ds_gen N. 6 – 2007 – Contributi

 

Konstantin Gnitsevich - photoTradition and Passing of Property (with Regard to Sale) in Russian Civil Law

 

Konstantin  V. Gnitsevich

Alexander-Herzen-University

St. Petersburg

 

 

 

 

The legal nature of the tradition (that is of the transfer of a thing in discharge of a contractual obligation) has become recently an object of energetic discussion in the Russian civil law literature. There exist radically different views on the subject. There are few once who regard the tradition as a bilateral transaction abstracted from the underlying contractual obligation of sale[1]. So they are interpreting the rules of Russian law in the spirit of German civil law doctrine. Moreover, these authors consider it necessary to separate the tradition into two acts — an agreement of transfer of ownership, which is a bilateral transaction with the real effect, and the act of the things delivery (Realakt), which is not a transaction per se.

The second view consists in recognition of tradition as a bilateral transaction, but without its abstraction from the underlying contractual obligation[2]. That means the tradition to be a transaction dependent on its causa contrahendi. At last there are many jurists, who see in the tradition a combination of unilateral transactions of the parties discharging their contractual obligations of sale and purchase[3]. It is necessary to say, that general point of this position focuses on the renunciation of the requirement about concurrent participation of both parts in the tradition that is the renunciation of the bilateral transaction’s nature of the tradition.

It is worth noting the impossibility of acknowledgement of the tradition a bilateral transaction on the base of literal reading of the text of law only.

The first point of the article 223 of Russian Civil Code proves only that in Russian civil law ownership passes to acquirer by transfer of a chose to him, and that it is not a contract of sale per se that transfers ownership. Meanwhile this model includes many variations, which are common only in requirement of delivering of possession in discharge of contractual obligation of alienation of thing for passing of its ownership[4].

The agreement of the transfer of ownership can be included in the contractual obligation of alienation (for example, in the contract of sale). It is so in the Austrian (§ 380 and 425 Civ. Code)[5] and Spanish (Art. 609 Cód. civ.)[6] law. However it can be also a bilateral transaction, autonomous of the contractual obligation, but dependent of the last one – like it is in Dutch (Art. 3:84 Abs. 1 Cod Civ.)[7] and Swiss[8] law. In both these cases we deal with the model of causal tradition. But the agreement of the transfer of ownership can constitute a separate bilateral transaction which has to be evaluated “abstractly” from the underlying contract of obligation. In the last case they say about the model of the abstract tradition. This variation applies to Germany[9], South Africa[10], Scotland[11] and Greece[12].

Therefore we can conclude, that in each legal system based on the model of the tradition exists an agreement of the transfer of ownership, but this agreement can be either implied in the contractual obligation or can take place as a separate transaction with the real affect at the moment of discharge of the obligation. But for all that the construction of the abstract tradition can exist only in case of separation of the agreement of the transfer of ownership from the obligatory contract. On the contrary, the idea of the causal tradition can have its place as in such separation as in case of unity of the obligation and the transfer of ownership agreement in one inseparable act. That's why perfect understanding of the legal nature of the tradition in Russian civil law requires to explore, first of all, if it is causal or abstract, because its recognition as an abstract act will demonstrate ipso facto that it is a bilateral transaction. If it is a causal act it could be unilateral or bilateral transaction.

The question of the causal or abstract nature of the tradition is very intricate with reference to Roman law, because one can find many contradictory regulations in its texts. So the causal tradition is discussed in the next legal sources: Gai. 2.20[13], Ulp. 19.7[14], D. 41.1.31 pr.[15], Inst. Iust. 2.1.41[16]. As an argument in favour of the abstract tradition can be used D. 41.1.36[17], which unites the abstract characteristic of delivery with the irrelevance of the error in causa traditionis, and D. 12.1.18 pr.[18], which doesn't  adopt such irrelevance. This non-coordination in the legal texts gave rise already from the beginning of the early Modern Times to the theoretical discussion about the iusta causa traditionis.

