available rules concerning particular types of hiring of services, as far as they are of a more general usefulness”.191 Obviously, Schrevelius was now hunting for general principles of law that could be applied to the new types of labour contracts which did not fit into the master-servant concept. First among such transferable natural principles he pointed out the duty of obedience.The working party had a far-reaching and open-ended obligation to fulfil all “reasonable” tasks that the master required him to do, unless the parties had explicitly made another agreement. Another principle was that the worker should and could remain at his or her service for a stipulated time. On the other hand, in contrast to master-servant relationships, the “nature of things” did not imply that the free worker should get his remuneration if he or she became ill or disabled. In this matter, however, Schrevelius was rather unclear and stated that the rule had its exceptions and modifications.192 Schrevelius’ analysis allows different ways of understanding what he really meant. It is evident that he placed the “traditional” master-servant relationship within family law, at the same time as he admitted that its foundation was a contract on letting and hiring.When discussing other relationships concerning work - which he no doubt whatsoever classified as objects of the law of obligations - he presupposed that the legal consequences of these free contracts were, due to the “nature of things”, partly the same as those of the paternal relationship between master and servant. This analogous application of implied terms however primarily concerned the worker’s unspecified duty of obedience.The paying party’s natural obligations rather tended to be uncertain or decreasing. p a r t 1 i i , c h a p t e r 3 92 191 “…dels af sakens natur och allmän praxis, dels af de särskilda bestämmelser, som finnas, angående vissa arter af sådan tjenstelega, för så vidt de samma äro af en mera allmän användbarhet…”. Schrevelius Förmögenhetsrätten, II 1847, pp. 551-554; See also Schrevelius 1872, pp. 195-196. Peterson, C1984, p. 60. 192 Schrevelius Förmögenhetsrätten, II, 1847, p. 554.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=