c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n t r ac t 173 353 Maine 1931 (1861). See also Adlercreutz, A1954, pp. 27-28, 143-154. 354 Atiyah 1979, p. 523; Fox, 1974;Veneziani 1986; Supiot 1994;Vigneau 1997. 355 Undén1932, p. 30; Schmidt, F1957, p. 205; Geijer & Schmidt 1958, pp. 130, 338, 347; Edlund 1974; Sigeman 1977, p. 203; Rimsten 1998, pp. 189-206. 356 Dahlman1954, pp. 1-20; Geijer & Schmidt 1958, pp. 125-126; Prop. 1973:129, p. 118; Sigeman1977, pp. 203-204;Adlercreutz,A1994, p.60:Rimsten1998, pp. 189-191, 208. 357 Sigeman1977, p. 206; Sigeman1978; Sigeman1984, pp. 880-881;Malmberg 1997, pp. 373-375, 383-385; Fahlbeck2002, pp. 99, 128; Malmberg 2002, p. 191. See also Geijer & Schmidt, 1958, p. 140. vance, by some kind of pre-contractual terms, which lay beyond the reach of the parties to the contract.As has been described in Part I, a general movement from status to contract was predicted by Henry Maine353 but this thesis has been questioned when it comes to labour law, by among many others,Atiyah, Fox and Veneziani.354 The official approach of the Swedish Labour Court that started its work in 1929 was to do no more than just lay down already established general principles of law. Consequently, the judges’ function was considered to be a purely theoretical one, in which values did not play an important role.There was always a complete answer before every dispute.355 However, it is quite obvious, and today undisputed, that the justices of the labour court from the very beginning saw it as its task to “make” law. Its ambition has not been to work like an arbitrary board that solves disputes case by case, but on the contrary to follow distinct lines. Consequently the court has been strongly bound by its own decisions.356 The predominant opinion among Swedish authors seems to be that the case law of the labour court during 1929-1934 in several important matters must be regarded as pronouncedly favourable to the employers. Concerning the duty of obedience the labour court has consequently favoured solutions that mean a broadened duty to work.357 The lawmaking decisions around 1930, however were hardly motivated at all.Apparently the court regarded it as unnecessary to give references to any kind of accepted legal sources. Sigeman writes that the important rule in case 1929:29 - which laid down
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=