{"product_id":"50936-waelbroeck-le-transfert-de-la","title":"WAELBROECK (Michel) – THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP IN THE SALE OF TANGIBLE MOVABLE PROPERTY IN COMPARATIVE LAW, Preface by Baron Louis Fredéricq, Interuniversity Center for Comparative Law","description":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eWAELBROECK (Michel), Brussels, 1961, in-8, ivory half-vellum, gilt title on burgundy morocco binding, bound with the monogram \"J. G. G.\", original cover preserved, (binding slightly soiled), very good condition, 246 p.\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe subject was difficult. The author limited himself to studying the matter within the legal systems of the six countries of the Common Market. (…) Two groups are fundamentally opposed; French, Belgian, Luxembourgish, and Italian law recognize the system of transfer by the sole effect of the agreement. German and Dutch law require physical possession by the buyer for transfer to occur. But this opposition is insufficient. While the comparative lawyer who proceeds by broad categories may be satisfied, practitioners in the various countries need more precision. Now, while Belgium and Luxembourg have retained the system of the Napoleonic Code, Italy in 1942 slightly shook off the yoke of historical considerations that had led the legislators of 1804 to affirm transfer by consent alone; thus, the individualization of the thing sold must be done by agreement between the parties, which can generally only be done with delivery. Furthermore, German and Dutch law are not identical. This system, which introduced the Germanic rule of transfer by delivery into a system generally inspired by French law, falls between the two blocs. Mr. Waelbroeck, after a chapter devoted to expounding these fundamental principles, examines the rules relating to the transfer of risks and the transfer of profits, and, before concluding, in two particularly insightful chapters, shows how the rules protecting possession in good faith (Chapter IV) and the rules protecting the equality of creditors (Chapter V) are, in various countries, conditioned by the prevailing stance on the fundamental issue. His conclusion demonstrates the value of unifying the rules of law in this area; he expresses his desire for such unification and indicates how it can be achieved. The practical benefit of this unification is undeniable. The Common Market demands it because, currently, creditors do not know precisely whether a given retention of title clause can be enforced against the buyer's creditors if the buyer is declared bankrupt or if the property is seized from them. But which of the two systems must make the most sacrifices in this work of compromise that any unification of law represents? The author demonstrates the practical superiority of the German system, which seems to him at least as equitable as the system of transfer of rights by convention alone. Many changes would follow for us. The author outlines them with great care, after very insightful analyses of the various legal situations. Very well documented and written in clear language, this book is timely. The unification of the law governing the sale of tangible property is the subject of more ambitious projects, but these may not come to fruition until, within the narrower framework of the European Economic Community, necessity compels member states to unify only the law governing the sale of tangible real estate among themselves. The work (…) does credit to its author and to this excellent series.” (René Rodière, no. 1\/1963, pp. 249–250).\u003c\/p\u003e","brand":"Mémoire du Droit","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":51963873952091,"sku":"50936","price":90.0,"currency_code":"EUR","in_stock":false}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0941\/0163\/5419\/files\/50936-1.jpg?v=1766948372","url":"https:\/\/www.memoiredudroit.fr\/en\/products\/50936-waelbroeck-le-transfert-de-la","provider":"La Mémoire du Droit","version":"1.0","type":"link"}