株式会社極東書店トップ商品一覧Consequences of Impaired Consent Transfers : A Structural Comparison of English and German Law.

商品詳細

Consequences of Impaired Consent Transfers

Consequences of Impaired Consent Transfers : A Structural Comparison of English and German Law.

・ISBN 978-3-16-149790-2 Brosch. EUR 89.00

¥23,789.- (税込) (※)価格はご注文時の参考価格となります。
納品価格につきましては書籍の入荷時点で確定となります。
版元の原価改定、外国為替の変動等により異なる場合がございますので、予めご了承下さい。

お気に入り

電子版あり 大学・学術機関向け電子ブック(eBook)ISBN 978-3-16-151408-1

著者・編者Häcker, Birke,
シリーズStudien zum ausländischen und internationalen Privatrecht
出版社(Mohr, GW)
出版年月2009
ページ数360 S.
言語ENG
ニュース番号<559-936>

解説

Birke Haecker explores the English and German law on impaired consent transfers of movable property and their reversal in comparative perspective, paying particular attention to the interaction - within each legal system - between the rules and principles of contract law, property law, and the law of unjust(ified) enrichment. In two-party situations, the author focuses on the relationship between contract and conveyance and the closely related question of the transferor's position in the event of the transferee's insolvency. While German law resolves these issues by reference to the well-established principles of separation and abstraction, the relevant English law is still unsettled. The author argues for a generalized power model of so-called 'proprietary restitution' and seeks to demonstrate that conveyances by delivery are best regarded as abstract in English as well as in German law, but explains why English law nevertheless lacks the gist of abstraction a la BGB. Building on this analysis, the author then goes on to examine three-party situations. She looks first at the position of third parties who have acquired the object in question before the transferor has had a chance to reclaim it (raising issues of bona fide purchase and 'leapfrogging') and thereafter at the extent to which the transferor can assert rights to the object's traceable substitutes. As far as English law is concerned, the author shows that the supposed 'third party rights bar to rescission' is not only unnecessary, but misconceived, and that it ought to be abolished.