trines of law that lack support in positive law? To Hägerström, the explanation of this doctrine is that the legal theorists have confused duty with the fact that an act or omission is demanded by the state.305 When the doctrine of illegality is transferred to both property and tort law, then its dependency on the idea that the lawful use of legal force necessarily must be preceded by the erring party’s violation of a legal claim, becomes manifestly obvious.306The supporting argument is that every violation of a command by the state constitutes what is called “normvidrighet” (literally: normadversity), and when this construction shows itself to contradict facts, the doctrine takes its refuge in the idea of “objektiv normvidrighet” (literally: objective norm-adversity), according to which a person through no fault of his own, may be regarded as if he had violated a command or a norm - for example, if a person in good faith possesses the rightful owner’s property and the possessor is ruled against at the trial and is forced to part with the disputed object then the possessor is considered to have committed a wrong.The explanation is that the use of force against the possessor in good faith can only be justified by reference to a wrong committed by him, albeit a highly abstract objective and fictive wrong:307 p a r t v i , c h a p t e r 6 474 305 Hägerström, Objektiva rättens begrepp, pp. 143-144;“The Notion of Law,” pp. 228-229. 306 Hägerström, Objektiva rättens begrepp, pp. 144-145;“The Notion of Law,” pp. 228-230. 307 Hägerström, Objektiva rättens begrepp, p. 144; “The Notion of Law,” p. 228. 6 . 3. 2 private law; prope rty law and tort law in part icular “Precisely the same holds good of the interpretation which is often given,on the basis of the imperative-theory, of the duty of indemnification. Considered as a legal reaction against a previous injury to another person, it must be interpreted as arising from a previous infringement of a legal demand or from an illegal action.The necessary consequence is that at least culpa must have existed on the part of the injurer. Now this conflicts with the positive content of the law. (E.g., the obligation to pay damages for an injury done by an irresponsible person, or the similar obligation on the part of a railway-company in certain cases in spite
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=