The XVI-th century doctrine of titulus et modus acquirendi produced by Johann Apel in his Methodica dialectices ratio ad jurisprudentiam adcommodata (1535)[19] and accepted at the second half of the next century as communis opinio doctorum in Germany understood the requirement of a iusta causa transferendi dominii as a necessity of a valid obligation, due to which ownership must be transferred to the purchaser. This theory based on the rule of D. 41.1.31 pr. contradicted to the fragment D. 41.1.36, in which ownership passed to the purchaser in any case, when the alienator and the purchaser come to the agreement about the ownerships transfer. The way out from this collision was at first the permission of the acquirement of property, based on the causa putativa[20]. As a tradition based on the iniusta causa was considered those cases, which were enumerated as such in the statute law (for example, it was recognized as such case a delivery based on the illicit donation between husband and wife[21]).

Another solution was produced by F.C. Savigny[22]. He presumed that there were cases of the valid tradition without an obligatio civilis before it. To his mind these are cases of dispensation of alms and of transfer of a loan without a civil contract before the transfer. Therefore Savigny believed that the iusta causa transferendi was in no way an obligatio civilis. He considered the iusta causa transferendi as an agreement between the alienator and the purchaser about the transfer of ownership. One can conclude about the real existence of this agreement from the externals of the delivery, but these externals are not a legal causa of the tradition[23].

Therefore the tradition of a thing is an abstract transaction in Savigny's doctrine. Its validity or non-validity don't depend from the validity of the obligation. This conclusion determines an actualization of the question about the error in causa traditionis, which is based on the contradiction of the rules of D. 12.1.18 and D. 41.1.36.

This problem was in the centre of attention of German pandectistics, which tried to adjust the contradictory views of Roman lawyers[24]. In the final analysis the pandectistics adopted opinion of Julianus. He thought that the tradition transfers ownership in any case, when the parts come to the agreement about passing of ownership, even if there was no obligation of alienation because of the error in causa traditionis. The dogma of the abstract tradition, which wasn't an element of the Classical Roman Law, came into the German legal system as a corner stone of the property law and entered into the German Civil Code as its § 929.

The idea of the abstract tradition was adopted almost unanimously in Russian pre-revolutionary civil law doctrine[25], inspired by the dogmatic influence of the German Pandectism. Works of this period are very popular among modern followers of the idea of the abstract tradition, because they try to demonstrate a historical continuity of their position.

The causal tradition's followers try to prove their view by references to the text of the second point of article 218 and the first point of article 223 of the Russian Civil Code, which state the acquisition of property based on the contract or by virtue of a contract[26]. The term "contract" here is a synonym of the word "obligation". The sticklers of the conception of the abstract tradition can't make a disproof for this argumentation. They insist that these articles don't reflect the causal nature of the tradition, but only mean that the delivery is usually based not on the court decision or unilateral transaction, but on the bilateral transaction, that is on the contract[27]. The reasoning is declarative and unscientific.

The adopters of the abstract tradition say, that their conception is confirmed by the rules of unjust enrichment[28]. Namely they say that the possibility of restitution of an individually–defined thing as unjust enrichment is based on the idea of the abstract tradition. It is worth noting that such a possibility is also provided in those legal systems which include causal tradition and therefore the unjust enrichment action intended for restitution of an individually–defined thing has another than abstract tradition premise. But in any case it is very important to make an analysis of the argumentation proposed in favor of the abstract tradition in Russian civil law.

Its partisans try to construe the rules of the article 1106 of Civil Code as a basis for the abstract tradition. Meanwhile according to this article a person who has transferred a right belonging to himself to another person by way of assignment of a claim or in another manner on the basis of a non-existent or invalid obligation can bring an action based on the unjust enrichment. Therefore each right discussing in this article may be transferred by each means named here, including assignment. Consequently there is no possibility to apply this article to the right of ownership as long as this right can't be transferred by means of the assignment. Certainly Russian Civil Code allows the transfer of the property right by means of the assignment of the rei vindicatio claim, yet this is without any doubts an equivalent for the delivery, but not a special case of the assignment of rights, because the plaintiff must be an owner or a rightful possessor of the thing to bring this action.

