Specification in the Civil Law

Lorenzen, Ernest G.

doi:10.2307/789534

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(Zhang (2020(Zhang ( ): 2383 In the present paper we assume the same indiscriminate stance. More on the doctrine of specificatio see: Lorenzen (1925); Stein (1972). 68 As we argue in another paper, the criminal aspect of the case considered by Block has a crucial bearing on its solution.…”

Section: /25mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12 For example, if A, reasonably supposing that he is dyeing his own wool, mistakenly mixes his dye with B's wool, then under the principle of accession, assuming that B's wool is more prominently connected with the dyed wool than A's dye and labor (due to, say, its higher value or due to the fact that it persists through changes of color as the same substance), 13 ownership of the dyed wool will be assigned to B, although he will have to compensate A for his dye and labor. 14 Now what is important about this solution is that B acquires property rights to the resulting product not on the basis of homesteading (the wool was owned by B at the beginning of the entire process and it persisted as the same substance through subsequent changes of color), production (B's wool was mixed with another's labor and dye, not with B's own), voluntary transfer (A mistakenly mixed his labor and dye with B's wool and thus did not transfer his title to B) or rectification of injustice (A acted in good faith and improved B's property beyond anything he could (1985): 41.1.7-9;Blackstone (2016), Chapter 26: 6;Merrill (2009); Lorenzen (1925); Zhang (2020).…”

Section: /25mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accession, Property Acquisition, and Libertarianism

Dominiak

2024

Diametros

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present paper we argue that besides four traditional methods of property acquisition – that is, homesteading, production, voluntary transfer and rectification of injustice – libertarianism also recognizes a fifth method, namely the method of accession. We contend that not only have some libertarian scholars implicitly embraced the accession principle, but also that if libertarianism wants to distribute exclusive ownership to indivisible things produced from inputs supplied by two or more parties without running into conflict with its own principles of justice, it has to recognize accession as the fifth mode of appropriation. As the main thesis of the paper goes against the received view concerning the very core of libertarianism, that is, its methods of property acquisition, the text indicates some new developments within the libertarian theory of justice.

show abstract

Section: /25mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: /25mentioning

confidence: 99%

Accession, Property Acquisition, and Libertarianism

Dominiak

2024

Diametros

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…22 A general exposition of the doctrine of accession is offered, inter alia, by Merrill (2009), Lorenzen (1925), Stein (1972), Barker (1983), Zhang (2020), Wood (1721, p. 111-117). On fraudulent accession see, for example, Silsbury v. McCoon, 3 N. Y.…”

Section: Walter Block's Case Against the Doctrine Of Unjust Enrichmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unjust Enrichment And Libertarianism

Dominiak

2022

Polish Political Science Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present paper takes on the question of whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment is compatible with libertarianism. Despite Walter Block’s recent arguments to the contrary, the paper argues that unless a gain is received in accordance with the libertarian principles of justice, it is without a basis and thus unjust. This fact alone proves that the concept of unjust enrichment is compatible with libertarianism. Besides, even though it is true — as Block claims — that forcing the recipient of an unjust gain to return it or pay for it involves positive duties and is therefore incompatible with libertarianism, the present paper argues that the practical consequences of this fact would be negligible, for compensatory schemes would develop on the free market anyway in justice-preserving steps.

show abstract

Proceeds of Crime, Punishment, and Libertarianism

Dominiak

2023

AFPiFS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In his recent publication, Walter Block claims that disgorgement of indirect proceeds of crime is incompatible with libertarianism. The present paper argues that Block’s claim is incorrect. In support of this position two general arguments are offered. The first one builds on the distinction between restitution and punishment, showing that forfeiture of assets derived indirectly from crime would not – contra Block – result in unequal punishment under retributive justice. The second one refers to libertarian principles of distributive justice and demonstrates that indirect proceeds of crime are owned by the aggrieved parties. Put together, these arguments conclusively show that the idea that indirect proceeds of crime should be forfeited is compatible with libertarianism.

show abstract

Specification in the Civil Law

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Accession, Property Acquisition, and Libertarianism

Accession, Property Acquisition, and Libertarianism

Unjust Enrichment And Libertarianism

Proceeds of Crime, Punishment, and Libertarianism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About