Equity in the Civil Law Tradition PDF
Preview Equity in the Civil Law Tradition
Renato Beneduzi Equity in the Civil Law Tradition Equity in the Civil Law Tradition Renato Beneduzi Equity in the Civil Law Tradition RenatoBeneduzi FacultyofLaw PontificalCatholicUniversityofRiode Janeiro(PUC-RIO) RiodeJaneiro,Brazil ISBN978-3-030-78066-1 ISBN978-3-030-78067-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78067-8 ©TheEditor(s)(ifapplicable)andTheAuthor(s),underexclusivelicensetoSpringerNatureSwitzerland AG2021 Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsaresolelyandexclusivelylicensedbythePublisher,whether thewholeorpartofthematerialisconcerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuseof illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similarordissimilarmethodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped. Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc.inthispublication doesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfromtherelevant protectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse. The publisher, the authors, and the editorsare safeto assume that the adviceand informationin this bookarebelievedtobetrueandaccurateatthedateofpublication.Neitherthepublishernortheauthorsor theeditorsgiveawarranty,expressedorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinorforany errorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.Thepublisherremainsneutralwithregardtojurisdictional claimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations. ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG. Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland For Alice, Clara and Leonardo Contents 1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 EquityinGreece. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1 LawinAncientGreece. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2 PlatoandtheUniversalityoftheLaw. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. 7 2.3 Έπιεικήςand(cid:1)επιείκειαinAristotle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.4 TheUsesofEquityBeforetheAthenianCourts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3 EquityinRome. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.1 Aequumandaequitas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.2 Pre-classicalLaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.3 ClassicalLaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 3.4 Post-classicalLaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 4 EquityintheMiddleAges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 4.1 RomanLawAftertheFallofRome. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 4.2 GermanicLaws. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 4.3 ChristianismandCanonLaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 4.4 CivilLaw,GlossatorsandCommentators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 5 EquityintheModernEra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 5.1 RenaissanceandLegalHumanism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 5.2 ReformationandCounter-Reformation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 5.3 UsusmodernuspandectarumandRoman-DutchLaw. . . . . . . . . . 110 5.4 LegalRationalismandNaturalLaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 vii viii Contents 6 EquitySincetheNineteenthCentury. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 6.1 EquityinaEuropeofCodifiedNationalLaws. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 6.2 Frenchéquité. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 6.3 GermanBilligkeit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 6.4 Italianequità. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 6.5 Spanishequidad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 6.6 EquityinLatinAmerica. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 7 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Reference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Bibliography. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . 