ring for the purpose ot dniwing ;iny of his eo\erts. It A condiicred himself e\er so ohnoxiousK’ Towards B or others, there would he no means of getting rid of his presence, and he would real!)’ he more the master of the propertv, for sporting purposes, than B himself. B, therefore, \ irtuallx' savs-".\s long as vou continue to hunt this countr\- to the satisfaction of the hunt, including mvself. \(Hi mav draw mv co\erts, and, at all e\ents, until I gi\e vou notice to the contrary." And such is reallv the understanding e\er\ vvhere, tlutugh much more strong in self-supporting hunts than in suhscription ones.*' rhere is a clear message. Some imporranr issues, invoh ing hmdamental issues at those who are concerned with them should he outside of the scope of state law. .A final conclusion and suggestion is that there should be a medianism to keep in re\ iew possible changes in the law. I'he function of such a boch’ should he at least two-fold. First, as noted in chapter when interpretation in different countries varies, it could suggest, without an\' appeal made to it, the interpretation that it considered most suitable. Second, when as a result of perceit ed needs, the law begins to e\ ol\ e far hevond anv original purpose of a provision, then it could suggest changes. 1 ha\e in mind, machiner\’ to deal with such as the emerging and une.xpected functions of niiDicipntio in ancient Rome, of the uses of article 1384 of the French cii il code for the notion of things under one's guard and for article iiio on error as to substance. Fhe bod\' should also be bound to clarih' the meaning and purpose of a pro\ ision such as article ii;i on the nature of 'cause' in contract. 48 p. 110. 178
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=