Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Theory of Commercial Law: Past Approaches

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Organising the Firm

  • 1423 Accesses

Abstract

We can start seeking the new ways by studying the theory of commercial law first. We can begin with past approaches. A new theory will be proposed in Chap. 4. Commercial law has something to do with firms. One might assume that there could be a connection between theories of commercial law and theories of the firm. Unfortunately, there has not been any such connection in the past. There are two reasons for this: the sorry state of commercial law theory; and the phenomena studied in commercial law research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The “Conference on Commercial Law Theory and the Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG)” was hosted by New York University School of Law in Florence, Italy, on October 14–16, 2004. The papers were published in 25(3) Int’l Rev L & Econ (2005). Related topics had already been discussed in Kraus JS, Walt SD (eds), The Jurisprudential Foundations of Corporate and Commercial Law. Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Law. Cambridge U P, Cambridge (2000). In 2001, Harvard Law School hosted a symposium titled “Law, Knowledge, and the Academy”. The papers presented at the symposium were published in 115 Harv L Rev (2002) pp 1277–1431. In Germany, related topics were discussed in Engel C, Schön W (eds), Das Proprium der Rechtswissenschaft. Recht – Wissenschaft – Theorie. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen (2007). One can also mention “Beyond the State – Rethinking Private Law”, a joint conference of the American Journal of Comparative Law and Rabels Zeitschrift. For conference reports, see Flohr M, Beyond the State? Rethinking Private Law. Symposium in Hamburg am 12. Und 13. Juli 2007, RabelsZ 72 (2008) pp 391–396; for articles, see 56 Am J Comp L (2008) pp 527–844.

  2. 2.

    Posner RA, Legal Scholarship Today, Harv L Rev 114 (2002) pp 1314–1326; Engel C, Schön W (eds), Das Proprium der Rechtswissenschaft. Recht – Wissenschaft – Theorie. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen (2007).

  3. 3.

    Foucault M, L’Archéologie du Savoir. Éditions Gallimard, France (1969).

  4. 4.

    See Goode RM, Commercial Law in the Next Millenium. The Hamlyn Lectures. Forty-ninth Series. Sweet & Maxwell, London (1998) p 8.

  5. 5.

    See also Druey JN, The practitioner and the professor – is there a theory of commercial law? In: Tison M, De Wulf H, Van der Elst C, Steennot R (eds), Perspectives in Company Law and Financial Regulation: Essays in Honour of Eddy Wymeersch. International Corporate Law and Financial Market Regulation. Cambridge U P, Cambridge (2009).

  6. 6.

    Priest GL, Social Science Theory and Legal Education: The Law School as University, J Legal Educ 33 (1983) pp p 437. Moreover, Priest writes: “In 1930, prior to the realist revolution, future specialization in legal scholarship might have suggested increasingly detailed and narrow treatises addressing traditional legal subjects. Today, authorship of the legal treatise has been cast off to practitioners. The treatise is no longer even a credit to those competing on the leading edge of legal thought. Instead, legal scholarship has become specialized according to the separate social sciences.”

  7. 7.

    Each article published in 25(3) Int’l Rev L & Econ (2005) represented at least one of those research approaches (with the exception of philosophy of law). For a collection of articles with different research approaches, see also Gillette CP (ed), The Creation and Interpretation of Commercial Law. The International Library of Essays in Law and Legal Theory. Ashgate, Dartmouth (2003). The articles contained in Kraus JS, Walt SD (eds), op cit, mainly represented the areas of philosophy of law and economic analysis of law. The articles published in 56 Am J Comp L (2008) pp 527–844 mainly focused on the philosophy of law.

  8. 8.

    Compare Wendehorst CC, The State as a Foundation of Private Law Reasoning, Am J Comp L 56 (2008) p 602 distinguishing between different forms of legal reasoning: “Legal reasoning can take four different basic perspectives, which may be described as the internal, the external, the sovereign, and the subordinate perspective. Each of them has its own goals, its own patterns of argumentation, and its own tools for coping with plural and fragmented sources.”

  9. 9.

    See also Cheffins BR, Using Theory to Study Law: A Company Law Perspective, CLJ 58(1) (1999) p 199.

