On
the System of Commingling Incarnated in the Roman Law and in the Civil Code of
China *
School of Law – Xiamen University
SOMMARIO: 1. Introduction. – 2. Consensual commingling. – 3. Non-consensual
commingling. – 4. Proculian and
Sabinian pay attention to different commingling. 5. The Problem of Tracing in Roman Law. – 6. – The provisions on commingling in the Civil Code of
China.
1. – Introduction
There are two words in Latin that indicate the system
of commingling in the modern Civil Code. The first one is confusio, it
means mingling of liquids or metals belonging to different owners which are in
the same genus[1]. The second one is commistio, it refers to the
mixing of solid objects belonging to different owners that are in same genus[2]. In
fact, with the technology at that time, it was possible to mix liquids with
solids, but Roman jurists did not mentioned this situation[3]. Of
course, under modern technological conditions, it is possible to mix gases with
liquids, as in the case of making sodas. Mixing between gases, such as oxygen
and helium, may also occur. Therefore, the system of mingling in modern world
is more broadly than that in the Roman world.
In the Digest of Justinian, the mingling system is
stipulated in two places, include Book 6 about rei vindicatio, and Book
41 about the way of acquire ownership, it belongs a mode of accessio.
This arrangement reveals the duality of the mingling system. In the first case,
mingling sometimes occurs as a result of an infringement of others ownership,
so it needs a rei vindicatio to protect the dominium ex iure
Quiritium. On the other hand, because mixing sometimes leads to a change of
ownership of the participant objects, sometimes mingling can also be considered
as a way of acquiring ownership. In fact, regardless of the form of mingling,
there are only two reasons why it occurs, one is with the consent of the
parties, This situation is generally found in commercial law ; and the other is
the opposite, It is generally found in tort law.
2. – Consensual
commingling
Consensual commingling is the situation in which the
parties agreed to mix their fungibles things, Gaius has a lot of research in
this area[4].
D. 41.1.7.8 (Gaius libro secundo rerum
cottidianarum sive aureorum): Voluntas duorum dominorum miscentium materias
commune totum corpus efficit, sive eiusdem generis sint materiae, veluti vina
miscuerunt vel argentum conflaverunt, sive diversae, veluti si alius vinum
contulerit alius mel, vel alius aurum alius argentum: quamvis et mulsi et
electri novi corporis sit species.
When two owners willingly mix their goods, the
resultant whole is their common property, whether those goods be of the same
kind, as when wines are mixed, or bars of silver worked together, or different,
as when one contributes wine and the other honey or one gold and the other
silver; this, despite the fact that the mead or the alloy has a new identity[5].
This fragment seems to be about the investors who mix
their objects for forming a partnership for economic purpose. The first is that
two or more investors forming a partnership with the same material, for
example, wines belong to different owners are mixed in order to open a pub, or
silver belongs to different owners are melt together for opening a jewelry
store. The next situation is about two or more investors forming a partnership
with different materials to produce a new product, such as one contributes wine
and the other honey, then they produced the mead that serves as a healthy drink
in Roman world, or one gold and the other silver, fuse them together to produce
an electrum (it contains 1/5 of silver, 4/5 of gold)[6]. In the strict sense, it constitutes a kind of specificatio
in the case of mingling different materials, because new thing are created. It
should be noted that the mead and the electrums in this fragment means
finished products. In the former case, the grapes used by the Romans to make
wine were not as good as today's hybrid grapes with modern technology, as a
result, the wine has a bitter taste and honey can improve the taste. In the
daily life of the Romans, mead was also used as medicine to cure diseases[7]. In
terms of the latter, electrum can be used as a coinage material, making
it harder and more durable than pure gold, It can also be used as a dressing
for the spires of obelisks[8].
In addition to partnerships result in consensual
commingling, the following situations also lead to consensual commingling.
1. The mixed storage and transportation of fungible
things. There were two kinds of freight in ancient Rome, the first situation is
that the consignors packaged their objects separately in their own container,
then handed them over to the carrier for transportation. In this case, these
objects still belong to consignors, if the ship foundered and their objects are
destroyed, then the consignor can sue the carrier for vindicatio or actio
furti. Another case is, the objects for transportation were fungible thing,
and were handed over to the carrier in order that they become his immediately,
he had the objects belonging to different owners commingled for convenience. confusio
occurs in the case in which the objects for transportation are liquid, such as
olive oil and wine. commistio occurs in the case in which the objects
for transportation are solid, such as wheat. Once the ship arrives at the port
of destination, the carrier delivers the same quantity of objects to the
consignee as the consignors delivered to the carrier[9]. The
mixed storage and transportation of fungible thing is a system of Roman
maritime law, which brings a lot of convenience to the three parties of the
transport contract.
