Talk:2468th Sec 0194: Difference between revisions
→Recent development in the modernized German law: new section |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<i>Citation from</i> [https://openlegaltextbook.ddns.net/Resources/13_Thai-law-and-Recent-Reforms.pdf "Thai Law and Recent Reform in Germany and Japan in Law on Non-performance"](P.13) – | <i>Citation from</i> [https://openlegaltextbook.ddns.net/Resources/13_Thai-law-and-Recent-Reforms.pdf "Thai Law and Recent Reform in Germany and Japan in Law on Non-performance"](P.13) – | ||
At the beginning of Book II on Obligations, the drafter decided to introduce the system-defined provision of the German concept; namely the traditional [[1896de_Book2_Chapter01_Title01#Section_241.|§ 241]] of BGB which clearly distinguishes itself from the Common law approach to the issue "effects of obligations". The proper goal of an obligation in legal sense should be to achieve its specific performance, not its pecuniary equivalence. The debtor owes the creditor a duty to perform his obligation properly to its purpose. [...] Accordingly, it could be logically expected that the '''''demand for specific performance''''' by the creditor initiates the part on the '''''"Effects of non-performance"'''''. For this reason, the Thai drafter put the German provision [[1896de_Book2_Chapter01_Title01#Section_271.|§ 271]] regarding the time of performance at the top position of this part as [[2468th_Sec_0203|Sec. 203]]. [[User:Codesuser|Codesuser]] ([[User talk:Codesuser|talk]]) 15:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC) | At the beginning of Book II on Obligations, the drafter decided to introduce the system-defined provision of the German concept; namely the traditional [[1896de_Book2_Chapter01_Title01#Section_241.|§ 241]] of BGB which clearly distinguishes itself from the Common law approach to the issue "effects of obligations". The proper goal of an obligation in legal sense should be to achieve its specific performance, not its pecuniary equivalence. The debtor owes the creditor a duty to perform his obligation properly to its purpose. [...] Accordingly, it could be logically expected that the '''''demand for specific performance''''' by the creditor initiates the part on the '''''"Effects of non-performance"'''''. For this reason, the Thai drafter put the German provision [[1896de_Book2_Chapter01_Title01#Section_271.|§ 271]] regarding the time of performance at the top position of this part as [[2468th_Sec_0203|Sec. 203]]. [[User:Codesuser|Codesuser]] ([[User talk:Codesuser|talk]]) 15:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC) | ||
== Recent development in the modernized German law == | |||
''Citation from'' [https://openlegaltextbook.ddns.net/Resources/15_Reasoning-to-proposal.pdf "Reasoning to the Personal Proposal"] (P.73) – According to the newly introduced [https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bgb/englisch_bgb.html#p0735 § 241(II)], every obligation obligates each parties to exercise care to protect other parties. Each obligation automatically involves this duty. In this sense, this duty composes an essential part of obligations and its breach in "non-performance" in a broader sense. [...] | |||
This description, however, was a little bit midleading; the new German law does not include the duty of care after § 241(II) into the duty of performance (Natural Fulfillment of the obligation). Rather, the both duties are clearly distinguished. For this reason, the modernized [https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bgb/englisch_bgb.html#p0863 § 280(I)] defines the general reason for liability as "Breach of Duty" insread of simple "Non-performance". | |||
What could be a reason for this clear distinction between the duty of performance and the duty of care? One reason could be found in the new [https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bgb/englisch_bgb.html#p1050 § 311(II)] after the theory of '''"culpa in contrahendo"''' (fault during contract negotiations). According to the German understanding, "the commencement of contract negotiations" establishes already a quasi-obligational relationship between the parties, and they owe the duty of care to each other, but not any duty of performance. [[User:Codesuser|Codesuser]] ([[User talk:Codesuser|talk]]) 03:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:40, 30 September 2025
Adoption of the German "Principle of Natural Fulfillment"
Citation from "Thai Law and Recent Reform in Germany and Japan in Law on Non-performance"(P.13) – At the beginning of Book II on Obligations, the drafter decided to introduce the system-defined provision of the German concept; namely the traditional § 241 of BGB which clearly distinguishes itself from the Common law approach to the issue "effects of obligations". The proper goal of an obligation in legal sense should be to achieve its specific performance, not its pecuniary equivalence. The debtor owes the creditor a duty to perform his obligation properly to its purpose. [...] Accordingly, it could be logically expected that the demand for specific performance by the creditor initiates the part on the "Effects of non-performance". For this reason, the Thai drafter put the German provision § 271 regarding the time of performance at the top position of this part as Sec. 203. Codesuser (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Recent development in the modernized German law
Citation from "Reasoning to the Personal Proposal" (P.73) – According to the newly introduced § 241(II), every obligation obligates each parties to exercise care to protect other parties. Each obligation automatically involves this duty. In this sense, this duty composes an essential part of obligations and its breach in "non-performance" in a broader sense. [...] This description, however, was a little bit midleading; the new German law does not include the duty of care after § 241(II) into the duty of performance (Natural Fulfillment of the obligation). Rather, the both duties are clearly distinguished. For this reason, the modernized § 280(I) defines the general reason for liability as "Breach of Duty" insread of simple "Non-performance". What could be a reason for this clear distinction between the duty of performance and the duty of care? One reason could be found in the new § 311(II) after the theory of "culpa in contrahendo" (fault during contract negotiations). According to the German understanding, "the commencement of contract negotiations" establishes already a quasi-obligational relationship between the parties, and they owe the duty of care to each other, but not any duty of performance. Codesuser (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