  10. 10.

    See already Wendell Holmes O Jr, The Path of the Law. Harv L Rev 10 (1897) pp 457–478 (prediction theory).

  11. 11.

    Eidenmüller H, Effizienz als Rechtsprinzip. Die Einheit der Gesellschaftswissenschaften 90. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen (2005) p 1 arguing that the two perspectives are that of the legislator and that of the judge: “Recht kann man insbesondere aus zwei Perspektiven betrachten: aus derjenigen des Gesetzgebers und aus derjenigen des Richters.” For similar views, see Posner RA, Frontiers of Legal Theory. Harvard U P, Cambridge, Mass (2001); Engel C, Schön W, Vorwort. In: Engel C, Schön W (eds), op cit, p XII.

  12. 12.

    See also Epstein RA, Let “The Fundamental Things Apply”: Necessary and Contingent Truths in Legal Scholarship, Harv L Rev 115 (2002) p 1288 stating: “Nothing that we say or write here will, or should, alter the brute fact that much academic scholarship services the internal operations of the legal profession.”

  13. 13.

    Posner RA, Frontiers of Legal Theory. Harvard U P, Cambridge, Mass. (2001) p 145 (finding the legal profession the most “past dependent” of the professions). See also Mestmäcker EJ, A Legal Theory without Law. Walter Eucken Institut, Beiträge zur Ordnungstheorie und Ordnungspolitik 174. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen (2007) p 56.

  14. 14.

    Rakoff TD, Introduction to Symposium: Law, Knowledge, and the Academy, Harv L Rev 115 (2002) p 1279 (distinguishing between “embedded” and “non-embedded” legal scholarship); Fleischer H, Gesellschafts- und Kapitalmarktrecht als wissenschaftliche Disziplin – Das Proprium der Rechtswissenschaft. In: Engel C, Schön W (eds), op cit, pp 52–53 (commenting on the distinction made by Rakoff); Fleischer H, Zur Zukunft der gesellschafts- und kapitalmarktrechtlichen Forschung, ZGR 4/2007 pp 501–502.

  15. 15.

    Wendell Holmes O Jr, The Path of the Law. Harv L Rev 10 (1897) pp 457–478. See also Larenz K, Über die Unentbehrlichkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin (1966) p 12: “Die Aufgabe der Rechtswissenschaft … ist eine dreifache. Sie legt die Gesetze aus, sie bildet das Recht gemäß den der Rechtsordnung immanenten Wertmaßstäben und den in ihr liegenden gedanklichen Möglichkeiten fort und sie sucht immer aufs neue die Fülle des Rechtsstoffes unter einheitlichen Gesichtspunkten zu erfassen.”

  16. 16.

    See, for example, Fleischer H, Zur Zukunft der gesellschafts- und kapitalmarktrechtlichen Forschung, ZGR 4/2007 p 504.

  17. 17.

    Goldschmidt L, Handbuch des Handelsrechts. Erste Band. Erste Abtheilung. Universalgeschichte des Handelsrechts. Erste Lieferung. Ferdinand Enke, Stuttgart (1891). For a discussion of the impact of Goldschmidt’s work, see Whitman J, Note, Commercial Law and the American Volk: A Note on Llewellyn's German Sources for the Uniform Commercial Code, Yale L J 97 (1987) pp 156–175.

  18. 18.

    The thesis formed part of Weber M, Zur Geschichte der Handelsgesellschaften im Mittelalter. Nach südeuropäischen Quellen. Eure, Stuttgart (1889).

  19. 19.

    Goetzmann WN, Rouwenhorst KG (eds), The Origins of Value. OUP, Oxford (2005).

  20. 20.

    Skeel DA Jr, Debt’s Domain. A History of Bankruptcy Law in America. Princeton U P, Princeton Oxford (2001); Mann BH, Republic of Debtors. Bankruptcy in the Age of American Independence. Harvard U P, Cambridge London (2002).

  21. 21.

    Van de Mieroop M, The Invention of Interest. Sumerian Loans. In: Goetzmann WN, Rouwenhorst KG (eds), The Origins of Value. OUP, Oxford (2005) pp 17–18.

