Анали Правног факултета у Београду

252

АНАЛИ ПРАВНОГ ФАКУЛТЕТА

ров или по другим, предусмотренным законом, основаниям. В статье автор исходит из убеждения, что нельзя считать, что источник обязательств должен покоиться на законе, а следует считать, что он покоиться на определенных фактах по нормам объективного права, достаточных для возникновения обязательства. С другой стороны, договор не следует понимать в качестве источника обязательства, независимого от закона в смысле теории автономии воли, а в качестве законом предусмотренного факта, из которого возникает обязательство. Наконец, в статье автор отстаивает точку зрения, по которой в современное разделение источников обязательств не следовало бы включать квазидоговоры и квазипреступления, ибо данные понятия в современном праве являются бесполезными и ненужными. SUMMARY Theory of sources of contracts Multitude of juridical facts from which contracts origin, was since the time of roman law, subject for the systematic division which has theorical and practical importance. From the character of sources, or in other words, from juridical facts from which a contract origins, depends the character of a contract as well as the contents and the juridical regime applied to it. Theory of sources of contracts, was especialy developed during the last centary, but in our times it attracts in undiminished wac the attention of many authors. Very different oppinions were expressed, starting from a simple reproduction of what has already been said, throught some modifications of existing divisions, and up to some new conclusions, and according to some authors the whole question is anaysed from a juridical and sociological poin of view. But in saying so, it is necessary to notice that behind different ways of exposing a subject and behind different use of expressions by various authors, lies the same idea common to them and the same division of sources. Nevertheless from the multitude of suggested solutions, we can isolate the basic tendency and classify the authors according to the following standards: these who with more or lesse faithfulness accept the division of the sources of contracts according to the Justinian law with notions of quasi contracts and quasi delicts: authors that see in the law the immediate source of some contracts: authors according to which the sources of contracts are in treaties and in law: authors that see the sources of contracts in the juridical acts and other juridical facts: authors according to which contracts origin from treaties or other basis anticipated by law. In the article is sustained the oppinion that the source of contracts can not be reduced to law, but to determined facts, that according to norms of objective law, are apt to create contracts. On the other hand, treaty should not be understood as the source of contract independently from the law, in the sence of the theory of autonomy of will, but as a fact anticipated by law from which contracts origin. Finały, the sustained position in the article is, that the current division of the sources of contracts should not include the quasi contracts and quasi delicts, as these concepts in the contemporary law became useless and unnecessary. RÉSUMÉ Théorie relative aux sources des obligations La multitude des faits juridiques dont découlent les obligations était encore depuis le droit romain l'objet d’une division systématique qui est d’une importance théorique et pratique. Du caractère des sources c’est-à-dire