235 redemption right was severely limited and so only the seller’s ascendants and descendants and his siblings and their children were left with the redemption right. Valuation was banned; the relative had to redeem the land at the same price that a buyer had already paid. In the law of 1734 the obligation to advertise at the local court was put expressly on the buyer. This limited hördsrätt was abolished completely in 1863. The decree of 1720 had been preceded bv a 100-year debate m which there were three main points under discussion: a) Howwould the relatives of the seller be informed of the sale? b) What price should the relative pay? c) Which relatives had the redemption right? a) During the first half of the 17th century criticism was directed at the advertising of the sale of land at the local court; the systemwas seen as being ineffective fromtbe pubhcitv point of view and demands were made that the seller should directly inform at least his closest relatives. However, no change was made in the law and in various proposals fromthe 18th century it was the seller who was obliged to advertise and this then became the case in the law of 1734. b) The question as to whether the relative should redeem the land according to valuation or at the price a buyer had already offered had also been discussed greatlv during the 17th and the beginning of the 18th century and in effect, this was the key question in the whole discussion regarding birth right (prerequisites for this debate were that an agreement between seller and buyer had normally been reached and that the valuation price was lower than the market price). The Roval Council, for example, debated the question m 1642 and among other things they put forward as an argument for valuation that hördsrätt would become illusory if land could be sold at the highest price and that high prices would lead to “luxury and prodigality”. As arguments in favour of the market price it was put forward that — complete dominion over the land demanded that the owner be allowed to sell to whom he wished and at the best price — a person in debt and his creditors would be particularly affected if he was not allowed to sell part of his land at the highest possible price — it was unreasonable to rule that there should be a fixed price on land when one’s goods could be sold at the best price possible. In the Law Commission which was appointed in 1686 and which eventually produced the law of 1734 opinions were overwhelmingly in favour of a change to the use of market price when redeeming land and this became the case in 1720. c)Before 1720 it was not so much how large the group of relatives entitled to redeem the land should be that was debated but certain special problems which perhaps did not have great practical significance but which throw light on the understanding of the kinship system. There was the principle of '‘’paterrui pater-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=