On the Juridical Roles of Contract Law

  • Thomas Wilhelmsson
Part of the Law and Philosophy Library book series (LAPS, volume 16)


When the problem was stated (above I.3.2) we saw how it has been asserted that the abstract “juridical roles” of private law can immunize private law against an explicitly value-bound alternative legal dogmatics. Private-law dogmatics of this kind therefore presupposes a critical re-valuation of the role concepts of private law.


Formal Role Role Concept Conceptual Apparatus Legal Relationship Injured Party 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Thus for West German law, Köndgen 1981 p. 192.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Köndgen 1981 p. 193, see also e.g. Rottleuthner 1973 p. 135.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    See e.g. Rehbinder 1968 p. 162 ff., Wiistmann 1972, Rebe 1978 p. 55 and Kôndgen 1981 p. 193 ff.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    See e.g. Reich 1977 p. 191 f., Westermann 1983 p. 9.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thus e.g. Kôndgen 1981 p. 198 “…ist Rolle primär ein Konzept der Normdifferenzierung”.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thus e.g. - despite the theoretical connection with the sociological concept of role - Rehbinder 1968 p. 160 ff.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thus e.g. Zinke 1982 p. 168.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    The Finnish private law classic Robert Montgomery 1889 p. 311 f. stresses: “That the law should be the same for all is a tenet embedded in the very idea of law, which in no part of the legal system permits and demands a more complete performance than within general private law… Such difference in legal status as is in rank, occupation, dwelling within the boundaries of the state (country or town) etcetera, which has had its origin and correspondence essentially in public law, has gradually been levelled out by more recent legislation so that within private law… little thereof remains” (translated here).Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    Broekman 1986 p. 96.Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    Rehbinder 1968 p. 161 f.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    Role“ is used here in the limited sense specified above in section 1 points i and iii.Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    See also e.g. Preuss 1986 p. 166 who asserts that “the laws become evermore selective vis à vis different segments of the population and social situations and thus become concrete and special”.Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    Rehbinder 1968 p. 169.Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    Rebe 1978 p. 54 ff.Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    See Hopt 1983 p. 663 ff. Cf. also Ewald 1986 p. 53, whose “social law” is characterized among other things as “a law of occupational groupings”.Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    Kôndgen 1981; see for occupational law generally p. 216 ff., 352 ff.Google Scholar
  17. 18.
    Kôndgen 1981 p. 203.Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    BGB-Kommentar p. 63 f.Google Scholar
  19. Z0 Thus Dauner-Lieb 1983, e.g. p. 150.Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    Collins 1986 p. 19.Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    See Stang Dahl 1985 p. 29 ff., and also Eckhoff 1985 p. 84.Google Scholar
  22. 26.
    Kramer 1986 p. 4 gives in this definition a summary of a number of definitions in various EEC Directives, Draft Directives and Conventions. However, he notes at the same time that “Community law has not yet developed a uniform term of ‘consumer’ suitable for general application” (p. 6). - For a negative evaluation of the need for a special consumer law, see, e.g., Reynolds 1982.Google Scholar
  23. 27.
    See e.g. Hellner 1982 p. 37 ff. The development of special rules for consumer relationships has however led to abandonment of the distinction between private purchase and commercial purchase in the recent reform of sales law. See on this point e.g. NU 1984:5 p. 169 f.Google Scholar
  24. 28.
    Dauner-Lieb 1983 p. 46 ff.. See also e.g. Lieb 1983 p. 356 f. 29 See e.g. Schuhmacher 1986.Google Scholar
  25. 30.
    Reich 1974 p. 188.Google Scholar
  26. 31.
    See e.g. for Finnish law Reg.Prop. 8/1977 p. 15.Google Scholar
  27. 32.
    Verhandlungen des 53. Deutschen Juristentages p. K 47 ff.Google Scholar
  28. 33.
    Simitis 1976 p. 81, thus also e.g. Westermann 1983 p. 70, Esser - Schmidt 1984 p. 17.Google Scholar
  29. 34.
    See Wilhelmsson 1978 p. 61 ff.Google Scholar
  30. 35.
    As an explicit example from Finnish legal practice may be mentioned HD 1977 II 103, where the Finnish Supreme Court expressly referred to the fact that the other party was a person with long experience of the car-hire business and the procurement of cars in connection with this.Google Scholar
  31. 36.
    BGH 27.2. 1974, NJW 1974 p. 849 ff.Google Scholar
  32. 37.
    See e.g. for German occupational liability section 2 above and, from Nordic law, Taxell 1972 p. 301.Google Scholar
  33. 38.
    See e.g. HD 1980 II 39, where the term specialist is used in connection with trade in securities and housing shares.Google Scholar
  34. 39.
    See e.g. Saxén 1975 p. 34 ff.Google Scholar
  35. 40.
    As an illustration from Finnish law may be mentioned e.g. case HD 1980 II 49, where an entrepreneur could not plead, as a ground for exemption from liability, the circumstance that insufficient geotechnical knowledge was available, since it could be assumed that the company, as a business in the relevant sector, would possess this knowledge.Google Scholar
  36. 41.
    Cf. the German “occupational roles”; see also Taxell 1972 p. 302, who points out that “Specialist characteristics by no means always attach to the debtor’s person, but to the activity in which the debtor engages” (translated here).Google Scholar
  37. 42.
    See e.g. Finnish case HD 1977 II 103, mentioned in footnote 35. a3 Cf. also Hônn 1982 p. 134 ff.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Wilhelmsson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Private LawUniversity of HelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations