The Mistaken Doctrine of Common Law: A Critique

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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Nikodym Lukáš, Nikodym Tomáš, Pušová Tereza
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Sciendo 2016-09-01
Series:Danube
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1515/danb-2016-0011
id doaj-8f4d8f569e834f1fb489f2b2379ec74e
record_format Article
spelling doaj-8f4d8f569e834f1fb489f2b2379ec74e2021-09-05T20:42:41ZengSciendoDanube1804-82852016-09-017317318110.1515/danb-2016-0011danb-2016-0011The Mistaken Doctrine of Common Law: A CritiqueNikodym Lukáš0Nikodym Tomáš1Pušová Tereza2University of Economics in Prague, Department of Economic History, nám. W. Churchilla 4, 130 67 Praha 3, Czech RepublicUniversity of Economics in Prague, Department of Economic History, nám. W. Churchilla 4, 130 67 Praha 3, Czech RepublicUniversity of Economics in Prague, Department of Economic History, nám. W. Churchilla 4, 130 67 Praha 3, Czech RepublicThe 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.https://doi.org/10.1515/danb-2016-0011common lawroman lawbusiness cyclescontractslaw of bailment
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Nikodym Lukáš
Nikodym Tomáš
Pušová Tereza
spellingShingle Nikodym Lukáš
Nikodym Tomáš
Pušová Tereza
The Mistaken Doctrine of Common Law: A Critique
Danube
common law
roman law
business cycles
contracts
law of bailment
author_facet Nikodym Lukáš
Nikodym Tomáš
Pušová Tereza
author_sort Nikodym Lukáš
title The Mistaken Doctrine of Common Law: A Critique
title_short The Mistaken Doctrine of Common Law: A Critique
title_full The Mistaken Doctrine of Common Law: A Critique
title_fullStr The Mistaken Doctrine of Common Law: A Critique
title_full_unstemmed The Mistaken Doctrine of Common Law: A Critique
title_sort mistaken doctrine of common law: a critique
publisher Sciendo
series Danube
issn 1804-8285
publishDate 2016-09-01
description 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.
topic common law
roman law
business cycles
contracts
law of bailment
url https://doi.org/10.1515/danb-2016-0011
work_keys_str_mv AT nikodymlukas themistakendoctrineofcommonlawacritique
AT nikodymtomas themistakendoctrineofcommonlawacritique
AT pusovatereza themistakendoctrineofcommonlawacritique
AT nikodymlukas mistakendoctrineofcommonlawacritique
AT nikodymtomas mistakendoctrineofcommonlawacritique
AT pusovatereza mistakendoctrineofcommonlawacritique
_version_ 1717785312961232896