Talk:Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch

The redirect of bgb should be a disambiguation and should link to BGB (emulator)

How the contracts are drawn

Although the principle of abstraction is not to be found in jurisdictions outside the German one and contradicts the usual common sense interpretation of commercial transactions, it is undisputed among the German legal community.

That's not true, there are other jurisdictions among roman-german group of law systems, where contracts are drawn in the same manner. For example, in Latvia. I guess such a way to transfer ownership is called "traditionary" (traditio) and derived from roman law.

= Don't mix up the German principle of abstarction with the classic Roman way of transferring property (which was different from the principle of abstraction). In Austria, for example, transfer of ownership on the grounds of a contract of sale, requires two things: A legal cause for the transfer of ownership (which is the contract of sale), and tradition, i.e. the transfer of possession. This is similar, but not identical, to the German concept, which require two contracts (plus tradition, at least normally), both of which are contracts in every sense of the word as understood by Roman law jurisdictions. I'm not aware of the situation in Latvia, but I suppose it's similar to the one in Austria. It might differ from the one in, e.g., France, where the contract of sale alone suffices to transfer ownership.

Л. Жюллио де ла Морандьер. Гражданское право Франции, М., 1960. --AraX 19:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, it looks as I wasn't careful enough reading this. The situation in Germany is more unique than I might have thought :) AraX 14:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the bee swarms and

Here is an excerpt of what I wrote at User_talk:Geo-Loge: "Whoever translated [the sections of the BGB], the translation has serious flaws. For instance, the incorrect use of a progressive aspect in sec. 923; translating "unverzüglich" with immediately, because "unverzüglich" is legally defined in sec. 121 as being "without undue delay" and not immediately; the question is not whether the owner stops his pursuit, because a stop could be an involuntary act; "foreign land" sounds like it is land outside Germany, but it is land not owned by the owner of the bee swarm; beehive is the terminus technicus for "beeyard"; he has to compensate not the damage, but only the damage that was a result of the action. There are more incosistencies but those were some examples. Anyhow, I think a translation within the article is not neccessary, because the article already contains a link to a website which has the (withdrawn) translation of the Civil Code. Furthermore, it is not like the rhyme and the hexameter, where the precise wording is needed to demonstrate that the section is indeed a hexameter, respectively rhymes. Thus I believe it would be sufficient to state that the Civil Code has some very specific regulations dealing with ownership of bee swarms, and give the range (ie sec. 961-964)." Furthermore, I wonder if the miscellaneous section is really neccessary. I believe the information is either important and can go in the main text (ie the bee swarms part can be be brought up when the relationship between the BGB and special laws is discussed) or it is unimportant and should be deleted for clarity's sake. Blur4760 18:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drafting of the BGB committee

Can someone cite?

the line A second committee of 22 members, comprising not only jurists but also representatives of financial interests and of the various ideological currents of the time Could someone cite who the 'financial interests' and 'Jurisits' are?