167 Chapter 1 Introduction FredericMaitlandfamouslydefinedequityinEnglandasthe“bodyofrulesadmin- istered by our English courts of justice which, were it not for the operation of the JudicatureActs,wouldbeadministeredonlybythosecourtswhichwouldbeknown asCourtsofEquity”.1,2Onecenturylater,SarahWorthingtonwoulddefineequityin asimilarveinasthe“bodyofrules,principlesandremediesthatderivefromthose initiallydevelopedandadministeredintheEnglishHighCourtofChancery”.3But ifthesedefinitionsmayconveytheimpressionthatequityisauniquefeatureofthe common law tradition,4 this is far from being the case. Rather, equity has been an equallyimportantfixtureofcontinentalEuropeanlegalhistoryforcenturies. Nonetheless,centuriesoflargelyautarchicdevelopment5haveledbothtraditions tostraysofarfromeachotherwithregardtoequitythatcivilandcommonlawyers hardlyunderstandoneanotherwhentheytalkaboutthesubject.6Infact,evencivil lawyers cannot agree among themselves about what exactly equity means in their own tradition. For these reasons, I felt it opportune to write this equity in the civil traditionasabookfor civil lawyers whowanttobetter understandthehistory and natureofequityintheirownlegaltraditionandforcommonlawyerswhoarecurious 1Maitland(1910),p.1. 2Healsodescribedequityasa“supplementarylaw,asortofappendixaddedontoourcode,orasort ofglosswrittenroundourcode”(Maitland1910,p.18). 3Worthington(2006),p.9. 4EvenifthiswasnottheintentionofbothMaitlandandWorthington. 5Butonly“largely”.Formoredetails,see,forexample:Donahue(1974),p.167;Ibbetson(2014), p.56;Fortier(2016),p.60.SeealsoKlimchuk(2020),p.32;Majeske(2006),p.39. 6Forinstance,civillawyersstruggletounderstandthelingeringobstaclestothecompletefusion betweenequityandcommonlaw(see,forexample,Burrows2002,p.1),whilecommonlawyers oftenfailtograspthefunctionofequityinthecivillawtradition. ©TheAuthor(s),underexclusivelicensetoSpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG2021 1 R.Beneduzi,EquityintheCivilLawTradition, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78067-8_1 2 1 Introduction about why the history of equity has unfolded so differently on the continent of Europeandinthecivillawworldatlarge.7,8 I begin with the investigation of the philosophical foundations of the Western notion of equity in the teachings of Plato and Aristotle and of how their ideas affected the works of the great Attic orators (Chap. 2). Then I address the way in which Roman law turned this notion into a legal concept of considerable practical importance(Chap.3)andhowitsurvivedthefallofRomeandwaslaterelaborated in the Middle Ages by civilists and canonists (Chap. 4). Afterwards, I try to understand how the notion of equity was dealt with in the Modern Era by legal humanists, Protestant and Catholic theologians, scholars of the usus modernus pandectarum and of Roman-Dutch law, and then by legal rationalism and the philosophersoftheEnlightenment(Chap.5).ThenIdealwiththehistoryofequity onthecontinentsincethefragmentationoftheiuscommuneandthecodificationsof thenineteenthcenturyandwithitsreceptioninLatinAmerica(Chap.6).Finally,I offersomeclosingremarksonthefundamentalequivocalness(orrelativity,assome scholarsputit)ofthenotionofequityinthecivillawtraditiontoday(conclusion).9 Before movingontothe first chapter,Imustalso warnreaders fromacommon lawbackgroundnottoassumetheywillfindintheequityofthecivillawtradition theequitablerules,principlesandremedieswithwhichtheyarefamiliarintheirown tradition. For instance, trusts are a quintessentially equitable creation in English law.10 But Treuhand and fiduzia—some of the imperfect functional equivalents of 7Nonetheless,Imustwarnthereaderthatfromamethodologicalpointofviewthisisabookabout thehistoryandnatureofequityinthecivillawtraditionandnotanexerciseincomparativelegal history (between the history of the notion of equity in the common law and in the civil law traditions). Formoredetailsonthemethodologyofcomparative legalhistory,see,forexample: Ibbetson(2012),p.131. 8Incidentally,thewayScotslawreactedtotheinfluenceexertedbyEnglishtrustslawoffersan interestinginsightintotheconsequencesoftheinterplaybetweenthecommonlawnotionofequity andalawofpropertytraditionallyunderstoodasbeingbasedonacivilianmodel.Alludingtothe modernpatrimonialtheoryoftrustdevelopedbyGrettonandReid,DanielCarrexplainsthat“one of the apparent objectives of the patrimonial theory is to detach the Scottish trust from English equityjurisprudencesofarasitsfundamentalbasisisconcerned,whileretainingtheabilitytomake useofmanyEnglishauthoritiesonparticularmatters(...).Thisnewapproachpurportstoexplain thetrust[whichispreciselyacreatureoftheEnglishnotionofequity]withoutfallingintothearms ofequity”inawaythatseemsto“restricttheroleofEnglishequityjurisprudenceinexplainingthe nature of the trust, without interfering with Scottish courts’ ability to adopt substantive rules of Englishlaw”(Carr2019,p.195). 