and lodging. Among other things, the servant was obliged to perform all the tasks that the master reasonably ordered and to receive corporal chastisement with submissiveness, which meant that he or she was not allowed to offer resistance when the master executed this prerogative.The work must concern“lower” tasks that required more of physical than intellectual strength. Thus a teacher, inspector, bookkeeper or a clerk could not be a servant. Furthermore, the services had to be unspecified (operæ indeterminatæ), at least to some extent, and the term of the agreement had to be for a long time. The master was among other things obliged to supply the servant with sufficient food and suitable lodging. There was no doubt about that the servant was entitled to the entire salary, even if he or she could not perform the work due to illness.190 It seems to be clear that Schrevelius represented a traditional opinion concerning the master-servant relationship and the mutual, diffuse obligations of both parties. However, he also paid considerable attention to other types of labour contracts, which for formal reasons could not be classified as coming under the law of master and servant. He discussed a “general” service contract and placed it under the same heading as the master-servant relationship, namely “hiring of service” (locatio conductio operarum, Sw. tjänstelega). Within this general category Schrevelius found not only labour contracts with physicians, painters, teachers, musicians (operae liberales), but also contracts concerning manual work performed by daylabourers, (operae illiberales). Schrevelius noted that Swedish legislation on the whole lacked rules concerning this type of agreement. Instead, the applicable rules had to be derived from “the nature of things and prevalent custom as well as from the c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n t r ac t 91 190 Schrevelius Familjerätten, 1849, pp. 179, 168-188.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=