The attempts to prove an existence of the abstract tradition's principle in Russian civil law demonstrate an explicit influence of the German pandectic doctrine.  Such aspirations for Germanization of Russian civil law are evidences of the uncritical attitude to the pandectistics legacy without capacity for distinguish the national German institutions and general positions of the European civil law doctrine.

Of course, the idea of the abstract tradition has been adopted in some modern civil law systems, for example in Estonian law[29]. But it is an apparent consequence of political and historical motives, because the abstract tradition was peculiar to the law system of the Baltic provinces of Russian Empire[30].

It is worth noting another tendency. For example the Civil Code of Georgia, which belongs to the Germanic group of the continental law family, has adopted the idea of the causal tradition[31].

Similar tendency is typical for the modern civil law doctrine in Germany. It increases here an aspiration for renunciation of the abstract tradition. This tendency became stronger  after Germany had been united, because the civil law of German Democratic Republic didn't know the abstract tradition[32].

The tendency for renunciation of the abstract tradition is an explicit line of development of European civil law. So the first point of the article 2:101 of the Civil Code's for EU draft says, that the transfer of ownership in a movable requires:

(a) the transferor’s right or authority to transfer ownership in the movable and

(b) delivery or an equivalent to delivery or an agreement as to the time ownership is to

pass [or registration] [based on]

(c) an obligation to transfer ownership[33].

This line of development of the European law should also be taken into consideration in the study of the legal nature of the tradition in the civil law of Russia[34].

So we can conclude that Russian civil law has adopted a causal tradition's model and there is no need to negate it.

But what is the causal tradition in the Russian civil law in itself?

The opinion on the legal nature of the tradition which prevailed in the jurisprudence until the beginning of the XIX century was proceed from assumptions that the delivery of the thing presents the discharge of contract of alienation. This idea was based on the conception titulus et modus acquirendi, which placed high emphasis on the obligation's point in the relation between the persons[35]. Therefore the Austrian Civil Code, which was produced at the time of the dogmatic domination of this conception, doesn't know the tradition as a contract[36].

Another decision was produced by F.C. Savigny, which presumed that tradition is bilateral treaty about the transfer of ownership. Savigny especially noted to prove the idea, that the tradition as a bilateral transaction can be a conditional contract, if ownership passes to the purchaser after full payment for merchandise[37].

This point of view can be confirmed by many texts of Justinian's Digests (D. 18.1.53[38], D. 14.4.5.18[39], D. 19.1.11.2[40], D. 40.12.38.2[41], D. 49.14.5.1[42], D. 18.1.19[43]) and by the text of Inst. Iust. 2.1.41[44]. The question of the conditional tradition was expanded in the work of Robert Feenstra[45] and in the article of Tony Honoré[46] and now we shall not dwell on this problem concerning Roman law.

It is only important to say here, that the condition about the full payment for merchandise applies to the tradition, which is in that way a conditional bilateral transaction, but doesn't apply to the sale contract, which is an unconditional obligation as it takes its legal effect since signing[47].

Savigny's idea about the contractual nature of the tradition was accepted by most of pandectists[48] and by majority of Russian civilians[49], who were under dogmatic influence of German jurisprudence. This opinion was adopted in the German Civil Code[50]. However some of legal scholars didn't recognize the tradition as a bilateral treaty – for example Siegmund Schlossmann[51], who tried to see in tradition a unilateral transaction, and Iosif Pokrovski[52], who called the tradition a special real act. But according to the prevailing ideas, based on the text D. 44.7.55[53], tradition was recognized as an agreement concerning transfer of ownership, that is as a contract.

A disproof of this opinion can be based on the assumption that according to Roman law and Roman sense of justice doesn't exist a possibility to transfer a property right, but this right must end on the side of seller and spring up on the side of purchaser. This opinion is protected by Ralf Michaels[54] without any arguments in its favour. Similar conception but concerning legal characteristic of the tradition in the Russian civil law is supported by some authors[55] who are under the influence of the ideas produced by a famous soviet civilian Veniamin Gribanov[56].

