Dissertation--Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät--Kiel--Christian-Albrechts-Universität, 1999. / Bibliogr. p. 171-187.

Dissertation--Rechtswissenschaft--Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, 1999. / Bibliogr. p. 245-256.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1969. / Vita. Typescript. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1966. / eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Univ., Diss.--Göttingen, 2000.

La présente étude a pour but d’exposer les spécificités du monachisme cistercien du Bas-Maine entre le XIIe et le XVe siècle au travers des exemples d’abbayes claravalliennes installées ou possessionnées dans cet espace de frange Il s’agit des abbayes de Clermont, Fontaine-Daniel, Rouez et Savigny. Les trois premières sont localisées dans le Maine et sont fondées par des barons entre la mi-XIIe et le début du XIIIe siècle. Un sort particulier est réservé à la dernière, Savigny, de par sa fondation précoce et son intégration à l’ordre cistercien en 1147, face aux autres abbayes créées par efflorescence. Le caractère conflictuel de la région (terrain d’oppositions régulières entre Angevins, Normands et Bretons), l’importance de l’érémitisme, y expliquent le retard de l’installation des moines cisterciens. Les critères de fondation d’une abbaye cistercienne sont passés en revue, tout comme l’ambiguïté de l’acte fondateur. La question des dépendances cisterciennes, au premier chef desquelles on relève le système des granges est évoqué tout comme les rapports de ces abbayes avec leur environnement humain (moines, convers, population, etc...) Enfin, l’auteur revient également sur l’empreinte laissée par les Cisterciens dans des domaines comme la mise en valeur de l’espace, le commerce ou l’usure. Chacun de ces éléments étant envisagé dans le cadre des principes des premiers Cisterciens et du rapport fonctionnel à la règle. / The present study’s aim is to present the specificities of Cistercian monasteries in the Lower Maine area between the 12th and 15ththe area i.e. the Abbey of Clermont, Fontaine-Daniel, Rouez et Savigny. The first three are located within the Maine province and were founded by barons between the mid-12ththat it was established earlier and became part of the Cistercian order in 1147, as opposed to the other abbeys which were formed through efflorescence. The relatively late establishment of Cistercian Monks in the lower Maine is due to the fact that the area was the setting of frequent confrontations between Angevins, Normand and Bretons as well as to large number of hermits during this time period. In this paper I will examine the criteria necessary for the establishment of Cistercian Abbeys as well as the ambiguity of the founding act. I will also deal with Cistercian properties, above all the farm system, as well as the relationship between the abbeys and their human environment (monks, lay brothers, the population etc). Lastly, the author will explore the traces left by the Cistercians in areas such as the usage and development of the land, commerce and usary. Each of these elements is examined within the framework of the principals of the first Cistercians and the functional relationship to the rule. century through examples of Claravallian abbeys located or owning property in

