Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/184514 
Year of Publication: 
2016
Citation: 
[Journal:] DANUBE: Law, Economics and Social Issues Review [ISSN:] 1804-8285 [Volume:] 7 [Issue:] 3 [Publisher:] De Gruyter [Place:] Warsaw [Year:] 2016 [Pages:] 173-181
Publisher: 
De Gruyter, Warsaw
Abstract: 
The study deals with Huerta de Soto's thesis about the "mistaken doctrine of common law", which is based on the equalization of depositum irregulare and mutuum contracts. He concluded that equalization of these contracts resulted in the creation of business cycles. According to this study, Huerta de Soto made a mistake when considering contracts inspired by the continental law based on Roman law. The study shows that mutuum was even in Roman law an ancient contract that was not codified, and that Huerta de Soto's interpretation of this contract in the Anglo-American legal system is based more on civil law, not on common law as he stated in his work. Finally, the problem of common law did not lie in the equalization of the mentioned contracts, but rather in the absence of depositum irregulare contracts applied to monetary questions.
Subjects: 
Common Law
Roman Law
Business Cycles
Contracts
Law of Bailment
Persistent Identifier of the first edition: 
Creative Commons License: 
cc-by-nc-nd Logo
Document Type: 
Article

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.