Vol. 2 No. 4 (2022), ARTICLES
Vol. 2 No. 4 (2022)

THE HISTORICAL PREREQUISITES OF THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND THE KOMMANDIT PARTNERSHIP

ARTICLES
Published 2022-09-29
Shakhnoza ERKABAEVA
Independent Researcher of Tashkent State Law University of Law (PhD) // E-mail: shakhnozaerkabaeva@yandex.ru
PDF (Русский)

Keywords

partnership, a limited partnership, a kommandit partnership, commenda, accomandita, agreement on a commenda, “community of a common hand”, a limited partner, a secret partnership.

Abstract

This article carefully analyzes the historical prerequisites for the formation and development of a limited partnership and a kommandit partnership. The purpose of this article is to comprehensively analyze the historical formation of the institution of partnership in different jurisdictions and to study their common and different aspects of historical development in the families of continental and common law. Moreover, the article presents a comparative legal analysis of the characteristics of the historical formation of a limited partnership and a kommandit partnership in accordance with the common and continental legal systems. The present article is based on the analysis of scientific opinions of scientists and the first legal acts regulating partnership relations by applying the retrospective method. The novelty of this article lies in the fact that it reflects a deep and unified analysis of the historical development of limited and limited partnerships, which can serve as a source for writing scientific papers in this field. Moreover, based on the sources studied and the analysis carried out, this article presents conclusions regarding the historical development of a limited partnership and a kommandit partnership in these two legal systems.

PDF (Русский)

References

1. William Gregory. Law of Agency and Partnership. - West Academic, 2001. – 725 p. [Electronic resource] is available at: https://www.bookdepository.com/Law-Agency-Partnership-William Gregory/9780314238580

2. Pierre Gervais. The legal protection of eighteenth-century merchant partnerships in England and France // Simon Midddleton et James E. Shaw (éds.), Market Ethics and Practices 1300-1850, Abingdon: Routledge. – 2018. - P. 166-183 URL: https://www.academia.edu/38430216/In_union_there_was_strength_The_legal_protection_of_eighteenth_century_merchant_partnerships_in_England_and_France Accessed: 25.03.2021

3. Townsend v Barker (1653) 82 English Reports 801.

4. The Legal Environment and Business Law: Executive MBA Edition (v. 1.0). - Creative Commons by-nc-sa 3.0 license, accessible on the web site as of December 29, 2012 and downloaded by Andy Schmitz. – 2185 p. [Electronic resource] is available at: https://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/the-legal-environment-and-business-law-executive-mba-edition/index.html.

5. Ulrike Malmendier. Societas publicanorum: staatliche Wirtschaftsaktivitäten in den Händen privater Unternehmer [Societas publicanorum: state economic activities in the hands of private entrepreneurs]. Böhlau Verlag Cologne, 2002, 189 p.

6. Henry Hansmann, Reinier Kraakman, Richard Squire. Law and the Rise of the Firm. - Harvard Law Review, 2006, no.5, Vol.119, 1334 p.

7. Jairus Banaji. Theory as History: Essays on Modes of Production and Exploitation, 2010. – P.262. URL: https://books.google.co.uz/books?id=St55DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA262&lpg=PA262&dq=jairus+banaji+Qirad+and+Mudaraba+institutions&source=bl&ots=ad_8Nntpmk&sig=ACfU3U3VJ8bY0FDjifeOTHiVBc0hBPETqw&hl=ru&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjt69fC1oDyAhUHAhAIHdoFCLIQ6AEwBHoECAwQAw#v=onepage&q=jairus%20banaji%20Qirad%20and%20Mudaraba%20institutions&f=false

8. Суханов Е.А. Сравнительное корпоративное право. Москва: Статут, 2014. – 464 с. (Sukhanov E.A. Comparative corporate law. Moscow: Statut, 2014.-464 s.)

9. Josseline Guyader, “Existait-il une doctrine commercialiste dans l’ancienne France? L’exemple des sociйtйs: titre IV de l’ordonnance sur le commerce de terre du 23 mars 1673,” Yves Poirmeur and Alain Bernard, eds., La doctrine juridique (Paris: PUF, 1993), 77–111. As with bankruptcy, creditors’ rights were weaker in France, since the original contract trumped them.

10. Lane v Williams et al. (1692/1693) 23 E.R. 779, 23 E.R. 789; also, Pinkney v Hall (1696) 91 E.R. 1013, 91 E.R. 118; Anonymous (1706) 88 E.R. 1441; Henry Browne and others v Richard Gibbins (1725) 2 E.R. 817; Smith v Baily (1726) 88 E.R. 114, 92 E.R. 464.

11. Andrew Burrows. English private law. - Oxford University Press, 2013. – 2561 p.

12. Азизов Х.Т. Тадбиркорлик (бизнес) ҳуқуқи. Дарслик. – Т.: ТДЮУ нашриёти, 2016. – 373 б. [Электрон манба]: http://files.tsul.uz/student/17.pdf