  22. 22.

    von Savigny FC, Das System des heutigen römischen Rechts (1840–1849).

  23. 23.

    See, for example, Van Caenegem RC, Johnston DEL, An Historical Introduction to Private Law. Cambridge U P, Cambridge (1992) 83–85.

  24. 24.

    Schmitthoff CM, International Business Law: A New Law Merchant. In: Chia-Jui Cheng (ed), Clive M. Schmitthoff’s Select Essays on International Trade Law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers / Graham & Trotman, Dordrecht (1992) pp 21–22. Originally published as Schmitthoff CM, International Business Law: A New Law Merchant. In St J MacDonald R (ed), 2 Current Law and Social Problems. University of Toronto Press, Toronto (1961).

  25. 25.

    See, for example, Michaels R, The True Lex Mercatoria: Law Beyond the State, Ind J Global Legal Stud 14:2 (2007) p 448.

  26. 26.

    See, for example, Trakman LE, The Law Merchant: The Evolution of Commercial Law. Fred B. Rothman & Co., Littleton, Colorado (1983). See also Scott HS, The Risk Fixers, Harv L Rev 91 (1978) p 738: “In any case, statutory rules are principally designed to alter rather than to ‘codify’ the existing legal regime. They reflect concern with the ability of various transactors, whether merchants or consumers, to protect themselves in the marketplace, and they are ultimately distributional in character. Since they are designed to alter the existing order or to remedy market failure or inefficiency, statutory commercial rules are unlikely to be optional - mere backstops for existing merchant practices.”

  27. 27.

    Trakman LE, op cit, p 25.

  28. 28.

    This can be contrasted with the earlier 1861 Allgemeines Deutsches Handelsgesetzbuch (ADHGB) of the German Federation. As the ADHGB was not complemented by a general private law code, it regulated many questions belonging to general private law.

  29. 29.

    Trakman LE, op cit, p 25.

  30. 30.

    Ibid, p 27.

  31. 31.

    Especially for his work in cases such as: Pillans & Rose v Van Mierop & Hopkins [1765] 3 Burr 1663; and Carter v Boehm [1766] 3 Burr 1905. Lord Mansfield was born William Murray in Scotland in 1705.

  32. 32.

    See Goode RM, Commercial Law in the Next Millenium. The Hamlyn Lectures. Forty-ninth Series. Sweet & Maxwell, London (1998) p 8.

  33. 33.

    See Goode RM, The Wilfred Fullagar Memorial Lecture: The Codification of Commercial Law, Monash U L R 14 (1988) p 148 (arguing that the primary function of commercial law is “to accommodate the legitimate practices and expectations of the business community in relation to their commercial dealings”).

  34. 34.

    Mäntysaari P, En teoretisk referensram för handelsrätten, TfR 2011.

  35. 35.

    According to the French-German model, commercial law is basically defined as rules applicable to certain parties (according to German terminology, it as a “subject-based system”) rather than rules applicable to certain categories of transactions generally (it is not an “object-based system”). For example, the German discussion about the definition of commercial law has focused on whether the commercial law exceptions should apply just to “merchants” or even to the wider category of “undertakings”. See Zöllner W, Wovon handelt das Handelsrecht? ZGR 1/1983 pp 82–91 (generally). According to traditionalists, commercial law is “particular private law for merchants” (“Sonderprivatrecht für Kaufleute”). For the traditional view, see Canaris CW, Handelsrecht, 24. Auflage. C.H. Beck, München (2006). Some define commercial law as “external private law for undertakings” (“Außenprivatrecht der Unternehmen”). See Schmidt K, Vom Handelsrecht zum Unternehmens-Privatrecht? JuS 1985 pp 249–257; Schmidt K, Zerfällt das Handelsgesetzbuch? Eine Gedankenskizz zur Zukunft des Vierten Buchs. In: Berger KP, Borges G, Herrmann H, Schlüter A, Wackerbarth U (eds), Zivil- und Wirtschaftsrecht im Europäischen und Globalen Kontext / Private and Commercial Law in a European and Global Context: Festschrift für Norbert Horn zum 70. Geburtstag. de Gruyter Recht, Berlin (2006). See already Raisch P, Geschichtliche Voraussetzungen, dogmatische Grundlagen und Sinnwandlung des Handelsrechts. C.F. Müller, Karlsruhe (1965); Raisch P, Die rechtsdogmatische Bedeutung der Abgrenzung von Handelsrecht und bürgerlichem Recht, JuS 1967 pp 533–542. In 2005, the latter view was adopted in Austria when the Austrian Handelsgesetzbuch (HGB) was amended and renamed Unternehmensgesetzbuch (UGB, Business Enterprise Code).