This opinion doesn't correspond to the systemative interpretation of the Russian Civil Code[57], although it is based on the texts of its articles 223 and 235. According to another rules of the Civil Code it is clear that the Russian Civil Law system has adopted the classical model of the transfer of ownership without this right ending on the side of seller and springing up on the side of purchaser.

A hard ground for the conclusion about the tradition as a bilateral transaction in Russian civil law is the rule of the article 491, according to which the transfer of the property right can be made under condition about the full payment for merchandise by purchaser[58].

Therefore we can conclude that tradition in the modern Russian civil law is a bilateral transaction dependent from the obligation underlying it. In other words it is a causal contract dealing with the transfer of the real right.

 

 



 

[1] Grachev V.V. Pravovaya priroda traditsii, in: Sbornik statey k 55-letiyu E.A. Krasheninnikova. Ed. by  P.A. Varul. Yaroslavl 2006. 16-35; Krasheninnikov E.A. Fakticheskiy sostav sdelki, in: Ocherki po torgovomu pravu. Yaroslavl 2004. Nr. 11. 8; Berdnikov V.V. Rasporyaditelnaya sdelka kak sposob izmeneniya imushchestvenno-pravovogo polozheniya litsa, in: Zakonodatel'stvo 2002. Nr.Nr. 2, 3 (See: Nr. 3. 32); Belov V.A. Grazhdanskoe pravo: obshchaya i osobennaya chasti. Moscow 2003.  495.

 

[2] Khaskelberg B.L. Ob osnovanii i momente perehoda prava sobstvennosti na dvizhimie veshchi po dogovoru, in: Pravovedenie 2000. Nr. 3; Idem. K voprosu o pravovoy prirode traditsii, in: Sbornik statey k 55-letiyu E.A. Krasheninnikova. Ed. by P.A. Varul. Yaroslavl 2006. 120-136; Idem. Osnovaniya i sposobi priobreteniya prava sobstvennosti (obshchie voprosi), in: Tsivilisticheskie issledovaniya: Ezhegodnik grazhdanskogo prava. 2005. Nr. 2, Ed. by B.L. Khaskelberg, D.O. Tuzov. Moscow 2006. 369-376; Khaskelberg B.L., Rovniy V.V. Konsensualnie i realnie dogovori v grazhdanskom prave. Moscow 2004. 84. Tuzov D.O. O pravovoy prirode traditsii, in: Sbornik statey k 55-letiyu E.A. Krasheninnikova. 57-84. Idem. Restitutsiya pri nedeystvitelnosti sdelok i zashchita dobrosovestnogo priobretatelya v rossiyskom grazhdanskom prave. Moscow 2007. 43-63. Sklovskiy K.I. Primeneniye grazhdanskogo zakonodatel'stva o sobstvennosti i vladenii. Prakticheskie voprosi. Moscow 2004. 144-145, 156-157; Tuktarov A.E. Abstraktnaya model' peredachi prava sobstvennosti na dvizhimie veshchi, in: Vestnik Visshego Arbitrazhnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii. 2006. Nr. 8. 19.

 

[3] Grazhdanskoe pravo. Ed. by  E.A. Suhanov. Edition 3. Moscow 2005. Volume 2. 50 (chapter's author - E.A. Suhanov); Alekseev S.S. Odnostoronnie sdelki v mehanizme grazhdansko-pravovogo regulirovaniya, in: Teoreticheskie problemi grazhdanskogo prava. Sverdlovsk 1970. 51. Tolstoy V.S. Ispolnenie obyazatel'stv. Moscow 1973. 24. Slishchenkov V.A. Peredacha (traditio) kak sposob priobreteniya prava sobstvennosti, in: Ezhegodnik sravnitel'nogo pravovedeniya. 2001. Moscow 2002. 166.

 

[4] See: Michaels R. Sachzuordnung durch Kaufvertrag: in Traditionsprinzip, Konsensprinzip, ius ad rem in Geschichte, Theorie und geltendem Recht. Berlin, 2002. 35-36. Gennadiy Vasilyev mistakenly believes the tradition's principle is identical with German property transfer's model, therefore he thinks the property transfer's model of the Russian Civil Code is neither tradition's nor consensual model. See: Vasiyev G.S. Perehod prava sobstvennosti na dvizhimie veshchi po dogovoru. St. Petersburg 2006. 14-15.