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) et Friedrich Carl von Savigny (1779-1861) ont été des contemporains, des compatriotes et des collègues à l'Université de Berlin, le premier y enseignant la philosophie du droit, le second y enseignant le droit romain. Mais ils ont aussi été des adversaires. C'est leur affrontement qui constitue le thème de la présente thèse. Un affrontement opposant le rationalisme de Hegel à l'historicisme de Savigny. Entre l'École spéculative du droit de Hegel et l'École historique du droit de Savigny, ce fut la guerre. En surface, c'est sur le front juridique que les deux adversaires ont livré bataille. À preuve, ces trois conflits: la Querelle de la réception, la Querelle de la possession, puis la Querelle de la codification. Toutefois, l'objectif de cette thèse est de montrer que la guerre entre Hegel et Savigny a été menée, d'abord et avant tout, sur le front politique. Face aux événements de leur temps - la Révolution française, l'Empire napoléonien, les Guerres de libération de 1813-1814, la Restauration, l'émergence du nationalisme allemand -, Hegel et Savigny ont adopté des positions complètement différentes. Face au contexte culturel de leur temps, - la diffusion d'une pensée contre-révolutionnaire héritée d'Edmund Burke (1729-1797) et la naissance d'un romantisme politique -, ils ont emprunté des voies complètement opposées. Leurs visions respectives de l'Allemagne en ce début du XIXe siècle étaient si divergentes que toute réconciliation entre le philosophe et le juriste fut impossible. / Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) and Friedrich Carl von Savigny (1779-1861) were contemporaries, fellow-countrymen and Berlin University colleagues, with Hegel teaching philosophy of law and Savigny teaching Roman law. However, they were adversaries. Their confrontation, setting Hegel's rationalism up against Savigny's historicism, constitutes the subject of the present thesis. Hegel's school of thought, speculative in its approach, and Savigny's Historical School of Law were at war. This state of strife was most manifest in the feuds pertaining to judiciary issues, as attested by the three disputes - Rezeptionsstreit, Besitzstreit and Kodificationsstreit - bearing respectively on reception (of Roman law), possession (of property) and codification (of law). However, the goal here is to show that this conflict's most significant theatre was the political front. Before the events of their time - the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Empire, the Wars of Liberation, the Restoration, emerging German nationalism -, Hegel and Savigny each adopted completely different positions. Indeed, in responding to the cultural context of the day - the dissemination of counter-revolutionary thought, whose source could be traced to Edmund Burke (1729-1797), and the political Romanticism which was then taking shape - each one followed an entirely opposite path. Their respective visions of early 19th-century Germany were so divergent as to render any reconciliation between the philosopher and the jurist inconceivable.

<p>According to Swedish contract law, a mistake in contract can be categorized as either an error concerning the content of the agreement or an error in motive. An error concerning the content of the agreement could be described as a divergence between a party’s intent and his declaration, while an error in motive is a mistake about the reasons why a party would like to agree to the contract. The borderline between these two types of mistakes is based on Savigny’s theories on echt (error in motive) and unecht (error in content) mistakes. </p><p>The law thus states a clear and specific borderline separating these two types of errors from each other. However, this borderline has not been upheld by the courts. Instead the courts, on numerous occasions (e.g. AD 98/1980, NJA 1939 s. 384 och NJA 1991 s. 509), have failed to correctly determine whether a mistake should be considered an error concerning the content or an error in motive. Most of the judgements are very unclear and have caused confusion among scholars and lawyers. </p><p>In this thesis, the leading cases with regard to the borderline are thoroughly analyzed. Further, three different ways of clarifying the borderline are identified, as well as examined. The thesis also discusses different theories on mistake in contract, particularly the relationship between 32 § avtalslagen and the doctrine of assumptions.</p>

According to Swedish contract law, a mistake in contract can be categorized as either an error concerning the content of the agreement or an error in motive. An error concerning the content of the agreement could be described as a divergence between a party’s intent and his declaration, while an error in motive is a mistake about the reasons why a party would like to agree to the contract. The borderline between these two types of mistakes is based on Savigny’s theories on echt (error in motive) and unecht (error in content) mistakes. The law thus states a clear and specific borderline separating these two types of errors from each other. However, this borderline has not been upheld by the courts. Instead the courts, on numerous occasions (e.g. AD 98/1980, NJA 1939 s. 384 och NJA 1991 s. 509), have failed to correctly determine whether a mistake should be considered an error concerning the content or an error in motive. Most of the judgements are very unclear and have caused confusion among scholars and lawyers. In this thesis, the leading cases with regard to the borderline are thoroughly analyzed. Further, three different ways of clarifying the borderline are identified, as well as examined. The thesis also discusses different theories on mistake in contract, particularly the relationship between 32 § avtalslagen and the doctrine of assumptions.

Diss.--Rechts- und wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät--Universität Bayreuth, Wintersemester 2002/2003. / Bibliogr. p. XI-LIII.