  36. 36.

    Goode RM, The Wilfred Fullagar Memorial Lecture: The Codification of Commercial Law, Monash U L R 14 (1988) pp 135–157.

  37. 37.

    Compare DCFR, Principles.

  38. 38.

    See Zöllner W, Wovon handelt das Handelsrecht? ZGR 1/1983 pp 82–91; Baumann H, Strukturfragen des Handelsrechts, AcP 184 (1984) pp 45–66; Neuner J, Handelsrecht — Handelsgesetz — Grundgesetz, ZHR 157 (1993) pp 243–290.

  39. 39.

    Schmitthoff CM, The Unification of the Law of International Trade, JBL 1968 pp 105–119; Goldman B, Lex Mercatoria, Forum Internationale 3 (1983) pp 3–7. See also Hatzimihail NE, The Many Lives—And Faces—of Lex Mercatoria: An Essay on the Genealogy of International Business Law, Law & Contemp Probs 71 (2008) pp 169–190.

  40. 40.

    Berger KP, International Economic Arbitration. Studies in Transnational Economic Law 9. Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, Deventer (1993) p 543; Berger KP, The Creeping Codification of the Lex Mercatoria. Kluwer Law International, The Hague (1999); Lando O, The Harmonization of European Contract Law through a Restatement of Principles. Centre for the Advanced Study of European and Comparative Law, University of Oxford (1997) p 20.

  41. 41.

    See, in particular, Mustill MJ, The New Lex Mercatoria: The First Twenty-Five Years. In: Bos M, Brownlie I (eds), Liber Amicorum for the Rt. Hon. Lord Wilberforce, PC, CMG, OBE, QC. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1987). Published also as Mustill MJ, Arbitration International 4 (1988) pp 86–119.

  42. 42.

    See Ramberg J, International Commercial Transactions. ICC, Kluwer Law International, Norstedts Juridik Ab, Stockholm (1998) p 20.

  43. 43.

    See Articles 8 and 9 of the CISG.

  44. 44.

    There is a vast amount of literature. See, for example, Michaels R, The True Lex Mercatoria: Law Beyond the State, Ind J Global Legal Stud 14:2 (2007) pp 447–468.

  45. 45.

    See Case 270/80 Polydor [1982] ECR 329; Case 104/81 Kupferberg [1982] ECR 3641, paragraphs 28–31.

  46. 46.

    Case 26/62 Van Gend en Loos [1963] ECR 1.

  47. 47.

    See Case C-106/89 Marleasing [1991] ECR I–4135.

  48. 48.

    Eidenmüller H, Forschungsperspektiven im Unternehmensrecht, ZGR 4/2007 p 486; Merkt H, Die Zukunft der privatrechtlichen Forschung im Unternehmens- und Kapitalmarktrecht, ZGR 4/2007 pp 540–541.

  49. 49.

    See Hug W, The History of Comparative Law, Harv L Rev 45 (1932) pp 1027–1070.

  50. 50.

    An early example of this approach in international law is Grotius H, De jure belli ac pacis libri tres (1625).

  51. 51.

    Kadner Graziano T, Die Europäisierung der juristischen Perspektive und der vergleichenden Methode – Fallstudien, ZVglRWiss 106 (2007) pp 248–249: “Seit Inkrafttreten der großen Kodifikationen im 19. und frühen 20. Jahrhundert diente der Blick auf ausländische Rechtsordnungen in erster Linien dem Zweck, Lücken der nationalen Kodifikationen zu schließen, Anregungen für die Auslegung des eigenen Rechts zu erhalten oder Defizite dieses Rechts zu beheben. Ausgangs- und Bezugspunkt für den Vergleich war jeweils das eigene nationale Recht, das auf diese Weise verbessert oder dessen Lücken geschlossen werden sollten.”