2. Depositum irregulare. This means a deposit
of money or other fungibles wherein the depository had to return to the bailors
not the same things, but the same quantity (tantundem) of money or
things[10]. These objects from different bailors are mixed
together, the depository acquires the ownership of them.
3. The commingling of coins (nummus). A deposit
of an amount of money (coins) in a sealed bag is a normal depositum. But
if different customers deposit their money in the bank, this situation is
similar to depositum irregulare. Such deposits usually make with bankers
who assumed the custody of the money[11]. But the
commingling of coins can also happen by accident[12].
4. Mutuum. Roman banks could reserve and loan
not only coins, but also grain, wine, and oil. When they loan this kind of
objects, this loan is named as “crediti in natura”. When different
customers reserve their grain, wine and oil in a bank, these objects’
commingling happened[13].
The characteristic of a consensual commingling is that
the transfer of ownership, no one takes tort or stealing responsibility for
commingling.
3. – Non-consensual
commingling
Non-consensual commingling is the mixing of solid or
liquid objects belonging to different persons caused by infringement or even
theft. Such as a thief who has stolen some of my bottles of wine and poured
them into his own vat to prevent me from finding them, then they were
intermixed by chance, and not by the intention of the proprietors (I. 2.1.27)[14].
Sextus Pomponius (flourished in the middle of the 2nd
century) had lots of discusses about this topic. The scholars after him have
always cited his words when discussing this issue proves his authority. Ulpian
and Paulus relayed his views when they discussing the case of ferruminatio.
D. 6.1.3.2 (Ulpianus libro 16 ad
edictum): Pomponius scribit, si quid quod eiusdem naturae est ita
confusum est atque commixtum, ut deduci et separari non possint, non totum sed
pro parte esse vindicandum. Ut puta meum et tuum argentum in massam redactum
est: erit nobis commune, et unusquisque pro rata ponderis quod in massa habemus
vindicabimus, etsi incertum sit, quantum quisque ponderis in massa habet.
Pomponius writes that if substances
of the same nature are so joined and mixed together that they cannot be
detached and separated, the vindicatio should not be for the whole but
for a part. Suppose that my silver and yours have been reduced into one mass;
it will be owned by us in common, and each of us may vindicate a portion based
on the weight of our share, even though it be uncertain how much in weight each
of our shares actually is.
D. 6.1.4 (Paulus libro 21 ad edictum):
Quo quidem casu etiam communi dividundo agi poterit: sed et furti et ad
exhibendum tenebitur, qui dolo malo confundendum id argentum curavit: ita ut in
ad exhibendum actione pretii ratio haberi debeat, in vindicatione vel communi
dividundo actione hoc amplius ferat, cuius argentum pretiosius fuerat.
In that case the action for dividing common property
can also be brought. Anyone who fraudulently arranged for
the mixing of the silver will be liable to an action for theft and to an
action for production. Just as in the action for production, account must be
taken of the market price, so in a vindicatio or action for dividing
common property, it is the party whose silver was more valuable who receives
the greater amount[15].
These two fragments above-cited were about dealing
with a fusion of fungible things, concretely speaking ,the confusio of
the silver of different owners, that can be divided into two types of
situation. The first one is non-consensual commingling,
original owners who passively involved in confusio can bring the action
of vindicatio pro parte. In this process what he demand is not the
original object that has took part in confusio, but the its substitution
of the same kind and amount. If the original owners who passively involved in confusio
were uncertain his share, he could bring the action of vindicatio incertae
partis. In this process the plaintiff cannot prove his share, and the
amount awarded to him should depend on the decision of the judge, then the
maker of confusio may suffer a lots in the cases. If the cause for
non-consensual commingling is theft, the original owners who passively involved
in confusio can bring the actio furti or actio ad exhibendum.
