work for poor people as being derived from the family’s “natural” duty to take care of and impose work upon its members.226 A more pronounced support for Savigny’s and Schrevelius’ conception has been found only in the writings of Carl Olof Delldén (1800-1854). He was, among other things, professor of constitutional law, public international law and ecclesiastical law at Uppsala University. In1826 he published one of the few scholarly comments on the law committee’s proposal for a Civil Code. Delldén wrote that the rights and duties of the master-servant relationship could not totally be derived from the legal contract which was their “external foundation”, since they were much more dependent on “internal circumstances and circumstances derived from ethical foundations”.227 Our study so far has shown that the characterisation of labour relations as being objects of family law was not representative of a predominant - or even common - Swedish opinion before Winroth. On the contrary it represented a deviation from the mainstream. Furthermore, Schrevelius’ inclination for family law was just a small part of his treatment of labour relations and of marginal significance for his analysis. Thus, there is no doubt, that the most common opinion among legal writers was to analyse the traditional master-servant relationship as well as new types of labour relationships from contractual points of departure.At the same time, there is no doubt that the scholars and writers considered these service contracts to be strongly flavoured with ingredients which also characterised status familiæ and the relationship between parents and children. Among these features were inequality between the parties, the c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n t r ac t 105 3. 9 summary conce rning “the most common op inion” be fore winroth 226 Bergfalk 1833, p. 5. 227 Delldén 1826, p. 83.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=