9Imadeuseinthisbook,forthetranslationofGreekandLatinliterarytexts,oftheDelphiandLoeb translations. With regard to Plato and Aristotle specifically, Cooper’s and Barnes’s translations were also extensively used. For Roman legal texts, Scott’s English edition of the Corpus Iuris Civilis is still useful, but Watson’s translation is now the standard translation of the Digest. Nevertheless, I made changes to these translations whenever I deemed them appropriate, more often to passages of the Digest or to those from literary sources in which a more strictly legal terminologyhadbeenusedbytheirauthors.Obviously,theresponsibilityforpossiblemistakesin theseadaptationsaresolelymyown. 10As“thetrustisthelocusclassicusofEquity’ssecond-orderoperation”(McFarlaneandStevens 2020, p. 194). Nonetheless, on the influence of the Roman law distinction between rights in References 3 trustsinthecivillawtradition11—havenothingtodowithequityintheciviliansense of the term.12 The same can be said, for example, of specific performance.13 This situationisofcourseasourceofconfusion,butitservesthepurposeofhighlighting the dangers of presuming identity solely on the basis of linguistic similarities betweendifferentlegalsystems.14 References BurrowsA(2002)Wedothisatcommonlawbutthatinequity.OxfordJLegStud22:1–16 Carr D (2019) Are equity and law in Scotland fused, separate or intertwined? In: Goldberg J, Smith H, Turner P (eds) Equity and law: fusion and fission. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,pp179–200 DonahueCJr(1974)ThecivillawinEngland[reviewarticleonLevackB,TheCivilLawyersin England].YaleLawJ84:167–181 FortierM(2016)ThecultureofequityinearlymodernEngland.Routledge,London GelterM,HelleringerG(2019)FiduciaryprinciplesinEuropeancivillawsystems.In:CriddleE, Miller P, Sitkoff R (eds) The Oxford handbook of fiduciary law. Oxford University Press, Oxford,pp583–602 GlisterJ,LeeJ(2015)Hanbury&Martin:modernequity,20thedn.Sweet&Maxwell,London Ibbetson D (2012) Comparative legal history: a methodology. In: MussonA, Stebbings C (eds) Makinglegalhistory:approachesandmethodologies.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge, pp131–145 IbbetsonD(2014)Ahousebuiltonsand.In:KoopsE,ZwalveW(eds)Lawandequity.Brill– Nijhoff,Leiden,pp55–77 personamandrightsinremonthecontroversyaboutthenatureofequitablerights,see,forexample: HanburyandMartin(2015),p.16. 11Formoredetails,see,forexample:GelterandHelleringer(2019),p.591. 12“Thesurvivalofthoughtpatternsemanatingfromthefeudalsystemandtheexistenceofaduplex ordoofcommonlawandEquityhaveledtowhatmaybecalledarelationalapproachtoproperty law.Acivillawyerisinclinedtoexpectaclear-cutanswertothequestionwhetherapersonisan ownerornot.Theansweriseitheryesorno,giventheunitaryconceptofownership.Foracommon lawyeritisnotthatsimple.Acommonlawyerwillwanttoknowwhetherthequestionisasked accordingtocommonlaworEquity”(vanErp2006,p.1060). 13Formoredetails,see,forexample:Oosterhuis(2011),p.13. 14Iamnotsaying,ofcourse,thatitisnotworthwhiletotrytounderstandhowcivillawjurisdictions handle what under English law are equitable rights, remedies and principles. Martin Gelter and GenevièveHelleringerofferaverygoodexampleofthiscomparativeenterpriseintheirFiduciary principlesinEuropeancivillawsystems,wheretheyshowthat“whilethereisnounifiedbodyof fiduciary law in civil law systems, fiduciary-style obligations can be found in various civil law domains”.Infact,while“fiduciarydutiesareacreatureofequity,whichisoneofthedistinctive featuresofthecommonlaw”,thelackofasimilarfeatureincivillawjurisdictionsexplains“why the functional equivalents to fiduciary duties were more naturally absorbed into other doctrinal edifices”(GelterandHelleringer2019,p.585).Nottoputtoofineapointonit,theseotherdoctrinal edificesareentirelyforeigntothenotionofequityinthecivillawtradition,althoughtheirfunctional equivalentinthecommonlawtraditionisofcourseacreatureofequity.
The list of books you might like