The choose of actio furti is the result of the failure to bring a vindicatio,
since the original object is no longer recovery, the original owner can bring
an actio furti to punish the defendant. The theft could be divided into
two kinds, furtum manifestum and furtum nec manifestum. The
penalty for furtum manifestum is quadruple the value of the thing
stolen, that for furtum nec manifestum is double (I. 4.1.5)[16]. The actio
ad exhibendum usually served as a prelude of binging the action of rei
vindicatio, the plaintiff firstly ask the defendant to exhibit the thing
that he want to be restituted, if the defendant do it, the plaintiff might sue
the defendant afterwards for recovery of it. if the defendant not do it, the
plaintiff might ask the defendant to compensate his loss in the actio ad
exhibendum[17]. Therefore, Paulus said that it must be taken
consideration of the value of the thing in actio ad exhibendum. The
second situation is consensual commingling, it makes the new thing as an object
of common property. The method of dissolution of the communio is bring
an actio communi dividundo, the shares of participants of commingling
are not equal, but divide new thing in proportion to the contribution of each
participant.
Ulpian then paraphrased the words of Pomponius about
the commingling of different species.
D. 6.1.5.1 (Ulpianus libro 16 ad
edictum): Idem scribit, si ex melle meo, vino tuo factum sit mulsum,
quosdam existimasse id quoque communicari: sed puto verius, ut et ipse
significat, eius potius esse qui fecit, quoniam suam speciem pristinam non
continet. Sed si plumbum cum argento mixtum sit, quia deduci possit, nec
communicabitur nec communi dividundo agetur, quia separari potest: agetur autem
in rem actio. Sed si deduci, inquit, non possit, ut puta si aes et aurum mixtum
fuerit, pro parte esse vindicandum: nec quaquam erit dicendum, quod in mulso
dictum est, quia utraque materia etsi confusa manet tamen.
Again, he writes: «If mead is made from my honey and
your wine, some jurists have held that it also is common property». I consider,
however, as he himself suggests, that it belongs rather to
the maker, since it does not retain its previous character. But if lead is
mixed with silver, as it can be detached, the mixture will not become common,
and because separation is possible, there will be no action for dividing common
property; an action in rem may, however, be brought. If detachments not
possible, for example, if bronze and gold have been mixed, he states that a vindicatio
should be brought for a portion. What was said in regard to mead will not
apply here since, although they are joined together, each substance still
retains its character[18].
The Ulpian talked about three kind of fusion of the
things with different substance in the fragment: (1) wine mixed with honey; (2)
lead fused with silver, then they become niello, it is an alloy of silver,
lead, copper and sulfur that is used to make metal mosaic; (3) bronze fused
with gold, then they form an alloy of gold and copper, often used to make gold
coins. For the second and third case, there is not dispute among jurists, in
these two cases the object is reducible to its constituent parts and therefore
does not form a communio, there is also no basis for actio communi
dividundo. But for the first case, the new thing can not be reducible to
its constituent parts, so there is a dispute among jurists about its
appropriation. Pomponius and Ulpian think that the mead should belong to the
maker, then the maker shall compensate the owner of the material for their
loss. Other jurists hold that it also is an object of common property, this
viewpoint is the result of the ignorance the difference between the accessio
and the specificatio by the classical jurists[19]. It is
not unusual for this situation, because it was the work of the medieval jurists
to make specificatio independent of
other forms of accessio, including commingling.
However, Pomponius and Ulpian are at a high level and have distinguished
between specificatio and commingling, because
they say, the mead’s components have definitively lost their previous
character.
Ulpian finally paraphrased the view of Pomponius about
commixtio.
D. 6.1.5pr. (Ulpianus libro 16 ad
edictum): Idem Pomponius scribit: si frumentum duorum non voluntate eorum
confusum sit, competit singulis in rem actio in id, in quantum paret in illo
acervo suum cuiusque esse: quod si voluntate eorum commixta sunt, tunc
communicata videbuntur et erit communi dividundo actio.
Pomponius also writes: «If corn belonging to two
parties has been mixed together without their consent, they each have an action
in rem for as much of the heap as appears to be respectively theirs. If,
however, the lots were mixed together with their consent, they will be deemed
to have become common and there will be an action for dividing common property»[20].
This fragment also divides commixtio into two
situations: consensual one and non-consensual one. In the former case, the
participant who passively involved in commixtio has an actio in rem
for his quota. In the latter case, there is a communio among the
participants of commixtio.They can bring actio communi dividundo
for ending this communio.
