Could Continental Europe Adopt a Uniform Commercial Code Article 9-Type Secured Transactions System? The Effects of the Differing Legal Platforms

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract (may include machine translation)

With the entry into force of the Australian Personal Property Securities
Act 2009 (Cth) in 2012, the Unitary Model of secured transactions law
on personal property became part of the legal system of another major
economy of the world. Australia joined the United States of America (the
source-jurisdiction), Canada and New Zealand. Given the success of the
Unitary Model, it is natural to question whether a similar breakthrough is to
be expected in Europe as well. From a legal perspective, the key dilemma
is whether the Continental European civil law systems — the majority of
Europe’s jurisdictions — are compatible with the Unitary Model at all. This
depends to a great extent on the inherited yet differing legal platforms —
the concepts, principles and rules characteristic of common law or civil law
systems. This article aims to exemplify the discrepancies that might prove
to be obstacles to transplanting the Unitary Model and which still have not
yet been properly analysed in comparative scholarship
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)149-178
JournalAdelaide Law Review
Volume35
Issue number1
StatePublished - Jun 2015

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Could Continental Europe Adopt a Uniform Commercial Code Article 9-Type Secured Transactions System? The Effects of the Differing Legal Platforms'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this