the continent of Europe, the French Revolution led to an abolishment of the feudal system by the National Assembly in the night of 4 August 1789. As one historian wrote When the deputies awoke on the morning of 5 August, they found that they had abolished most of the central social institutions of France. At a blow, these things had become the ancien regime. It was to be the work of the revolution to decide how to replace them. (15) The feudal system not only was one of the central social institutions, it was also the basis of property relationships relating to land. When the French Civil Code was enacted, the ensuing vacuum was filled and the foundations were laid for the modern law of property as it can now be found in continental legal systems. A unitary system of property law was created. The summa divisio of property law no longer was the distinction between real property law and personal property law, but was replaced by a summa divisio of relative rights and absolute rights, in other words, the law of obligations and the law of property as such. The number of absolute rights was limited to the so-called numerus clausus of absolute rights. Ownership became the most absolute right one could have, all other absolute rights were inferior rights. The rules of property law applied, as a matter of principle, irrespective of the object concerned. Some differences remained, e.g. in regard to the way delivery takes place. The transfer of an immovable demands a different way of delivery than transfer of a movable or a claim. These developments did not take place in England, nor, until recently, in the mixed legal system of Scotland (16) English land law remains, at least on a technical level, rooted in the old feudal system. The concepts of tenure and estate ave survived. Especially the concept of estate is a pivotal concept in English land law. From a continental perspective it can be described as a relative (or fragmented) form of ownership of which the content(including the duration) depends upon the relationship with other people who also claim to have rights in the same piece of land. Furthermore, estates can exist at common law and in equity. This does not mean that in English law none of the continental developments can be found. To give an example, after the Law of Property Act 1925, which in Section I limits the estates, interests and charges at common law, it could be argued that in regard to estates at common law there is now a numerus clausus. i will come back to this below Of course it has to be said that the above summary of differences between the civil and common law of property is superficial. Yet, it gives some indication of the differences between the two legal systems. To what degree, however, are these differences so deep and so fundamental that convergence might be impossible? Although, from a technical point of view, there seems to be an enormous gap, at the level of principles and policies the gap is narrower than it might seem. Far more comparative research will have to be done than has been done so far. (17)Let me submit some points which show that the gap certainly is not a great divide In spite of the non-existence in the common law of the distinction between relative and absolute rights, a distinction is made between contractual rights and property rights(rights against the world). In both civil law and common law, a leading principle is that a contract cannot bind third arties( the doctrine of privity of contract). Exceptions apply when the contract relates to land or goods, but legal systems will still be extremely careful in regard to accepting that third parties can e burdened by a contract that they did not agree to. From a civil law viewpoint, a remarkable exception to the privity of contract doctrine can be found in English common law. When a contractthe continent of Europe, the French Revolution led to an abolishment of the feudal system by the National Assembly in the night of 4 August 1789. As one historian wrote: When the deputies awoke on the morning of 5 August, they found that they had abolished most of the central social institutions of France. At a blow, these things had become the Ancien Regime. It was to be the work of the Revolution to decide how to replace them.(15) The feudal system not only was one of the central social institutions, it was also the basis of property relationships relating to land. When the French Civil Code was enacted, the ensuing vacuum was filled and the foundations were laid for the modern law of property as it can now be found in continental legal systems. A unitary system of property law was created. The summa divisio of property law no longer was the distinction between real property law and personal property law, but was replaced by a summa divisio of relative rights and absolute rights, in other words, the law of obligations and the law of property as such. The number of absolute rights was limited to the so-called numerus clausus of absolute rights. Ownership became the most absolute right one could have; all other absolute rights were inferior rights. The rules of property law applied, as a matter of principle, irrespective of the object concerned. Some differences remained, e.g. in regard to the way delivery takes place. The transfer of an immovable demands a different way of delivery than transfer of a movable or a claim. These developments did not take place in England, nor, until recently, in the mixed legal system of Scotland.(16) English land law remains, at least on a technical level, rooted in the old feudal system. The concepts of tenure and estate have survived. Especially the concept of estate is a pivotal concept in English land law. From a continental perspective it can be described as a relative (or fragmented) form of ownership of which the content (including the duration) depends upon the relationship with other people who also claim to have rights in the same piece of land. Furthermore, estates can exist at common law and in equity. This does not mean that in English law none of the continental developments can be found. To give an example, after the Law of Property Act 1925, which in Section 1 limits the estates, interests and charges at common law, it could be argued that in regard to estates at common law there is now a numerus clausus. I will come back to this below. Of course it has to be said that the above summary of differences between the civil and common law of property is superficial. Yet, it gives some indication of the differences between the two legal systems. To what degree, however, are these differences so deep and so fundamental that convergence might be impossible? Although, from a technical point of view, there seems to be an enormous gap, at the level of principles and policies the gap is narrower than it might seem. Far more comparative research will have to be done than has been done so far.(17) Let me submit some points which show that the gap certainly is not a great divide. In spite of the non-existence in the common law of the distinction between relative and absolute rights, a distinction is made between contractual rights and property rights (rights against the world). In both civil law and common law, a leading principle is that a contract cannot bind third parties (the doctrine of privity of contract). Exceptions apply when the contract relates to land or goods, but legal systems will still be extremely careful in regard to accepting that third parties can be burdened by a contract that they did not agree to. From a civil law viewpoint, a remarkable exception to the privity of contract doctrine can be found in English common law. When a contract