[unity1001]

> Contracts apparently don't exist in civil law

This does sound like insincere debate. Where does in my comments it says that contracts dont exist in civil law. It says civil law is not BASED on contracts, agreeements and precedents. The common law is.

And no, the complications that are so beautifully and 'respectably' named in the common law dont exist in civil law. The law is always clear - if something is not covered by an immediate law, it is covered by a broader law that affects those cases.

[w7]

Do we have a different understanding of the word "rely"?

You didn't even use the word "BASED".

When you say:

> It does not rely on agreements, contracts, negotiations or precedents.

Why would they exist conceptually if they're not relied upon?

They're obviously relied upon when.. something related to contracts is in dispute.

[unity1001]

> You didn't even use the word "BASED".

What?!

> The common law derives from the medieval !Anglosaxon! feudal law, which is based on contracts, agreements, negotiations and precedents

This is the !very first! statement of the opening paragraph of my comment. Why are you saying that I have not said it. Have you not read the actual comment?

> Why would they exist conceptually if they're not relied upon?

Why would they be relied upon if they exist, even further, why would they be the basis of the actual law?

In civil law, the law always supersedes anything else, including any agreement that any party makes among themselves. The agreements, contracts that parties makes in between themselves cannot affect the law and its decrees in any way, and actually any contract itself must be made precisely as how the law outlines them to be made and what permits them to have. To put it in historic terms, in civil law contracts exist because the law says they can exist and tells precisely how will they exist and to what extent, whereas in common law the contractual agreements that the parties made among themselves all the way going back to Magna Carta are the basis of the entire body of law - with Magna Carta being a contractual agreement in itself.

...

Also, regarding the below comment of yours:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36205790

I will respond to that comment here because HN rate limits me, making any productive discussion totally infeasible, which is why I almost totally stopped participating on this platform. Seeing how it makes actual discussions impossible, I should altogether stop participating here. But here goes the reply:

> the paper probably isn't what you were hoping for.

The term exists, its an important term in history, political science, diplomacy for a very long while, the very Cambridge university uses it itself. At this point you should be aware that even you would be able to find many references using the term. So dont sweat it. The rest of the world is not going to stop using it just because you people have a beef with some country that uses it.

...

At this point, seeing that you have claimed that I said various things I have not said and also claimed that I didnt say things that are the very first things that I said, I have no other option but to conclude that you are an insincere debater. Which concludes our discussion since I will spare both of us of a potential unproductive discussion by disengaging...

[w7]

> This is the !very first! statement of the opening paragraph of my comment. Why are you saying that I have not said it. Have you not read the actual comment?

> Why would they be relied upon if they exist, even further, why would they be the basis of the actual law?

I said you didn't use it in the statement describing civil law.

I didn't bother tackling "common law is based ..." because frankly if I tackled every inaccuracy in your statements, I'd be here all day.

You were opining on the merits of civil law, by describing an "ideal" model of system which doesn't exist in any of the countries you've mentioned.

You attempted to exclude principles, which even if they don't exist in the same form, that are still present in those other country's judicial apparatus-- just with different weights and state supervisory organs.

> I will respond to that comment here because HN rate limits me, making any productive discussion totally infeasible, which is why I almost totally stopped participating on this platform. Seeing how it makes actual discussions impossible, I should altogether stop participating here. But here goes the reply:

The site is actually having problems at the moment for many, including me, you're likely not being targeted specifically-- unless you're getting an explicit error indicating so.

> The term exists, its an important term in history, political science, diplomacy for a very long while, the very Cambridge university uses it itself. At this point you should be aware that even you would be able to find many references using the term. So dont sweat it. The rest of the world is not going to stop using it just because you people have a beef with some country that uses it.

They used it to describe how it goes un-used, outside of France in this specific instance, don't misrepresent the article.

> At this point, seeing that you have claimed that I said various things I have not said and also claimed that I didnt say things that are the very first things that I said, I have no other option but to conclude that you are an insincere debater. Which concludes our discussion since I will spare both of us of a potential unproductive discussion by disengaging...

Where? Don't blame me for your inability to articulate.