DIFFERENT DEGREES OF CONVERGENCE A Comparison of Tort Law(Example Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services)and Property Law(1) Sjef van Erp(Maastricht University)(2) Readers are reminded that this work is protected by copyright While they are free to use the ideas expressed in it, they may not copy, distribute or publish the work or part of it, in any form, printed, electronic or otherwise, except for reasonable quoting, clearly indicating the source. Readers are permitted to make copies, electronically or printed, for personal and classroom use Contents I What is convergence? II Tort law: Fairchild v glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd Ill Property law IV Concluding remark I What is convergence? The topic of convergence as such cannot even superficially be discussed within the limits given to me. What I intend to offer are some thoughts about convergence and apply these to tort law and the law of property in a broad sense(including personal and real property law) In Europe the word 'convergence' is most frequently used when comparative lawyers discuss the coming together of European continental civil law and non-continental common law. The civil law systems are those which are influenced by roman legal thinking and comprise the french German and Scandinavian legal traditions. When the common law is referred to, usually English or American common law is meant. We tend to forget that the common law is not only the legal system of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but also the legal system of the Irish Republic and that it constitutes a major part of the mixed legal system of Scotland. The main differences etween civil law and common law have been described so often that there is no need to describe them again. The only difference relevant to what follows next is the role of the judge. In the ommon law, the judge leads developments in the law and thus has great authority, whereas academic writers are seen rather as those who follow the law. In civil law systems, their position is different. Of course judges also have authority in civil law systems, but less than in common law systems, whereas academics are involved in developing the law and not only in commenting upon e.g., individual cases. I do realise, of course, that in both civil law and common law, statutory law is of enormous importance. Nevertheless, the role of the judge is an important characteristic of the mentality or culture of a particular legal system. (3)DIFFERENT DEGREES OF CONVERGENCE: A Comparison of Tort Law (Example: Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services) and Property Law(1) Sjef van Erp (Maastricht University)(2) Readers are reminded that this work is protected by copyright. While they are free to use the ideas expressed in it, they may not copy, distribute or publish the work or part of it, in any form, printed, electronic or otherwise, except for reasonable quoting, clearly indicating the source. Readers are permitted to make copies, electronically or printed, for personal and classroom use. Contents I What is 'convergence'? II Tort law: Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd. III Property law IV Concluding remarks Notes I What is 'convergence'? The topic of convergence as such cannot even superficially be discussed within the limits given to me. What I intend to offer are some thoughts about convergence and apply these to tort law and the law of property in a broad sense (including personal and real property law). In Europe the word 'convergence' is most frequently used when comparative lawyers discuss the coming together of European continental civil law and non-continental common law. The 'civil law' systems are those which are influenced by Roman legal thinking and comprise the French, German and Scandinavian legal traditions. When the 'common law' is referred to, usually English or American common law is meant. We tend to forget that the common law is not only the legal system of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but also the legal system of the Irish Republic and that it constitutes a major part of the mixed legal system of Scotland. The main differences between civil law and common law have been described so often that there is no need to describe them again. The only difference relevant to what follows next is the role of the judge. In the common law, the judge leads developments in the law and thus has great authority, whereas academic writers are seen rather as those who follow the law. In civil law systems, their position is different. Of course judges also have authority in civil law systems, but less than in common law systems, whereas academics are involved in developing the law and not only in commenting upon, e.g., individual cases. I do realise, of course, that in both civil law and common law, statutory law is of enormous importance. Nevertheless, the role of the judge is an important characteristic of the mentality or culture of a particular legal system.(3)