Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
22
wasnotpossibletoobtainitemsintoprivateownershipthroughthecontractofsale.This
wasaresultofunderstandingofprivateownershipasownershipofmeansofproduc-
tion14andmeansofproductioncouldexclusivelybeinthesocialisticownership15.In
otherwords,"sincetheestablishmentofsocialisticownershipofmeansofproduction
theremusthavebeenevidentthedifferentiationbetweenprivateownershipofmeansof
productionandownershipbasedonworkofindividualcitizensandservingtofulfilltheir
immediatelife-needs”16.
3.AttheendofalongdevelopmentofRomanlawthedefinitionofcontractofsale(emp-
tiovenditio)hadsettledas"mutuallybindingcontract,throughwhichtheseller(vendi-
tor)undertooktohandovertheobjectintopossessionandundisturbeduseofthebuyer
(emptor)andthebuyerundertooktopaythesellermonetarilyagreeduponcostprice”17.
Romanlawwasatleastanideologicalbasisforlatercivillawvalidincountries
whichatthebeginningofthe20thcenturycreatedtheCzechoslovakRepublic.Itisthere-
forenotverysurprisingthatinthedefinitionofa"marketcontract”,howtheemptioven-
ditiowasthencalled,manysimilaritieswiththeancientdefinitioncanbefound.Austrian
CivilCode(ABGB)definedthemarketcontractas"acontractinwhichanobjectisre-
linquishedtosomebodyelseforacertainmonetarysum.Itconstitutesoneofthereasons
foracquiringanownership,whichisacquiredinthemomentofhandoveroftheobject
ofpurchase”18.Themaindifference,onethathasbeencarriedoverintoourpresentcivil
lawaswell,istheprincipleofeviction19whichisfollowedintheRomanlawbutnotso
inABGB.BasicallythatmeansthatintheRomanlawthevenditorhadonlytohandover
thethingtothebuyertomakethelatterpossessandenjoyitpeacefully20whileaccording
totheABGBthesellerwasrequiredtotransferownership.
Inspiteofadeclareddeparturefromestablished"bourgeois”law,thedefinitionof
contractofsaleintheCivilCode1950didn’tvaryallthatmuchfromtheoneinABGB
andsowecanstatethateveninthenew"people-democratic”legalorderthecontractof
salewasacontractwhich"placesontheselleranobligationtodelivertheobjectofthe
saletothebuyerandonthebuyeranobligationtotakedeliveryoftheobjectofthesale
andtopaythesellerthepriceagreedforit”21.
EventhoughtheCivilCode1950doesnotspellitoutexplicitly,fromthetheoryof
socialisticlawaswellasfromtheinterpretationofcontemporarylawyersandapplication
throughcourtsitisobviousthatsincethecontractofsaleisoneofthemostimportant
14
EventhoughtheCivilCode1950doesnotdefine"privateownership”,fromthetheoryofsocialistic
lawitobviouslyfollowsthat"theobjectofprivateownershiparemainlymeansofproduction,unlikeper-
sonalownershipobjectofwhicharemeansofpersonalconsumption”.In:V
.Knappa.o.,Učebnica,vol.I,
1953,p.273.
15
E.g.V
.Knappa.o.,Učebnica,p.218.
16
P.Colotka,Osobnévlastnictvo,vol.I,p.108–109.
17
K.Rebro,P.Blaho,Rimskeprávo,vol.IBratislava2003,p.365.
18
§1053oftheAustrianCivilCode(ABGB)asammended.
19
Evictio:"[...]occurredwhenasellersoldathingwhichdidnotbelongtohimandthebuyerwaslater
evicted(takenaway)bytherealowner[...]”.In:A.Berger,EncyclopedicDictionaryofRomanLaw,Phila-
delphia1980,p.457.
20
A.Berger,EncyclopedicDictionary,p.452.
21
§366lawnumber141/1950Zb.,theCivilCode.
