За систематизацията и системите на източниците на задължения
Systems and Systematization of the Sources of Obligations

Historical and Comparative Approach

Author(s): Krassen Stoichev
Subject(s): Law, Constitution, Jurisprudence, History of Law, Civil Law, Comparative Law
Published by: Пловдивски университет »Паисий Хилендарски«
Keywords: sources of obligation system; contract; tort; Gaius; noncontractual sources of obligations; Civil Code; civil law legal facts
Summary/Abstract: Systematization of the sources of obligations is essential since it pivots the entire structure of civil law. As practice also indicates, systematization prescribes the structure of the Civil Code, or the general Civil Law; finally, it also consolidates the legal-facts group in Civil Law. From the historical and comparative perspective three systems have been devised for presenting the sources of obligations. The first one is the familiar quaternary classification, classification offered by Gaius and later elaborated on in Justinian’s codification. The latter provided a sound basis for Pothier and Savigny in their works. Likewise, this system was adopted by the French Civil Code of 1804. The next systematization described the contract as the principal source of obligations. The first variant sets contract against all other sources of obligation, making it clear that the domination of contract was meant to replace all the other sources of obligations since the latter were jammed together in a group of enforced by the law sources of obligations. Some authors interpreted it another way and spoke about contracts and non-contractual sources of obligations. One can trace back its ideas in the times of the Natural Law School, which later was joined by some German jurists during the second half of the XIX century. The original synthesis between it and Gaius’ systematization led to the formation of the triple classification we can see in the Italian Civil Code of 1942. In the Civil Code of the Netherlands in force the sources of obligation were defined by the law; hence their systematization was made pointless. The third well-known systematization of the sources of obligations placed them amid civil law legal facts no matter of their specificity. The Bulgarian Obligations and Contracts Law adopted the pragmatic approach shown in the simple outlining of the five basic sources of obligations where contract obligation serves as a model. Whenever necessary, this Law introduces in its general section specific rules referring to tort obligations as the result of deviation from contractual obligations. Elaborating the proper system of the sources of obligation is not an easy task. Instead of generalization, one should consider the fact that there are typical sources of obligations and sources which give rise to obligations existing only in the context of another civil relationships.

• Details
• Contents