For the above discussion, Pietro Bonfante concluded
that, under Roman Law, confusio and commistio do not leads to a
getting or losing of ownership, but or leads a rei vindicatio pro parte
to each of the owners, if objects were separable, or leads an actio communi
dividundo, if objects were inseparable[21]. For
this reason, all the sources about commingling above-cited situated in the Book
6 about rei vindicatio in the Digest, not in the Book 41 about the way of acquiring ownership. The reason of this
arrangement is that the Roman jurists of the classical period understood
primarily the system of commingling as a method of protecting ownership.
4. – Proculian and
Sabinian pay attention to different commingling
Gaius and Pomponius were contemporaries, why they pay
attention to different commingling? In my opinion, the reason is that these two
jurists have different emphases in their thoughts. Gaius and his Sabinian
school paid more attention to the positive role of consensual commingling in
commercial law, while Pomponius and his Proculian school paid more attention to
the destructive role of non-consensual commingling.
The Proculians and the Sabinians each showed their
influence in the Justinian’s legislation. Justinian collected Pomponius’s words
about commingling in his Digest, and adopted Gaius’s position to the
commingling in his Institutes, juxtaposing commingling with the progeny of
animals, alluvio, avulsio, insula in flumine nata,
alveus derelictus, specificatio, intexere, inaedificatio,
implantatio, scriptura, pictura and fructus. Therefor
the treatment to commingling in the Justinian’s Institutes contains a conflict
between substance and nominative, because it’s “substance” saying that
commingling leads to communio, namely not leads to a getting or losing
of ownership, but the title of this “substance” is the way of acquire
ownership. This position to commingling as a way of acquiring ownership has a
great influence to the schoolarship, all of modern researchers of the way of
acquiring ownership study commingling in this framework[22].
Moreover, almost all of modern civil codes stipulated the system of commingling
within the framework of the way of acquiring ownership.
5.
– The Problem of Tracing in Roman Law
Although The Oxford Companion to Law puts the concept
of commingling and tracing as the system of equity, we can find out the figure
of actio de in rem verso in the text of entry on "tracing" in
the Companion. According to the action, the slave’s owner, who has gotten a
benefit from the peculium of the slave, must be liable to the trade
counterparty of the slave to the extent of such benefit[23]. A lawsuit brought by the trade counterparty against
the slave’s owner is a tracing to the value of the responsible property. In
addition, as mentioned by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), the property of the spouses
become commingled together as a result of the marriage[24]. According to Roman law, the dotis brought
into the husband's home by the wife should be commingled with the husband's
property, its ownership belongs to the wife, and its right of management
belongs to the husband. After the divorce, the husband should return the dotis
to the wife in three installments within three years[25]. In this situation the things of dotis, such
as most of movables, usually has transformed or changed hands and could not be
return to the wife in their original condition. The wife's claim to return of
the substitution of the things of dotis is also a kind of tracing for
value. Third, the tracing is also involved in the system of collatio bonorum.
Collatio bonorum is a system according
to which the value of special gift received by the heir's children should be
added to the total hereditas and deducted from the share of the receiver
of above-said gift[26]. The process of collatio bonorum is the
process of tracing the whereabouts of gifts expended from an hereditas.
Fourth, according to Roman law, when strangers are named as heir, they have the
deliberandi potestas, but, if one intermeddles with the administration
of the inheritance, they do not have the right to abstaining from the
succession[27]. One way to intervene in the administration of the hereditas
is to commingle one's property with the hereditas. Fifth, there is the
actio Pauliana in Roman law, which gives the creditor's right of revocation
debtor's fraudulent transfer of property for avoiding execution of the
bankruptcy law. If the money paid could be traced to the recipient's property
after bringing the action, the praetor will order it to be returned[28]. Finally, according to the rules adopted by
Justinian, an adrogator inherits only the adoptee's positive property,
but not his debts. When the adoptive son's creditors collect the debt, the
adoptive father may choose to pay the debt on behalf of the son. If he refuses,
such creditors may take possession of the property brought into the adoptive
father's family by the adoptive son and deal with them in the bankruptcy
proceedings. This process is not other but tracing the adoptive son's property
commingled with the adoptive father's property[29]. These six examples testify the existence of the
system of commingling and tracing in Roman law, which apply respectively to
bankruptcy law, family law, inheritance law and adoption laws (but the
commingling in inheritance laws is not dealt with tracing). Thus, the article
53 of the Ottoman Civil Code, which is based on Roman law, concludes like this:
If the original object perished, the right to it is turn to its substitute
object. Therefore,, if the property could not be restituted, the substitute
shall be restituted[30]. Using the substitute object to cover the loss of the
original thing is nothing but tracing. In modern times, English law has
institutionalized the rules about the commingling and the tracing in Roman law,
and firstly do it in bankruptcy law.
