scholarly journals Responsibility for Another’s Debt: Suretyship, Solidarity, and Imperfect Delegation

2010 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-255
Author(s):  
Michelle Cumyn
Keyword(s):  
Basic Structure ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Legal Evolution ◽  
Civil Code Of Quebec ◽  
Analogous Complex ◽  
The Law

Legal evolution is often achieved by taking a fresh look at venerable institutions whose interpretation has become thwarted, constricted, or stale. Presumptions established to protect debtors and sureties at articles 1525 and 2335 of the Civil Code of Québec have prevented jurists from borrowing freely from the rules of solidarity and suretyship. Where one person is undoubtedly responsible for the debt of another, even in the absence of a suretyship agreement, the author argues it should be possible to apply the law of suretyship by analogy. Where two persons are each liable to perform the same obligation in full, it is likewise appropriate to apply the rules of solidarity. The author’s analysis proceeds in three parts: an introduction of the basic structure of suretyship and solidarity (Part I), a discussion of important differences in the law of suretyship and solidarity (Part II), and an argument that the solidarity and suretyship models should be used to illuminate analogous complex relations where multiple persons are responsible for the same debt (Part III). More specifically, in the situation of imperfect delegation, where a person assumes liability to a creditor for payment of a debt owed by another, but the original debtor is not discharged and remains liable in case of non-payment by the new debtor, it is appropriate to apply by analogy the law of suretyship.

The Law of Delicts under the Civil Code of Quebec

1936 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 422
Author(s):  
F. R. Scott ◽  
H. C. Goldenberg
Keyword(s):  
Civil Code ◽  
Civil Code Of Quebec ◽  
The Law

scholarly journals Change of Terminology? Change of Law?

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 357-372
Author(s):  
Roderick A. Macdonald
Keyword(s):  
Civil Code ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
Civil Code Of Quebec ◽  
Policy Objectives ◽  
The Law

The provisions of the Civil Code of Québec dealing with Prior Claims and Hypothecs constitute an ambitious, although only partly successful, reform of the law relating to security devices. Given the policy objectives underlying any regime of security on property, three major problems with the new Code are immediately apparent: the failure to rationalize the scheme of non-consensual priorities and legal hypothecs; the failure to provide explicitly for an imperative regime of registration and realisation recourses governing any legal transaction which in substance functions as security on property; and the failure to redefine the concept of hypothec to account for its extension to universalities, and incorporeal property. Nevertheless, ordinary canons of codal interpretation give the judiciary sufficient resources to correct, by principled reference to the basic policy goals of this area of the law, most of the textual deficiencies in Book Six of the Civil Code of Québec.

scholarly journals Couvrez cette communauté que je ne saurais voir: Equity and Fault in the Division of Quebec’s Family Patrimony

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 569-603 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Kasirer
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Judicial Discretion ◽  
Unjust Enrichment ◽  
Unequal Division ◽  
The Family ◽  
Civil Code Of Quebec ◽  
The Law ◽  
Matrimonial Law

An inquiry into the role of fault in divorce may be taken as an invitation, for the Quebec jurist, to evaluate the place of misconduct in petitions for unequal “partition'' of the family patrimony. The author proposes an analysis of article 422 of the Civil Code of Québec based on a comparison with the law of family property in common law Canada. He observes a disinclination, felt in Quebec legal circles, to explore the connections between recourses under Quebec law for unjust enrichment in marriage and parallel remedies in common law. Basing himself principally on a review of rules similar to article 422 in Ontario law, he contends that a court should not allow ordinary measures of spousal misconduct to influence petitions for the unequal division of the family patrimony. Connecting the family patrimony to the statutory remedies for unjust enrichment in Ontario matrimonial law reveals a narrow idea of economic fault that underlies the judicial discretion at article 422 C.C.Q.

Formation of Contract and Third Parties in Cambodia

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ly Tayseng
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
Contract Formation ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Formal Requirements

This chapter gives an overview of the law on contract formation and third party beneficiaries in Cambodia. Much of the discussion is tentative since the new Cambodian Civil Code only entered into force from 21 December 2011 and there is little case law and academic writing fleshing out its provisions. The Code owes much to the Japanese Civil Code of 1898 and, like the latter, does not have a requirement of consideration and seldom imposes formal requirements but there are a few statutory exceptions from the principle of freedom from form. For a binding contract, the agreement of the parties is required and the offer must be made with the intention to create a legally binding obligation and becomes effective once it reaches the offeree. The new Code explicitly provides that the parties to the contract may agree to confer a right arising under the contract upon a third party. This right accrues directly from their agreement; it is not required that the third party declare its intention to accept the right.

Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties in Japan

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masami Okino
Keyword(s):  
Case Analysis ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
German Model ◽  
Recent Debate ◽  
The Law

This chapter discusses the law on third party beneficiaries in Japan; mostly characterized by adherence to the German model that still bears an imprint on Japanese contract law. Thus, there is neither a doctrine of consideration nor any other justification for a general doctrine of privity, and contracts for the benefit of third parties are generally enforceable as a matter of course. Whether an enforceable right on the part of a third party is created is simply a matter of interpretation of the contract which is always made on a case-by-case analysis but there are a number of typical scenarios where the courts normally find the existence (or non-existence) of a contract for the benefit of a third party. In the recent debate on reform of Japanese contract law, wide-ranging suggestions were made for revision of the provisions on contracts for the benefit of third parties in the Japanese Civil Code. However, it turned out that reform in this area was confined to a very limited codification of established case law.

On the Legitimacy of Expectations

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Brown
Keyword(s):  
Basic Structure ◽  
Legitimate Authority ◽  
Complex Theory ◽  
Role Responsibility ◽  
Administrative Agencies ◽  
Substantive Justice ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Law

Section I identifies the weaknesses in existing accounts which locate the legitimacy of expectations in underpinning laws and legal entitlements (the Law-Based Account), in the substantive justice of expectations and/or the justice of the basic structure which forms the background to expectations (the Justice-Based Account), or in the legitimacy of the governing agencies and political authorities whose acts and omissions are both the cause and the subject of expectations (the Legitimate Authority-Based Account). Section II introduces a rival account, the Responsibility-Based Account, according to which the legitimacy of expectations depends on the responsibility of governmental administrative agencies for bringing about agent’s expectations, allied to those agencies already having been given or having assumed a role responsibility for making binding decisions affecting the important interests of agents. Finally, Section III expounds in more detail the complex theory of responsibility that undergirds the Responsibility-Based Account.

KEPEMILIKAN DAN PENGUASAAN OBJEK JAMINAN FIDUSIA APABILA TERJADI SENGKETA WANPRESTASI DALAM PERJANJIAN KREDIT

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 78
Author(s):  
Dija Hedistira ◽  
' Pujiyono
Keyword(s):  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

<p>Abstract<br />This article aims to analyze the ownership and mastery of a fiduciary collateral object, in cases that often occur today, many disputes between creditors and debtors in fiduciary collateral agreements are caused because creditors assume that with executive rights as fiduciary recipients, the fiduciary collateral object legally owned by creditors and creditors the right to take and sell fiduciary collateral objects when the debtor defaults unilaterally, as well as the debtor who considers that the fiduciary collateral object is owned by him because the object is registered on his name, so that the debtor can use the object free as  giving to a third party or selling the object of fiduciary guarantee unilaterally. the author uses a normative <br />juridical approach, and deductive analysis method based on the Civil Code and fiduciary law applicable in Indonesia, Law No. 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees. The conclusion of the discussion is the ownership of the object of the Fiduciary Guarantee is owned by the debtor in accordance with the Law, mastery of the object of collateral controlled by the debtor for economic benefits, the procedure of execution The object of Fiduciary Guarantee is carried out in accordance with the Fiduciary Guarantee Act, an alternative mediation in resolving the dispute. There needs to be clarity in the use of language in making a law, so as not to conflict with each other between Article one and the other Articles.<br />Keywords: Ownership; Mastery; Object of Fiduciary Guarantee; Debtor; Creditors.</p><p>Abstrak<br />Artikel ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis tentang kepemilikan dan penguasaan suatu objek jaminan fidusia, dalam kasus yang saat ini sering terjadi, banyak sengketa antara kreditur dan debitur dalam perjanjian jaminan fidusia disebabkan karena kreditur beranggapan bahwa dengan adanya hak eksekutorial sebagai penerima fidusia, maka objek jaminan fidusia tersebut secara sah dimiliki oleh kreditur dan kreditur berhak mengambil dan menjual objek jaminan fidusia saat debitur cidera janji<br />(wanprestasi) secara sepihak, begitupun dengan debitur yang menganggap bahwa objek jaminan fidusia tersebut dimiliki olehnya karena objek tersebut terdaftar atas namannya, sehingga debitur dapat mempergunakan objek tersebut secara bebas seperti menyerahkan kepada pihak ketiga atau menjual objek jaminan fidusia tersebut secara sepihak. penulis menggunakan pendekatan yuridis normatif, dan metode analisis deduktif yang didasarkan pada Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata<br />dan hukum jaminan fidusia yang berlaku di Indonesia, Undang-Undang No. 42 Tahun 1999 tentang Jaminan Fidusia. Kesimpulan pembahasan adalah Kepemilikan Objek Jaminan Fidusia dimiliki oleh debitur sesuai Undang-undang, penguasaan objek jaminan dikuasai debitur untuk manfaat ekonomis, prosedur eksekusi Objek Jaminan Fidusia dilakukan sesuai dengan Undang-Undang Jaminan Fidusia, alternatif secara mediasi dalam menyelesaikan sengketa yang terjadi. Perlu ada kejelasan dalam<br />penggunaan bahasa pada pembuatan suatu Undang-Undang, agar tidak saling bertentangan antar Pasal satu dengan Pasal yang lainnya. <br />Kata Kunci: Kepemilikan; Penguasaan; Objek Jaminan Fidusia; Debitur; Kreditur.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document