Equity in the Civil Law Tradition

184 Pages·2021·2.998 MB·English

by  Renato Beneduzi

Renato Beneduzi
Equity in
the Civil Law
Tradition
Equity in the Civil Law Tradition
Renato Beneduzi
Equity in the Civil Law
Tradition
RenatoBeneduzi
FacultyofLaw
PontificalCatholicUniversityofRiode
Janeiro(PUC-RIO)
RiodeJaneiro,Brazil
ISBN978-3-030-78066-1 ISBN978-3-030-78067-8 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78067-8
©TheEditor(s)(ifapplicable)andTheAuthor(s),underexclusivelicensetoSpringerNatureSwitzerland
AG2021
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsaresolelyandexclusivelylicensedbythePublisher,whether
thewholeorpartofthematerialisconcerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuseof
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by
similarordissimilarmethodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc.inthispublication
doesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfromtherelevant
protectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
The publisher, the authors, and the editorsare safeto assume that the adviceand informationin this
bookarebelievedtobetrueandaccurateatthedateofpublication.Neitherthepublishernortheauthorsor
theeditorsgiveawarranty,expressedorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinorforany
errorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.Thepublisherremainsneutralwithregardtojurisdictional
claimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG.
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
For Alice, Clara and Leonardo
Contents
1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 EquityinGreece. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1 LawinAncientGreece. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 PlatoandtheUniversalityoftheLaw. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. 7
2.3 Έπιεικήςand(cid:1)επιείκειαinAristotle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4 TheUsesofEquityBeforetheAthenianCourts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3 EquityinRome. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.1 Aequumandaequitas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.2 Pre-classicalLaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.3 ClassicalLaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.4 Post-classicalLaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4 EquityintheMiddleAges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.1 RomanLawAftertheFallofRome. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.2 GermanicLaws. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.3 ChristianismandCanonLaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
4.4 CivilLaw,GlossatorsandCommentators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
5 EquityintheModernEra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
5.1 RenaissanceandLegalHumanism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
5.2 ReformationandCounter-Reformation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
5.3 UsusmodernuspandectarumandRoman-DutchLaw. . . . . . . . . . 110
5.4 LegalRationalismandNaturalLaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
vii
viii Contents
6 EquitySincetheNineteenthCentury. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
6.1 EquityinaEuropeofCodifiedNationalLaws. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
6.2 Frenchéquité. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
6.3 GermanBilligkeit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
6.4 Italianequità. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
6.5 Spanishequidad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
6.6 EquityinLatinAmerica. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
7 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Reference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Bibliography. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . 167
Chapter 1
Introduction
FredericMaitlandfamouslydefinedequityinEnglandasthe“bodyofrulesadmin-
istered by our English courts of justice which, were it not for the operation of the
JudicatureActs,wouldbeadministeredonlybythosecourtswhichwouldbeknown
asCourtsofEquity”.1,2Onecenturylater,SarahWorthingtonwoulddefineequityin
asimilarveinasthe“bodyofrules,principlesandremediesthatderivefromthose
initiallydevelopedandadministeredintheEnglishHighCourtofChancery”.3But
ifthesedefinitionsmayconveytheimpressionthatequityisauniquefeatureofthe
common law tradition,4 this is far from being the case. Rather, equity has been an
equallyimportantfixtureofcontinentalEuropeanlegalhistoryforcenturies.
Nonetheless,centuriesoflargelyautarchicdevelopment5haveledbothtraditions
tostraysofarfromeachotherwithregardtoequitythatcivilandcommonlawyers
hardlyunderstandoneanotherwhentheytalkaboutthesubject.6Infact,evencivil
lawyers cannot agree among themselves about what exactly equity means in their
own tradition. For these reasons, I felt it opportune to write this equity in the civil
traditionasabookfor civil lawyers whowanttobetter understandthehistory and
natureofequityintheirownlegaltraditionandforcommonlawyerswhoarecurious
1Maitland(1910),p.1.
2Healsodescribedequityasa“supplementarylaw,asortofappendixaddedontoourcode,orasort
ofglosswrittenroundourcode”(Maitland1910,p.18).
3Worthington(2006),p.9.
4EvenifthiswasnottheintentionofbothMaitlandandWorthington.
5Butonly“largely”.Formoredetails,see,forexample:Donahue(1974),p.167;Ibbetson(2014),
p.56;Fortier(2016),p.60.SeealsoKlimchuk(2020),p.32;Majeske(2006),p.39.
6Forinstance,civillawyersstruggletounderstandthelingeringobstaclestothecompletefusion
betweenequityandcommonlaw(see,forexample,Burrows2002,p.1),whilecommonlawyers
oftenfailtograspthefunctionofequityinthecivillawtradition.
©TheAuthor(s),underexclusivelicensetoSpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG2021 1
R.Beneduzi,EquityintheCivilLawTradition,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78067-8_1
2 1 Introduction
about why the history of equity has unfolded so differently on the continent of
Europeandinthecivillawworldatlarge.7,8
I begin with the investigation of the philosophical foundations of the Western
notion of equity in the teachings of Plato and Aristotle and of how their ideas
affected the works of the great Attic orators (Chap. 2). Then I address the way in
which Roman law turned this notion into a legal concept of considerable practical
importance(Chap.3)andhowitsurvivedthefallofRomeandwaslaterelaborated
in the Middle Ages by civilists and canonists (Chap. 4). Afterwards, I try to
understand how the notion of equity was dealt with in the Modern Era by legal
humanists, Protestant and Catholic theologians, scholars of the usus modernus
pandectarum and of Roman-Dutch law, and then by legal rationalism and the
philosophersoftheEnlightenment(Chap.5).ThenIdealwiththehistoryofequity
onthecontinentsincethefragmentationoftheiuscommuneandthecodificationsof
thenineteenthcenturyandwithitsreceptioninLatinAmerica(Chap.6).Finally,I
offersomeclosingremarksonthefundamentalequivocalness(orrelativity,assome
scholarsputit)ofthenotionofequityinthecivillawtraditiontoday(conclusion).9
Before movingontothe first chapter,Imustalso warnreaders fromacommon
lawbackgroundnottoassumetheywillfindintheequityofthecivillawtradition
theequitablerules,principlesandremedieswithwhichtheyarefamiliarintheirown
tradition. For instance, trusts are a quintessentially equitable creation in English
law.10 But Treuhand and fiduzia—some of the imperfect functional equivalents of
7Nonetheless,Imustwarnthereaderthatfromamethodologicalpointofviewthisisabookabout
thehistoryandnatureofequityinthecivillawtraditionandnotanexerciseincomparativelegal
history (between the history of the notion of equity in the common law and in the civil law
traditions). Formoredetailsonthemethodologyofcomparative legalhistory,see,forexample:
Ibbetson(2012),p.131.
8Incidentally,thewayScotslawreactedtotheinfluenceexertedbyEnglishtrustslawoffersan
interestinginsightintotheconsequencesoftheinterplaybetweenthecommonlawnotionofequity
andalawofpropertytraditionallyunderstoodasbeingbasedonacivilianmodel.Alludingtothe
modernpatrimonialtheoryoftrustdevelopedbyGrettonandReid,DanielCarrexplainsthat“one
of the apparent objectives of the patrimonial theory is to detach the Scottish trust from English
equityjurisprudencesofarasitsfundamentalbasisisconcerned,whileretainingtheabilitytomake
useofmanyEnglishauthoritiesonparticularmatters(...).Thisnewapproachpurportstoexplain
thetrust[whichispreciselyacreatureoftheEnglishnotionofequity]withoutfallingintothearms
ofequity”inawaythatseemsto“restricttheroleofEnglishequityjurisprudenceinexplainingthe
nature of the trust, without interfering with Scottish courts’ ability to adopt substantive rules of
Englishlaw”(Carr2019,p.195).
9Imadeuseinthisbook,forthetranslationofGreekandLatinliterarytexts,oftheDelphiandLoeb
translations. With regard to Plato and Aristotle specifically, Cooper’s and Barnes’s translations
were also extensively used. For Roman legal texts, Scott’s English edition of the Corpus Iuris
Civilis is still useful, but Watson’s translation is now the standard translation of the Digest.
Nevertheless, I made changes to these translations whenever I deemed them appropriate, more
often to passages of the Digest or to those from literary sources in which a more strictly legal
terminologyhadbeenusedbytheirauthors.Obviously,theresponsibilityforpossiblemistakesin
theseadaptationsaresolelymyown.
10As“thetrustisthelocusclassicusofEquity’ssecond-orderoperation”(McFarlaneandStevens
2020, p. 194). Nonetheless, on the influence of the Roman law distinction between rights in
References 3
trustsinthecivillawtradition11—havenothingtodowithequityintheciviliansense
of the term.12 The same can be said, for example, of specific performance.13 This
situationisofcourseasourceofconfusion,butitservesthepurposeofhighlighting
the dangers of presuming identity solely on the basis of linguistic similarities
betweendifferentlegalsystems.14
References
BurrowsA(2002)Wedothisatcommonlawbutthatinequity.OxfordJLegStud22:1–16
Carr D (2019) Are equity and law in Scotland fused, separate or intertwined? In: Goldberg J,
Smith H, Turner P (eds) Equity and law: fusion and fission. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge,pp179–200
DonahueCJr(1974)ThecivillawinEngland[reviewarticleonLevackB,TheCivilLawyersin
England].YaleLawJ84:167–181
FortierM(2016)ThecultureofequityinearlymodernEngland.Routledge,London
GelterM,HelleringerG(2019)FiduciaryprinciplesinEuropeancivillawsystems.In:CriddleE,
Miller P, Sitkoff R (eds) The Oxford handbook of fiduciary law. Oxford University Press,
Oxford,pp583–602
GlisterJ,LeeJ(2015)Hanbury&Martin:modernequity,20thedn.Sweet&Maxwell,London
Ibbetson D (2012) Comparative legal history: a methodology. In: MussonA, Stebbings C (eds)
Makinglegalhistory:approachesandmethodologies.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,
pp131–145
IbbetsonD(2014)Ahousebuiltonsand.In:KoopsE,ZwalveW(eds)Lawandequity.Brill–
Nijhoff,Leiden,pp55–77
personamandrightsinremonthecontroversyaboutthenatureofequitablerights,see,forexample:
HanburyandMartin(2015),p.16.
11Formoredetails,see,forexample:GelterandHelleringer(2019),p.591.
12“Thesurvivalofthoughtpatternsemanatingfromthefeudalsystemandtheexistenceofaduplex
ordoofcommonlawandEquityhaveledtowhatmaybecalledarelationalapproachtoproperty
law.Acivillawyerisinclinedtoexpectaclear-cutanswertothequestionwhetherapersonisan
ownerornot.Theansweriseitheryesorno,giventheunitaryconceptofownership.Foracommon
lawyeritisnotthatsimple.Acommonlawyerwillwanttoknowwhetherthequestionisasked
accordingtocommonlaworEquity”(vanErp2006,p.1060).
13Formoredetails,see,forexample:Oosterhuis(2011),p.13.
14Iamnotsaying,ofcourse,thatitisnotworthwhiletotrytounderstandhowcivillawjurisdictions
handle what under English law are equitable rights, remedies and principles. Martin Gelter and
GenevièveHelleringerofferaverygoodexampleofthiscomparativeenterpriseintheirFiduciary
principlesinEuropeancivillawsystems,wheretheyshowthat“whilethereisnounifiedbodyof
fiduciary law in civil law systems, fiduciary-style obligations can be found in various civil law
domains”.Infact,while“fiduciarydutiesareacreatureofequity,whichisoneofthedistinctive
featuresofthecommonlaw”,thelackofasimilarfeatureincivillawjurisdictionsexplains“why
the functional equivalents to fiduciary duties were more naturally absorbed into other doctrinal
edifices”(GelterandHelleringer2019,p.585).Nottoputtoofineapointonit,theseotherdoctrinal
edificesareentirelyforeigntothenotionofequityinthecivillawtradition,althoughtheirfunctional
equivalentinthecommonlawtraditionisofcourseacreatureofequity.