  52. 52.

    In 1920, Lambert founded the Institut de droit compare in Lyon. L'Académie internationale de droit comparé (the International Academy of Comparative law) was founded in 1924. In 1926, Rabel founded the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht in Berlin, now the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law in Hamburg. In the same year, L'Institut international pour l'unification du droit privé (Unidroit, the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law) was set up in Rome as an auxiliary organ of the League of Nations. In 1931, Lévy-Ullmann and Capitant founded the Institut de droit compare of the University of Paris.

  53. 53.

    Rabel E, Das Recht des Warenkaufs. Eine rechtsvergleichende Darstellung. Band I–II. de Gruyter, Berlin and Leipzig (1936) / Mohr, Tübingen (1957–1958). One can also mention Almén T, Das skandinavische Kaufrecht. Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung, Heidelberg (1922).

  54. 54.

    Kadner Graziano T, Die Europäisierung der juristischen Perspektive und der vergleichenden Methode – Fallstudien, ZVglRWiss 106 (2007) p 249: “Bei allen auf Europäisierung des Privatrechts gerichteten Initiativen kommt der rechtsvergleichenden Methode eine Schlüsselrolle zu.”

  55. 55.

    Zweigert K, Kötz H, Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung auf dem Gebiete des Privatrechts, 3. Auflage. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen (1996) is a standard work on comparative law and the functional method. For the functional method, see also Husa J, Farewell to Functionalism or Methodological Tolerance? RabelsZ 67 (2003) pp 419–447; De Coninck J, The Functional Method of Comparative Law: Quo Vadis? RabelsZ 74 (2010) pp 318–350.

  56. 56.

    Lieder J, Legal Origins und empirische Rechtsvergleichung. Zur Bedeutung des Rechts für die Entwicklung von Kapitalmärkten und Corporate-Governance-Strukturen, ZVglRWiss 109 (2010) p 228.

  57. 57.

    Herala N, Use of Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) in Comparative Law. Acta Wasaensia 124, Universitas Wasaensis, Vaasa (2004) p 17: “Qualitative comparative analysis, or QCA, combines two ways of simplifying complexity. It both examines similarities and differences between a limited number of cases, and it inspects relations between variables (Ragin 1987:XIII). QCA could be described as a variable-oriented qualitative comparative method.” See also Ragin CC, The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. U Cal P, Berkeley Los Angeles London (1987).

  58. 58.

    Lieder J, Legal Origins und empirische Rechtsvergleichung. Zur Bedeutung des Rechts für die Entwicklung von Kapitalmärkten und Corporate-Governance-Strukturen, ZVglRWiss 109 (2010) pp 228–230; Eidenmüller H, Forschungsperspektiven im Unternehmensrecht, ZGR 4/2007 pp 486–495.

  59. 59.

    La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A, Vishny RW, Law and Finance, J Pol Econ 106 (1998) pp 1113–1155. See also Djankov S, La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A, The law and economics of self-dealing, J Fin Econ 88 (2008) pp 430–465; Djankov S, Glaeser E, La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A, The New Comparative Economics, J Comp Econ 31 (2003) pp 595–619.

  60. 60.

    Lieder J, Legal Origins und empirische Rechtsvergleichung. Zur Bedeutung des Rechts für die Entwicklung von Kapitalmärkten und Corporate-Governance-Strukturen, ZVglRWiss 109 (2010) pp 229–230.

  61. 61.

    See ibid, pp 216–264.

  62. 62.

    Aoki M, Toward a Comparative Institutional Analysis. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. (2001) p 17.

  63. 63.

    See Watson A, Aspects of Reception of Law, Am J Comp L 44 (1996) pp 335–351.

  64. 64.

    Watson A, Legal Transplants: An Approach to Comparative Law. Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh (1974); Watson A, Legal Transplants and European Private Law, 4.4 ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LAW, http://www.ejcl.org/ejcl/44/44–2.html (2000).