 

[5] See: Kommentar zum  Allgemeinen bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch. Hrsg. v. P. Rummel. Bd. 1. § 1-1174 ABGB. Wien, 2000. § 425. Rn. 2. Another point of view: Koziol H., Welser R. Grundniß des bürgerlichen Rechts. Bd. 1: Allgemeiner Teil, Sachenrecht, Erbrecht. 11. Aufl. Wien, 2000. 285 f.

 

[6] Art. 609 Cód. civ. See: Wake A. Priobretenie prava sobstvennosti pokupatelem v silu prostogo soglasheniya ili lish' vsledstvie peredachi veshchi? O rashozhdenii putey retseptsii i ego vozmozhnom preodolenii, in: Tsivilisticheskie issledovaniya Nr. 1, Ed. by B.L. Khaskelberg, D.O. Tuzov. Moscow 2004. 135-136.

 

[7] Nieuw Burgerlijk Wetboek, Art. 3:84 Abs. 1. Сf. Mijnssen F.H.J., de Haan P. Zakenrecht. Bd. 1: Algemeen Goederenrecht. 13. Aufl. Zwolle, 1992. 161-187.

 

[8] Züricher Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Zivilgesetzbuch, Obligationenrecht. Bd. V/2a. 3. Aufl. Zürich, 1993. Art. 184. Rn. 24-35.

 

[9] Jauering O. Trennungsprinzip und Absttraktionsprinzip, in: Jus (Juristische Schulung). 1994. 721-727.

 

[10] Kleyn D.G., Boranie A. Silberberg and Schoeman's The Law of Property. Ed. 3. Durban, 1992. 78-84.

 

[11] Gordon W. Studies in the Transfer of Property by Traditio. Aberdeen, 1970. 210-236.

 

[12] Michaels R. Sachzuordnung durch Kaufvertrag. 36. Anm. 6.

 

[13] Gai. 2.20. Itaque si tibi vestem vel aurum vel argentum tradidero sive ex venditionis causa sive ex donationis sive quavis alia ex causa, statim tua fit ea res, si modo ego eius dominus sim.

 

[14] Tit. ex corp. Ulp. 19.7. Traditio propria est alienatio rerum nec mancipi. Harum rerum dominia ipsa traditione adprehendimus, scilicet si ex iusta causa traditae sunt nobis.

 

[15] D. 41.1.31 pr. (Paulus libro trigensimo primo ad edictum) Numquam nuda traditio transfert dominium, sed ita, si venditio aut aliqua iusta causa praecesserit, propter quam traditio sequeretur.

 

[16] Inst. Iust. 2.1.41. Sed si quidem ex causa donationis, aut dotis, aut qualibet alia ex causa tradentur, sine dubio transferuntur: venditae vero et traditae non aliter emptori adquiruntur, quam si is venditori pretium solverit vel alio modo ei satisfecerit, veluti ex promissore aut pignore dato.

 

[17] D. 41.1.36. (Iulianus libro tertio decimo digestorum) Cum in corpus quidem quod traditur consentiamus, in causis vero dissentiamus, non animadverto, cur inefficax sit traditio, veluti si ego credam me ex testamento tibi obligatum esse, ut fundum tradam, tu existimes ex stipulatu tibi eum deberi. Nam et si pecuniam numeratam tibi  tradam donandi gratia, tu eam quasi creditam accipias, constat proprietatem ad te transire nec impedimento esse, quod circa causam dandi atque accipiendi dissenserimus.

 

[18] D. 12.1.18 pr. (Idem [Ulpianus] libro septimo disputationum) Cum ego pecuniam tibi quasi donaturus dedero, tu quasi mutuam accipias, Iulianus scribit donationem non esse: sed an mutua sit, videndum. Et puto nec mutuam esse magisque nummos accipientis non fieri, cum alia opinione acceperit. Quare si eos consumpserit, licet condictione teneatur, tamen doli exceptione uti poterit, quia secundum voluntatem dantis nummi sunt consumpti.