6.
– The provisions on commingling in the Civil Code of China
Three articles of the Civil Code of China, promulgated
on 28 May 2020, provide for the system of commingling. The first is article
322, which states: Where there is an agreement on the attribution of the
property arising from processing, adjunction, or commingling, such an agreement
shall prevail; in the absence of such an agreement or if such an agreement is
ambiguous, the ownership shall be determined in accordance with the provisions
of laws; if it is not provided for by laws, the ownership shall be determined
under the principles of maximum use of the property and protection of innocent
parties. If one party's fault or the determination of attribution of the
property has caused any damage to the other party, compensation shall be made[31]. This article provides firstly for consensual
commingling and secondly for non-consensual commingling,
that is, commingling due to an accident or the infringement of one of the
parties. Then stipulated the treatment of the commingling, requiring that when
the new thing belongs to one contributor, he is obligated to compensate the
other contributor. If damage is caused, it should be compensated. The second is
paragraph 2 of the article 758 on the fate of the leased property after the
termination of the financial lease contract：When the parties agree that the leased property
belongs to the lessor at the expiry of the lease term, if the lessee is unable
to return the leased property because it is damaged, lost, attached to, or
incorporated into another property, the lessor shall have the right to request
the lessee to make reasonable compensation[32]. This paragraph stipulates the extended effectiveness
of the lessor’ security interest when the leased object becomes part of other objects
due to adjunction, commingling, represents the
commercial law aspect of the commingling system, while the article 322
represents more the civil law aspect of the commingling system. The last one is
the article 901, it says: If the custodian keeps the currency, it may return
the currency of the same type and quantity; if it keeps other substitutes, it
may return the same type, quality, and quantity of goods as agreed[33]. This article does not contain the word “commingling”,
but contains the substance of mixed storage and the Depositum irregulare.
In my opinion, the paragraph 2 of the article 758 has
made a mistake, because the object of financial lease contract can not be
commingled. Only the fungible thing can be commingled, but the object of
financial lease contract always are non-fungible things or specialized fungible
things.
[1] See Adolf
Berger, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law, Philadelphia: The
American Philosophical Society, 1991, 407.
[2] Adolf Berger,
Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law, cit., 399.
[3] Cfr. Jacobus Perrenod, Dissertatio juridica inauguralis de accessione industriali, Lugduni Batavorum 1735, 23.
[4] But Gaius was also concerned with no-consensual
commingling in D. 41.1.7.9 in which he said: The same holds good, even if this
should happen without the consent of the two owners, whether of different or of
similar materials. English- Language Translation Edited by Alan Watson, The
Digest of Justinian, Volume 4, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985, 3.
[5] English- Language Translation Edited by Alan Watson, The
Digest of Justinian, Volume 4, cit., 3.
[6] Cfr. Giovanni Voet, Commento alle Pandette, Versione italiana curata
da Antonio Bazzarini, Vol. V,
Venezia 1839, 407.
[7] See Natural History (Rackham, Jones, &
Eichholz)/Book 22.24, last modified September 1, 2020. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Natural_
History_(Rackham,_Jones,_%26_Eichholz)/Book_22
[8] See wikipedia, “electrum”, last modified September 12, 2020. https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%90% A5%E7%8F%80%E9%87%91
[9] D. 19.2.31. English- Language Translation Edited by
Alan Watson, The Digest of Justinian, Volume 2, University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1985, 109.
[10] Adolf Berger,
Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law, cit., 432.
[11] Adolf Berger,
Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law, cit., 432.
