and agrarian servants worked as the main sources for regulating new types of labour relations. As has been pointed out, during the aftermath of the revolution of 1789, the tension between egalitarian contractual thinking and patriarchal theories on status was manifest in Western legal systems. It is true that many countries on the European continent created sophisticated civil codes or general contractual doctrines and deregulated the strict rules on trade, guilds and other obstacles to free labour markets. At the same time, however, they used the Poor Laws and administrative statutes to promote the development of these markets.“Order” and the disciplinary power of the employer were maintained, among other things, through a work-book system.This meant restrictions on the freedom of contract, especially regarding the termination of the contract since, in some cases the worker was obliged to continue to work until he had paid back all the advance wages paid to him by the employer. The common law countries, which were less influenced by Roman law, for a long time rejected a contractual approach to the relationship between “Master and Servant”. Under Blackstone’s guiding star, English writers and judges continued to regard this relationship as falling within the sphere of persons. The conceptualisation concerning the employment relationship developed case-by-case, and was characterised by reluctance to create a general definition of the relation.128 One reason for this almost total lack of a unitary English contractual theory might have been the historical legacy of the Ordinance and Statute of Labourers of 1349and1351and the Statute of Artificers of 1563. Another explanation is the absence of the technique of codification found in19th century Continental Europe.The casuistic approach was also compounded by the selective technique of the British Parliament when enacting protective legislation. Status, rather than any general concept of service, p a r t 1 i i , c h a p t e r 3 70 128 Kahn-Freund 1977, pp. 508-528;Vigneau 1997, pp. 124-125.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=