 

[19] Hofmann F. Die Lehre vom titulus und modus adquirendi, und von der iusta causa traditionis. Wien, 1873. 21. Felgentraeger W. Friedrich Carl v. Savignys Einfluß auf die Übereignungslehre. Leipzig, 1927.  3-7.

 

[20] Hofmann F. a.a.O. Landsberg E. Die Glosse des Accursius und ihre Lehre von Eigentum. Leipzig, 1883; Stintzing J.A.R.v. Geschichte der deutschen Rechtswissenschaft. Bd. 1. München, 1880. 296 ff.

 

[21] See: D. 24.1.3.10 (Ulpianus libro trigesimo secundo ad Sabinum) Sciendum autem est ita interdictam inter virum et uxorem donationem, ut ipso iure nihil valeat quod actum est: proinde si corpus sit quod donatur, nec traditio quicquam valet, et si stipulanti promissum sit vel accepto latum, nihil valet: ipso enim iure quae inter virum et uxorem donationis causa geruntur, nullius momenti sunt.

 

[22] Savigny F.C.v. Das Obligationenrecht als Teil des heutigen römischen Rechts. Bd. 2. Berlin, 1853. 256. Felgentraeger W. a.a.O. 33.

 

[23] Savigny F.C.v. Obligationenrecht. 256-259.

 

[24] Windscheid B. Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts. Bd. 1. 9. Aufl. Bearbeitet von Th. Kipp. Frankfurt/M., 1906. 883-889. Böcking E. Pandekten des römischen Privatrechts aus dem Standpuncte unseres heutigen Rechtssystems oder Institutionen des gemeinen deutschen Civilrechts. Bonn , 1855. 162-164. Schütze Th.R. Eregetische Studien aus dem Civilrechte, in: Jahrbuch des gemeinen deutschen Rechts. Bd. 3. 1859. 429-442; Wetzel G.W. Lex XII Tab. rerum furtivarum usucapionem prohibet. Diss. iur. Marburg, 1840. 64-68. Dernburg H. Beitrag von der Lehre zur iusta causa, in: Archiv für civilistische Praxis. 1857. Bd. 40, 10-18; Vangerow K.A.v. Lehrbuch der Pandekten. 7. Aufl. Marburg, 1863. 573-574. Puchta G.F. Vorlesungen über das heutige römische Recht. 4. Aufl. Bd. 1. Leipzig, 1854. 492. Strempel G.L. Ueber die iusta causa bei der Tradition. Wismar, 1856. Hofmann F. a.a.O. 80-89, 94-95.

 

[25] Muromtsev S.A. Grazhdanskoe pravo Drevnego Rima. 1883. n.ed. Moscow 2003. 177, 548. Grimm D.D. Lektsii po dogme rimskogo prava. 1916. n.ed. Moscow 2003. 243. Hvostov V.M. Sistema rimskogo prava. 1908-1909. n.ed. Moscow 1996. 240. Gambarov Yu.S. [Grazhdanskoe pravo] Osobennaya chast': Veshchnoe pravo. St. Petersburg 1909. 198-209.

 

[26] Khaskelberg B.L. K voprosu o pravovoy prirode traditsii. 134-135; Idem. Osnovaniya i sposobi priobreteniya prava sobstvennosti. 371-376; Tuzov D.O. O pravovoy prirode traditsii. 75-76; Idem. Restitutsiya pri nedeystvitelnosti sdelok.  59 (Fn. 3).

 

[27] Grachev V.V. Op. cit.. 35.

 

[28] Ibid. 33.

 

[29] Tuzov D.O. Restitutsiya pri nedeystvitelnosti sdelok. 88 (Fn. 4).

 

[30] Art. 801, 803 and 816 of the Code of Laws for the Baltic Provinces, see: Zakoni grazhdanskie, dopolnennie uzakoneniyami po 1890 god i soglasovannie s preobrazovaniem sudebnoy chasti i krest'yanskih prisutstvennih mest v pribaltiyskih guberniyah. St. Petersburg 1891. 160-162.