[12] D. 46.3,78. JAVOLENUS, From Cassius, book 11:
Should another's coins be paid, without the knowledge or volition of their
owner, they remain the property of him to whom they belonged; should they have
been mixed, it is written in the books of Gaius [Cassius Longinus] that should
the blending be such that they cannot be identified, they become the property
of the recipient so that their [former] owner acquires an action for theft
against the man who gave them. See English- Language Translation Edited by Alan
Watson, The Digest of Justinian, Volume 4, cit., 228. This source means
the buyer (emptor) pays with other people’s coins to the seller (venditor).
The seller blend these coins with his own money, then the owner of coins evictio
the seller. In this case, coins are blending that they cannot be identified, so
the seller shall return the same kind and amount of coins. The reason for this
is that Cassius believes that money can be consumed in use. Once coins are paid
to sellers, they become the property of the recipient, the original object does
not exist. But the former owner acquires an action for theft against the buyer.
[13] According to Gai. 4.66: The set-off against the
argentarius can only be for things of the same genus and nature, such as
money instead money, wheat instead wheat, wine instead wine. Gaius, Emil
Seckel, “Gai Institutiones ediderunt E. Seckel et B. Kuebler”, in aedibus B.G.
Teubneri, 1968, 219.
[14] The Institutes of Justinian, with English Introduction, Translation, and Notes by Thomas
Collett Sandars, M. A., Chicago: Callaghan & Company, 1876, 172.
[15] See English- Language
Translation Edited by Alan Watson, The Digest of Justinian, Volume 1,
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985, 201.
[16] The Institutes of Justinian, with English Introduction, Translation, and Notes by Thomas
Collett Sandars, cit., 483.
[17] Adolf Berger,
Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law, cit., 463.
[18] See English- Language Translation Edited by Alan
Watson, The Digest of Justinian, Volume 1, cit., 202.
[19] See Anna Plisecka,
Accessio and Specificatio Reconsidered, in Tijdschrift voor
Rechtsgeschiedenis 74, 2006, 49.
[20] See English- Language Translation Edited by Alan
Watson, The Digest of Justinian, Volume 1, cit., 202.
[21] Pietro Bonfante, Istituzioni di Diritto Romano, Milano, Giuffrè Editore, 1987, 220.
[22] Cfr. Pasquale Voci, Modi di acquisto della proprietà (Corso di Diritto romano), Milano, Giuffrè, 1952, 266 s. Enrico dell'Aquila, L'acquisto della proprietà per accessione, unione, commistione e specificazione, Milano, Giuffrè, 1979, 266.
[23] See Li Fei,
The Historical Reality of Actio de in Rem Verso in Roman Law and its
Evolution in Modern Law, and also discusses the unification of translated terms,
in Roman Law and Modern Civil Law Vol. 8, 2014, 45.
[24] See Hugo Grotius,
The Introduction to Dutch Jurisprudence of Hugo Grotius, Now First
Rendered into English by Charles Herbert, London: John Van Voorst, Paternoster
Row., 1845, 108 s.
[25] See Zhou Nan,
The Doctrine of Roman Law, The Commercial Press, Beijing 1994, 198.
[26] See Long Yifei
– Dou Dongchen, The
Application of the System of Inheritance Deduction in China, in Journal
of Law Application Vol. 5, 2016, 62.
[27] I. 2.19.5. The Institutes of Justinian, With
English Introduction, Translation, and Notes by Thomas Collett Sandars, M. A.,
cit., 293.
[28] See Max Radin,
Fraudulent Conveyances at Roman Law, in Virginia Law Review Vol.
18, No. 2, 1931, 116.
[29] I. 3.10.3. The Institutes of Justinian , With
English Introduction, Translation, and Notes by Thomas Collett Sandars, M. A.,
cit., 390.
[30] See Ottoman Civil Code, translated by Wang
Yongbao, The Commercial Press, Beijing 2018, 8.
[31] See pkulaw.com, “Civil Code of the People's Republic
of China”, Last modified November 24, 2021.
https://pkulaw.com/en_law/aa00daaeb5a4fe4ebdfb.html
[32] See pkulaw.com, “Civil Code of the People's Republic
of China”, Last modified November 24, 2021.
https://pkulaw.com/en_law/aa00daaeb5a4fe4ebdfb.html
[33] See pkulaw.com, “Civil Code of the People's Republic of China”, Last modified November 24, 2021. https://pkulaw.com/en_law/aa00daaeb5a4fe4ebdfb.html