  65. 65.

    von Jhering R, Geist des römischen Rechts auf den verschiedenen Stufen seiner Entwicklung. Breitkopf & Härtel, Leipzig (1852–1865). Cited in Zweigert K, Kötz H, Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung auf dem Gebiete des Privatrechts, 3. Auflage. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen (1996) § 2 II. Translation from Xanthaki H, Legal Transplants in Legislation: Defusing the Trap, ICLQ 57 (2008) p 661.

  66. 66.

    For “legal platforms”, see Mäntysaari P, The Law of Corporate Finance. Volume II. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2010) pp 9–12.

  67. 67.

    For the concept of transnational law, see Jessup PC, Transnational Law. Yale U P, New Haven (1956).

  68. 68.

    One can refer to any textbook on comparative law or transnational commercial law.

  69. 69.

    See also 56 Am J Comp L (2008) pp 527–844 (“Beyond the State – Rethinking Private Law”).

  70. 70.

    See, for example, Teubner G, Substantive and Reflexive Elements in Modern Law, Law & Soc’y Rev 17 (1983) pp 239–285; Teubner G, The Two Faces of Janus: Rethinking Legal Pluralism, Cardozo L Rev 13 (1992) pp 1443–1462; Teubner G, Global Bukowina: Legal Pluralism in the World-Society. In: Teubner G (ed), Global Law Without a State. Aldershot, Dartmouth (1997); de Sousa Santos B, Law: A Map of Misreading. Toward a Postmodern Conception of Law, J L & Soc’y 14 (1987) pp 279–302.

  71. 71.

    See, for example, Kalss S, Maßgebliche Forschungsfelder in der nächsten Dekade im Bereich des Gesellschafts- und Kapitalmarktrechts, ZGR 4/2007 pp 523–526.

  72. 72.

    Regulation 1606/2002 (IAS Regulation); Directive 2006/48/EC and Directive 2006/49/EC (the Capital Requirements Directive).

  73. 73.

    Commission Decisions 2001/527/EC, 2004/5/EC, and 2004/6/EC establishing CESR, CEBS, and CEIOPS, respectively.

  74. 74.

    Eidenmüller H, Forschungsperspektiven im Unternehmensrecht, ZGR 4/2007 p 488; Kalss S, op cit, pp 523–525.

  75. 75.

    Merkt H, Die Zukunft der privatrechtlichen Forschung im Unternehmens- und Kapitalmarktrecht, ZGR 4/2007 p 533.

  76. 76.

    Posner EA, Book Review: Kraus, Jody S., and Walt, Steven D., eds., The Jurisprudential Foundations of Corporate and Commercial Law, Ethics 112 (2002) pp 626–628.

  77. 77.

    Kraus JS, Walt SD, Introduction. In: Kraus JS, Walt SD (eds), op cit, p 1: “Efficiency is the dominant paradigm in contemporary corporate and commercial law scholarship. The jurisprudential foundations of corporate and commercial law, then are the foundations of efficiency analysis.” For a critique, see Posner EA, supra.

  78. 78.

    See also Kornhauser LA, Constrained Optimization. Corporate Law and the Maximization of Social Welfare. In: Kraus JS, Walt SD (eds), op cit, p 89.

  79. 79.

    Goode RM, Commercial Law in the Next Millenium. The Hamlyn Lectures. Forty-ninth Series. Sweet & Maxwell, London (1998) p 29.

  80. 80.

    See Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 7–14 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

  81. 81.

    DCFR Intr. 14–16.

  82. 82.

    Rawls J, A Theory of Justice. Harvard U P, Cambridge, Mass (1971).

  83. 83.

    Jansen N, Michaels R, Private Law and the State. Comparative Perceptions and Historical Observations, RabelsZ 71 (2007) p 356.

  84. 84.

    See Posner RA, The Decline of Law as an Autonomous Discipline: 1962–1987, Harv L Rev 100 (1987) pp 761–780; Dau-Schmidt KG, Brun CL, Lost in Translation: The Economic Analysis of Law in the United States and Europe, Colum J Transnat’l L 44 (2006) pp 602–621.

  85. 85.

