This figure is the most stupid and one of the most problematic of Civil Cod, and as if that were not enough, again, is to blame bastanteeeee Manuel Augusto Olaechea. (See exegesis. Arias Sch. Pezet, D. Interests)
was drawn to merit very glaring by the mere fact of having introduced the legal fashion italica (Fernandez Cruz) the existence of a contract just meramentre effects "real" legal fiction without a livelihood, but that only a rationalist doctrine variant (Thomasius-Grotius) that seeks to undermine the jurisprudence of concepts ... but ultimately there is no permission or no will to accept. (Even the Germans in their own Dogmatik mean Jurik, trying to import figures in the land of Uncle Sam)
G. Gonzalez Barron-now vocal Superior Court of Lima, with full knowledge of the subject (D. Royal), HA Try explaining to LEGAL PEARLS (his colleagues from the PUCP) that simply CONSENT OF CREDITOR BE PERMITTED TO DISPOSE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THAT WHILE THE DAMN TRUE SALE GENERATES OBLIGATIONS, DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE WAY " ESTANKA "but that it operates as a function of the TRANSMISSION of the domain, in this way ... legal fiction of a contract with real effects, that: virtually "does not require a domain transmicion" (to say: FERNANDEZ CRUZ and civil ita cod. s. 1376.) wimp left in our legal-legal, in other words, our civil code accepted when it comes to CV contract (art. 1529) a generation of obligation "not estanka" but this is concretized with the fact of transmitting property, then of course, what the other side wants to tell us the code (art. 949) is that it establishes the Cosens as a "monent (or a" how ") which has the effect" but with caveat the total existence justified the obligation to "transfer title."
0 comments:
Post a Comment