According to Supiot,Western legal conceptualisation about labour relations follows two different paths,namely theRomanistic and the Germanistic tradition.The Romanistic model emanates from the Roman institute locatio conductio, which dealt with contracts for the hiring of things, for example when a master allowed another person to decide over his slave.According to Supiot this model was transferred to modern society for the development of legal concepts concerning labour relationships. This transfer was aimed at eroding the established corporate organisation of society, in which the individual received competence in accordance with his or her status. Contractual thinking could empower the individual worker to negotiate about his own workforce. According to the old Germanistic tradition, the relationship between master and servant was of a personal,“ethical” kind, and was characterised by mutual fidelity, familiarity and loyalty. Supiot claims that the influence from both views - contractual thinking, which emphasises the individual’s free will, on the one hand and the pre-industrial, patriarchal theory on status, on the other - is to be found in all Western countries and even in EC law.58 Supiot’s thesis no doubt has several points in common with Folke Schmidt’s idea thatWinroth’s book in1878 marked a shift from a family law orientated analysis to a contract law orientated analysis of the master-servant relationship. Let us test their statements. The central issues of part II can be specified as follows. How did the Code of 1734 and David Nehrman treat the master-servant relationship? Did they bring about any changes in comparison with the previous rules? Did Nehrman consider the relationship as a branch of the law of persons or of family law? Did he base it on status or on contract? Did he omit making a distinction between the hiring of things and the hiring of services? How did he refer to Roman law and natural law respectively? c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n t r ac t 39 2 . 2 central i s sue s of part i i 58 Supiot 1994, pp. 13-38.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=