{"title":"考虑到已有的以μίσθωσις的地皮","authors":"W. Kaiser","doi":"10.1515/zrgr-2022-0014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article discusses the question how a μίσθωσις of properties can become binding for the parties according to the greco-egyptian documents. It tries to show that Hans Julius Wolff’s teaching of the „Zweckverfügung“ is not sustainable for the conclusion of a μίσθωσις of properties. Instead of modifying this teaching (Behrend, Herrmann and Kränzlein), which is not indicated by the documents, the μίσθωσις of properties in the greco-egyptian documents can also be seen as a binding contract, and its liability is based on the consensus of the parties.","PeriodicalId":23880,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Romanistische Abteilung","volume":"49 1","pages":"391 - 409"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Überlegungen zum Vertragsschluss bei einer μίσθωσις über Grundstücke\",\"authors\":\"W. Kaiser\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/zrgr-2022-0014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The article discusses the question how a μίσθωσις of properties can become binding for the parties according to the greco-egyptian documents. It tries to show that Hans Julius Wolff’s teaching of the „Zweckverfügung“ is not sustainable for the conclusion of a μίσθωσις of properties. Instead of modifying this teaching (Behrend, Herrmann and Kränzlein), which is not indicated by the documents, the μίσθωσις of properties in the greco-egyptian documents can also be seen as a binding contract, and its liability is based on the consensus of the parties.\",\"PeriodicalId\":23880,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Romanistische Abteilung\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"391 - 409\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Romanistische Abteilung\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/zrgr-2022-0014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Romanistische Abteilung","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zrgr-2022-0014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
摘要本文讨论了根据希腊-埃及文献,一种μ σθωσις属性是如何对当事人产生约束力的问题。它试图表明,汉斯·朱利叶斯·沃尔夫的“zweckverfgung”教学对于μ σθωσις性质的结论是不可持续的。希腊-埃及文献中对财产的μ σθωσις的规定也可以看作是一种有约束力的合同,其责任建立在当事人协商一致的基础上,而不是修改这一教义(Behrend, Herrmann and Kränzlein),这是文献中没有表明的。
Überlegungen zum Vertragsschluss bei einer μίσθωσις über Grundstücke
Abstract The article discusses the question how a μίσθωσις of properties can become binding for the parties according to the greco-egyptian documents. It tries to show that Hans Julius Wolff’s teaching of the „Zweckverfügung“ is not sustainable for the conclusion of a μίσθωσις of properties. Instead of modifying this teaching (Behrend, Herrmann and Kränzlein), which is not indicated by the documents, the μίσθωσις of properties in the greco-egyptian documents can also be seen as a binding contract, and its liability is based on the consensus of the parties.