c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n t r ac t 119 majority of the Supreme Court in 1836 - was to repeat, again and again, that annual contracts were necessary to preserve the master’s superior position. Legislation should continue to focus on the ambition of protecting the agricultural sector and domestic work by promoting a legal obligation to work and long standing labour relationships.Another method - represented for example by the majority of the law committee of 1811, the law-drafting board of 1841, Justice Stråle and the parliament in 1830 - aimed at extending the formal application of the master-servant rules to new types of working agreements, in particular shortterm contracts. It can be questioned which opinion was conservative and which was liberal.The representatives of the former participants rather seem to have buried their heads in the sand, by claiming that the majority of Swedish workers should be forced to agree to long-time contracts.The latter can be interpreted as an effort to place patriarchal control on new groups of skilled labourers by extending the formal application of master-servant rules. One author, remarkably enough Schrevelius, sketched out a third alternative, founded on the nature of things, prevalent custom and an analogous application of selected rules concerning hiring of services. But the situation was very unclear and there was no predominant Swedish opinion on the issue in question. We have seen that Winroth, like the vast majority of previous Swedish 19th century scholars took a contractual approach to working relationships, at the same time as they emphasised the significance of predetermined components in such contracts, particularly inequality, ethical elements and the worker’s subordination. However, these authors in general had shown a positivistic attitude by referring to administrative and criminal law legislation as the foundation for the familiar components of labour 4. 3. 2 winroth - a breaktrough of mode rn thinking about contract law?
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=