tended to overlap.What path did Swedish legal thinking follow? During the 19th century, Swedish legal science was not only professionalised, in the sense that a law degree was demanded for judges and several categories of civil servants. It was also specialised, in the sense that the written works of legal scholars tended to focus on strictly demarcated areas of law.183 We will now examine what points in common there might appear between the historical school’s analysis of labour relations and the attitude of the Swedish scholars and lawmakers during the period 1800-1885. The issue is of special interest considering the conventional view that Swedish legal science during the 19th century followed the German example with a delay of some decades. Swedish legal historians, in particular Claes Peterson and Thomas Adlercreutz184 have noted that several jurists of the 19th century discussed the tricky question how to analyse and regulate the new types of labour agreements which tended to replace the established relationship between master and servant, called tjänstehjonsförhållandet. One central issue concerned to which legal area, family law or contract law, the old as well as the new labour relationship should be assigned. Closely related to this issue we find the question of what rules from the regulation of the traditional relationship should be applied to the new types of “free” labour contracts. The starting point of this study is Folke Schmidt’s assertion that the most common opinion among Swedish scholars before Alfred OssianWinroth published his book in 1878 was to classify the master-servant relationship as a branch of family law, not the law of obligations.According to Schmidt, the most important representative of this common opinion was Fredrik Schrevelius.185 c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n t r ac t 89 3. 8 swedi sh op inions be fore winroth 183 Björne 1998, pp. 3-4. 184 Peterson, C1982; Peterson, C1984;Adlercreutz,T1971, pp. 96-106; See also Adlercreutz,A1954; Sundell 1987; Göransson 1988. 185 Schmidt, F 1959, pp. 12-13; Geijer & Schmidt F 1958, p. 340.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=