rule— in case of gratuitous transfer of the enrichments object, the obligation to restore the benefit to the plaintiff passes on to the third party.22
2.3. THE NATURE OF THE ACTION
Respective codes applied different approaches regarding the status of remedy in question. In French law, as it was in ancient Rome, the restitutionary action was a subsidiary one. It was the ultima ratio that could be resorted to, if there was no other remedy applicable. The same view was shared in Austrian ABGB. On the contrary, the German and Swiss codes treated the unjustified enrichment as an independent cause of action. The restitutionary actions were not perceived as the ultima ratio remedies.
The plaintiff was authorised to elect whether he wanted to sue in contract, in tort or in unjustified enrichment. He might resort to restitution instead of using proprietary remedies.23 The drafters of the Polish code were of opinion that the remedies based on unjustified enrichment should be regarded as the independent ones. There was how
ever no provision that would
prima facie
answer that question. The civil code of 1964 provides explicitly for the autonomous status of restitutionary remedies (art. 4l4).243. CONCLUSIONS
The statutes enacted at the turn of the 19th century (Code Napoleon, ABGB) differ from those which had been introduced one hundred years later (BGB, Obligationenrecht).
The codes of 1804 and 1811 had given the priority to the postulates formed by the law of nature doctrine. Providing for liberalism and individualism, the codes warranted rights of an owner and set a contract as the most important source of obligations. Thus the content and importance of non-contractual sources of obligation was strictly limited.
Although the newer codes, those that were enacted in Germany and Switzerland, have been founded on achievements of pandectists and legal positivists, as well as pos
tulates of liberalism and egalitarianism, they both show that significant changes were taking place. Due to the application of general clauses, BGB (§ 138) and ZGB (art. 1) extended the scope of powers given to the judge. The increase of social values in law
22 Longchamps de Berier, 1 9 3 6 180-181; Ohanowicz, 1981 501-502.
23 Czemeryński, I. (ed.) Powszechne prawo prywatne austryjackie. Vol. 2, Lwów, 1867-1868, 274; Lentz 108, 110; Ohanowicz, 1981 471; Ohanowicz, 795^296-303; Zweigert- Kótz 221.
24 Chmielnicki, I.: Niesłuszne zbogacenie w prawie wekslowym i kodeksie zobowiązań. Nowy Kodeks Zobowiązań, 14-15/1938, 57-58; Chmielnicki, I.: Jeszcze o niesłusznym wzbogaceniu w Prawie Weksl., a Kod.Zob. Głos Sądownictwa, 1938, 392-393; Domański 579; Goldberger, S.: Roszczenia z tytułu niesłusznego zbogacenia w prawie wekslowym. Miesięcznik Prawa Handlowego i Wekslowego, 9-12/1937,231-232,248; Gutteridge-David2Y)-Tl\\Longchamps de Berier, R.: Nienależne świadczenie.
In: Encyklopedia Podręczna..., vol. 2, pp. 1075, 1077; Longchamps de Berier, 1935 1080, Longchamps de Berier 218; Ohanowicz, 1981 511-515; Zoll 112.
T h e U n ju s t if ie d E n r ic h m e n t in P o l i s h C o d e o f O b l i g a t i o n s o f 1933
resulted in the development of non-contractual sources of law such as the doctrine of unjustified enrichment. BGB and Obligationenrecht provided for the general rules on restitution (§812 BGB, art. 62 OR). Simultaneously with the enactment of new codes in Germany and Switzerland, the relevant modifications took place in France and Austria. As ABGB has been amended in 1914 through 1916 by statutory reforms (though the law of obligations remained untouched), the French law was recast due to the changes initiated by the judicature. The wind of change has left its imprint also in the area of unjustified enrichment. Since Boudiers case in 1892 the French courts started to adjudge the restitution.25
The provisions of Polish code of obligation (1933) resemble those of the newer codes that had been influenced by the social values. Firstly, the name of the branch of law in question was “niesłuszne zbogacenie”. The phrase focused on the enrichments unjustness or unfairness. Secondly, the code provided for the general principle of un
justified enrichment (art. 123, §812 BGB, art. 62 OR). In fact that was the absence of transfers basis that could only activate the plaintiffs action. On the other hand, the Polish code, likewise Austrian and French laws, expressly divided its regulations between unjustified enrichment in general (art. 123-127) and undue payment (art.