    Coase RH, The Problem of Social Cost, J Law Econ 3 (1960) pp 1–44.

  86. 86.

    Calabresi G, Some Thoughts on Risk Distribution and the Law of Torts, Yale L J 70 (1961) pp 499–553.

  87. 87.

    Posner RA, Economic Analysis of Law. Seventh Edition. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, Austin, Texas (2007).

  88. 88.

    Cooter R, Ulen T, Law and Economics. 5th International Edition. Pearson/Addison-Wesley, Boston, Mass. (2007).

  89. 89.

    See Whaples R, Morris AP, Moorhouse JC, What Should Lawyers Know about Economics? J Legal Educ 48 (1998) pp 120–124; Fleischer H, Grundfragen der ökonomischen Theorie im Gesellschafts- und Kapitalmarktrecht, ZGR 1/2001 pp 1–32.

  90. 90.

    Eidenmüller H, Effizienz als Rechtsprinzip. Die Einheit der Gesellschaftswissenschaften 90. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen (2005) p 13.

  91. 91.

    See Kornhauser LA, Constrained Optimization. Corporate Law and the Maximization of Social Welfare. In: Kraus JS, Walt SD (eds), op cit, p 90.

  92. 92.

    Louis M Brown was first to introduce the approach by this name in Brown LM, Manual of Preventive Law. Prentice-Hall, Inc., New York (1950).

  93. 93.

    Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘The proactive law approach: a further step towards better regulation at EU level’ (2009/C 175/05).

  94. 94.

    Compare Basedow J, The State’s Private Law and the Economy–Commercial Law as an Amalgam of Public and Private Rule-Making, Am J Comp L 56 (2008) pp 714–718 arguing that state [commercial] law has the following functions: the provision of dispositive legal rules; assignment of property rights; protecting the market; and compensation for market failures. However, the functions listed by Basedow do not seem to explain the regulation of company law, tax law, and labour law matters sufficiently, although matters belonging to such areas of law are very important for commercial enterprises.

  95. 95.

    See Goode RM, Commercial Law in the Next Millenium. The Hamlyn Lectures. Forty-ninth Series. Sweet & Maxwell, London (1998) p 8.

  96. 96.

    See, for example, Eidenmüller H, Forschungsperspektiven im Unternehmensrecht, ZGR 4/2007 pp 484–499 in which the only information needs that seemed to matter were the information needs of the legislator.

  97. 97.

    See, for example, Ernst W, Gelehrtes Recht – Die Jurisprudenz aus der Sicht des Zivilrechtslehrers. In: Engel C, Schön W (eds), op cit, pp 30–31.

References

  • Cooter R, Ulen T, Law and Economics. 5th International Edition. Pearson/Addison-Wesley, Boston, Mass. (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • Goetzmann WN, Rouwenhorst KG (eds), The Origins of Value. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmidt L, Handbuch des Handelsrechts. Erste Band. Erste Abtheilung. Universalgeschichte des Handelsrechts. Erste Lieferung. Ferdinand Enke, Stuttgart (1891).

    Google Scholar 

  • La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A, Vishny RW, Law and Finance, Journal of Political Economics 106 (1998) pp 1113–1155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann BH, Republic of Debtors. Bankruptcy in the Age of American Independence. Harvard University Press, Cambridge London (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner RA, Economic Analysis of Law. Seventh Edition. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, Austin, Texas (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabel E, Das Recht des Warenkaufs. Eine rechtsvergleichende Darstellung. Band I-II. de Gruyter, Berlin and Leipzig (1936) / Mohr, Tübingen (1957–1958).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J, A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  • Skeel DA Jr, Debt’s Domain. A History of Bankruptcy Law in America. Princeton University Press, Princeton Oxford (2001).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Accounting and Commercial Law, Hanken School of Economics, Handelsesplanaden 2, 65100, Vaasa, Finland

    Prof. Dr. Petri Mäntysaari

Authors
  1. Prof. Dr. Petri Mäntysaari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Petri Mäntysaari .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mäntysaari, P. (2012). Theory of Commercial Law: Past Approaches. In: Organising the Firm. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22197-2_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation