J. Hallebeek

Pre-contractual duties to inform in Early Modern Scholasticism

This paper seeks to highlight the early modern scholastic contribution to dealing with the issue of pre-contractual duties to inform. Bringing together different strands of thought, ranging from Aristotelian philosophy to Roman law, the 16th and 17th century scholastics developed adequate analytical tools to solve legal and moral problems arising from information disparities between contracting parties. While first looking at the different classical and medieval texts that shaped the early modern debate, this paper then goes on to give a systematic account of how the early modern scholastics dealt with duties of disclosure about both intrinsic and extrinsic defects in the merchandise. A final chapter looks at how the early modern scholastic debate was received in the Northern natural law school, before concluding that the early modern scholastics took a surprisingly negative attitude towards duties to inform.

Claiming apologies: a revival of amende honorable?

In the Netherlands, a recent suggestion was made for the introduction of a civil remedy for apologies. Could this be seen as a plea for the revival of the action for amende honorable from early modern times? The latter remedy, aimed at retraction and apologies for insults and reputational injuries, had its roots in medieval Canon law and indigenous law. During the process of reception, it was shaped by moral-theological concepts and provided with Roman law elements. It was meant to undo the injury, not to punish the wrongdoer. The Dutch Civil Code of 1838 retained only a reminiscence of the old amende honorable, which was soon to disappear from legal practice. The current proposed claim would to some degree resemble the old remedy for amende honorable. Unlike the latter, however, it will be aimed at emotional recovery for some specific kinds of injury and not for defamation in general.

The law’s many bodies: studies in legal hybridity and jurisdictional complexity, c1600–1900

Both on the continent and the British Isles, early modern law was characterised by hybridity, i.e. a complex amalgamation of various unlike elements, originating from a plurality of legal bodies. This complexity is not always fully recognised in the traditional scholarly approach to early modern law and even less when teaching legal history. The latter can to a certain extent be justified. In order to get to grips with the various sources of law of early modern jurisdictions and their mutual coherence it can be considered convenient to simplify matters. However, for young researchers in the field of legal history it is vitally important to be aware of the complexity of early modern law and the fact that legal concepts and sources were only raised to a higher level of unity when, in the nineteenth century, plurality of laws had to make way for common, national bodies of legal norms. The present volume displays a variety of case studies showing the full extent of the early modern complexity in the various European legal traditions, including the civilian tradition of the continent, English Common Law and the Nordic traditions. For their purpose the editors could have compiled existing studies, but instead they motivated a number of legal historians from all over Europe to write original contributions with the sole purpose of elucidating the complexity mentioned above. This provides the volume with an added value, particularly since the authors made the effort to critically reflect upon each other’s drafts. Moreover, the volume can be highly recommended due to the excellent, copious introductory chapter by the editors (9–34). It clearly describes the topic of the contributions in all its aspects and elucidates their coherence. Researchers, entering the field of earlymodern law, will find a considerable amount of useful information. Let us hope the editors will realise their intention of composing a second volume; this time dealingwith the era of codified law (26 n 82)whichwill elucidate the transition to modern national law and show to what extent this development put an end to the complexity of early modern law as displayed in the present volume.