128-133). Last but not least, German, Swiss and Polish laws treated the restitutionary remedies as independent actions. In Austria and France those remedies were deemed to be subsidiary ones. Although there existed differences (especially in regard to the liability of the third party), the Polish restitution law was more alike to this of BGB and Obligationenrecht than to that of Code Napoleon and ABGB.
11 Gutteridge-David 207-211, 222; Plaza 160-163, Sójka-Zielińska, К.: Kodeks Napoleona. Hisroria i wspólczesność.Warszawa, 2007, 73-79, 114-122, 181-183; Sój^-Zielińska, K.: W'ielkie kodyfikacje cywilne X IX wieku. Warszawa, 1973, 43-46, 63, 178.
I
n s t i t u t i o n s o fL
e g a lH
i s t o r yWITH SPECIAL REGARD TO THE LEGAL CULTURE AND HISTORY
B r a t i s l a v a - Pe cs , 2 0 1 ]
tutions of Legal History
special regard to the legal culture and history
ors:
iel Bagi; Kazimierz Baran; Gabor Beli; Elisabeth Berger; W ilhelm Brauneder; Csaba ó; Diana Duchońova; Istvan Fazekas; Marta Font; Anna Fundarkova; Tomas Gabriś;
« Gardaś; Jan Halberda; Eszter Csabane Herger; Maria Nagy Homoki; Janos Jany; Istvan ir; Tomislav Karlovic; Gernot Kocher; Krisztina Korsósne Delacasse; Visnja Lachner; Ga- dathe; Bama Mezey; Teodora Janka Nagy; Balazs Palvolgyi; Władysław Pęksa; Zsuzsan-
;res; Srdan Sarkić; Markus Steppan; Istvan Szabó; Josip Yrbośić;
nical editors:
Sabor Beli, PhD.; Mgr. Diana Duchonova, PhD.; Mgr. Anna Fundarkova, MA, PhD.;
Dr. Istvan Kajtar; Dr. Zsuzsanna Peres, PhD.
>rs:
PhDr. Jan Lukaćka, CSc. - Prof. Dr. Mihaly T. Revesz uage lectors:
Diana Duchońova, PhD.; Mgr. Anna Fundarkova, MA., PhD.; Dr. Zsuzsanna Peres,
shers:
ty of Law, University of Pecs - Dr. Gyula Berke, dean of the Faculty
ute of History of Slovak Academy of Sciences - PhDr. Slavomir Michałek DrSc., Institute :tor
r illustration:
of Arms of Georgius Schachner 1640, State Archives in Bratislava, Modra Branch, cers of City Svaty Jur, sig. 151.
r, Design and Layout: Publikon Publishers/IDResearch Ltd.
id by: Bomus 2009 Ltd., Pecs 978-615-5001-38-3
978-80-88899-07-9 9788088899075
P
roceedings volume is partially funded from the : provided by che International Visegrad Fund
(grant no. 21010233)
C
o n t e n tPreface - University of Pecs
Preface - Slovak Academy of Sciences
Chapter i - Traditional and Modern Private Legal Institutions
The Origins of clausula rebus sic stantibus Tomislav Karlovic
The Gift in Serbian Mediaeval Law
Srdan Sarkić
Das Fortleben der Gesetzgebung der Kiever Rus*
auf dem Gebiet der Ostslawen
Marta Font
Undertaking of a Guarantee towards Contracting Party in the Traditional Hungarian Law
Gabor Beli
Die Anfange des ungarischen Konkursrechts
Krisztina Korsósne Delacasse
Rightful interests in Czechoslovak civil and labour law
Tomas Gabriś
The Unjustified Enrichment in Polish Code o f Obligations of 1933
Jan Halberda
Konfiskation von Firmen in Osijek nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg
Miro Gardas - Josip Vrbosic
The ups and downs in the history of rebus sic stantibus clause and the implementation of the latter
in the Polish legal system of the 20th century
Kazimierz Baran
Bibliography
Chapter 2 - Codification of Private Law
Das ABGB als Kodifikation ftir West- und Osteuropa
Wilhelm Brauneder
Das Allgemeine Biirgerliche Gesetzbuch in der ungarischen Rechtspraxis der Richter
Maria Homoki-Nagy
9
11
15 25
33
47 67
77
95
105
115
119
127
137
5