 

[31] First point of Art. 186 of the Georgian Civil Code (1997), see: Grazhdanskiy kodeks Gruzii. Translation from Georgian by I. Meridzhanashvili, I. Chikovani. St. Petersburg 2002. 169.

 

[32] Giaro T. "Comparemus!". Romanistika kak faktor unifikatsii evropeyskih pravovih sistem, im: Drevnee pravo. Ius Antiquum. 2005. Nr. 1 (15). 189.; Wake A. Priobretenie prava sobstvennosti pokupatelem v silu prostogo soglasheniya ili lish' vsledstvie peredachi veshchi?  138.

 

[33] See: Transfer of Movables. 4th Draft, Berlin 2005 // http://www.sgecc.net/media/downloads/transfer_of_movablesjune_2005.pdf.  4.

 

[34] See: Rudokvas A.D. Neopandektistika i evropeyskoe pravo (opening address), in: Drevnee pravo. Ius Antiquum. 2005. Nr. 1 (15). 146-154; Zimmermann R. Rimskoe pravo i garmonizatsiya chastnogo prava v Evrope, in: Drevnee pravo. Ius Antiquum. 2005. Nr. 1 (15). 156-175.

 

[35] Hofmann F. Die Lehre vom titulus und modus adquirendi, und von der iusta causa traditionis. Wien, 1873. 21.

 

[36] Kommentar zum  Allgemeinen bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch. Hrsg. v. P. Rummel. Bd. 1. § 1-1174 ABGB. Wien, 2000. § 425. Rn. 2. See also: Sukanov E.A. O vidah sdelok v germanskom i v rossiyskom grazhdanskom prave, in: Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava. Nr. 2. 2006. Vol. 6. 17-18.

 

[37] Savigny F.C.v. System des heutigen römischen Rechts. Bd. 3. Berlin, 1840. 312. Felgentraeger W. a.a.O. 36-37.

 

[38] D. 18.1.53. (Gaius libro vicensimo octavo ad edictum provinciale) Ut res emptoris fiat, nihil interest, utrum solutum sit pretium an eo nomine fideiussor datus sit. Quod autem de fideiussore diximus, plenius acceptum est, qualibet ratione si venditori de pretio satisfactum est, veluti expromissore aut pignore dato, proinde sit, ac si pretium solutum esset.

 

[39] D. 14.4.5.18. (Ulpianus libro vicensimo nono ad edictum) enimvero si non abiit, quia res venditae non alias desinunt esse meae, quamvis vendidero, nisi aere soluto vel fideiussore dato vel alias satisfacto, dicendum erit vindicare me posse.

 

[40] D. 19.1.11.2. (Idem [Ulpianus] libro trigensimo secundo ad edictum) Et in primis ipsam rem praestare venditorem oportet, id est tradere: quae res, si quidem dominus fuit venditor, facit et emptorem dominum, si non fuit, tantum evictionis nomine venditorem obligat, si modo pretium est numeratum aut eo nomine satisfactum.

 

[41] D. 40.12.38.2. (Paulus libro quinto decimo responsorum) Quaesitum est, an emptor servo recte libertatem dederit nondum pretio soluto. Paulus respondit servum, quem venditor emptori tradit, si ei pro pretio satisfactum est, et nondum pretio soluto in bonis emptoris esse coepisse.

 

[42] D. 49.14.5.1. (Idem [Ulpianus] libro sexto decimo ad edictum) Si ab eo, cui ius distrahendi res fisci datum est, fuerit distractum quid fisci, statim fit emptoris, pretio tamen soluto.

 

[43] D. 18.1.19. (Idem [Pomponius] libro trigensimo primo ad Quintum Mucium) Quod vendidi non aliter fit accipientis, quam si aut pretium nobis solutum sit aut satis eo nomine factum vel etiam fidem habuerimus emptori sine ulla satisfactione.

 

[44] Inst. Iust. 2.1.41. Sed si quidem ex causa donationis, aut dotis, aut qualibet alia ex causa tradentur, sine dubio transferuntur: venditae vero et traditae non aliter emptori adquiruntur, quam si is venditori pretium solverit vel alio modo ei satisfecerit, veluti expromissore aut pignore dato. Quod cavetur quidem  etiam lege duodecim tabularum: tamen recte dicitur et iure gentium, id est iure naturali, id effici. Sed si is qui vendidit fidem emptoris secutus fuerit, dicendum est statim rem emptoris fieri.

 

[45] See: Luig K. Übergabe und Übereignung der verkauften Sache nach römischem und gemeinem Recht, in: Satura Roberto Feenstra sexagesimum quintum annum aetatis complenti ab alumniscollegis amicis oblata, hrsg. v. J.A. Ankum, J.E. Spruit, F.B.J. Wubbe. Fribourg, 1985. 445-461.

 

[46] Honoré T. Sale and the Transfer of Ownership: the Compiler's Point of View, in: Studies in Justinian's Institutes in Memory of J.A.C. Thomas, ed. P.G. Stein and A.D.E. Lewis. London, 1983, 56-72.

 

[47] Grachev V.V. Pravovaya priroda traditsii. 18-19, 22-24; Krasheninnikov E.A. Fakticheskiy sostav sdelki.  8. Fn. 11.

 

[48] Windscheid B. Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts. 6. Aufl. Bd. 1. Frankfurt a.M., 1887. 581; Dernburg G. Pandekti. Vol. 1. Part 2. Veshchoe pravo. St. Petersburg 1905. 113 (Fn. 2).

 

[49] See: Muromtsev S.A. Grazhdanskoe pravo Drevnego Rima. 177, 548. Grimm D.D. Lektsii po dogme rimskogo prava. 243. Hvostov V.M. Sistema rimskogo prava. 240. Gambarov Yu.S. Veshchnoe pravo. 198-209. Trepitsin I.N. Perehod prava sobstvennosti na dvizhimie imushchestva posredstvom peredachi i soglasheniya. Odessa 1903. 6, 172. Shershenevich G.F. Uchebnik russkogo grazhdanskogo prava. Moscow 1912. 502.

 

[50] Flume W. Allgemeiner Teil des bürgerlichen Rechts. Bd. 2: Das Rechtsgeschäft. 3. Aufl. Berlin u.a., 1979. 174 ff.

 

[51] Schlossmann S. Der Vertrag. Leipzig, 1876. 94.

 

[52] Pokrovskiy I.A. Istoriya rimskogo prava. Petrograd 1917. n. ed. Moscow 2004. 380.

 

[53] D. 44.7.55 (Iavolenus libro duodecimo epistolarum) In omnibus rebus, quae dominium transferunt, concurrat oportet affectus ex utraque parte contrahentium: nam sive ea venditio sive donatio sive conductio sive quaelibet alia causa contrahendi fuit, nisi animus utrusque consentit, perduci ad effectum id quod inchoatur non potest.

 

[54] Michaels R. Sachzuordnung durch Kaufvertrag. 105.

 

[55] Sklovskiy K.I. Mehanizm vozniknoveniya sobstvennosti, in: Ekonomika i zhizn': Yurist. 2004. Nr. 18; Belov V.A. Singulyarnoe pravopreemstvo v obyazatelstve. Moscow 2000. 19.

 

[56] Gribanov V.P. Pravovie posledstviya perehoda imushchestva po dogovoru kupli-prodazhi v sovetskom grazhdanskom prave, in: Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo. 1955. Nr. 8. Similar conception see: Sovetskoe grazhdanskoe pravo. Part 1, ed. by V.A. Ryasentsev. Moscow 1960. 254-255 (chapter's authorV.A. Ryasentsev).

 

[57] For more details, see: Grachev V.V. Pravovaya priroda traditsii. 25-28; Khaskelberg B.L. Osnovaniya i sposobi priobreteniya prava sobstvennosti. 356-363.

 

[58] See: Grachev V.V. Pravovaya priroda traditsii. 18-19, 22-24; Krasheninnikov E.A. Fakticheskiy sostav sdelki. 8. Fn. 11. Another point of view on the Art. 491 of Russian Civil Code see: Tuzov D.O. O pravovoy prirode traditsii. 82-83; Idem. Restitutsiya pri nedeystvitelnosti sdelok. 62-63.