specific actions) are combined. This is also reflected in the law of contract. South African law and Scots law both applied the fertile approach of accepting the general principle of specific dy of the creditor but have derived thei more examples of this type of mixture and I think this is in particular where Scots law myp 2 exceptions to that principle from English law and very much to their benefit. There are ma serve as a fruitful model for the rest of Europe gain, I should add that in property law it is much more difficult to mix the principled approach and the approach of formulating specific actions. This is clearly shown by the confusion created by the House of lords in the well-known case of sharp v Thomson. 23It is generally held that the effort to import common law ideas by way of one case into a romanist structure of property law was something in which the House of lords did not succeed. David Carey Miller calls this the paradox of a mixed system in which, as he states, civilian principles live in not always safe coexistence with a form of legal rule controlled by case In the Principles of European Contract Law, the importance of combining principles and cases is often reflected as well. The principle on specific performance, for example, tries to mix the civil law principle and the common law exceptions, indeed having as a result that Scots law is well reflected in Article 9.102 PECL. One may say that the drafters of the PECL were in this respect fully exposed to evolutionary principles, although they did not know about it themselves 6. Two final remarks I want to make two final remarks. The first is concerned with a possible counterargument gainst my line of reasoning that evolutionary theory tells us something about how a legal system(be it Scots private law or European private law)will develop. The counterargument is that evolutionary theory only applies as long as there is the possibility of a free selection of rules. As soon as the European legislature decides to enact a European Civil Code, the argument is no longer valid because then we will have uniformity that has been created and that has not come about in a spontaneous way. I believe this is a false argument. Evolutionary theory tells us something about what is likely to happen, build ing on experiences in all kinds of disciplines. Action on the part of the legislator should be incorporated in this theory. This means that if Darwinian analysis pred icts that uniformity will not prevail, it also says something about the chances that any legislator actually comes up with uniform private law for Europe or about the chances of success of a European Civil Code(in the sense that it really creates uniform law in practice) Here, it is interesting to look at the evolutionary lesson that the more homogeneous the environment is, the fewer organisms will survive 25 There is poverty of species in the Sharp v. Thomson, 1997 SC(HL)66. Cf. Kenneth Reid, Property Law. Sources and Doctrine, in: Reid zimmermann, History of Private Lav in Scotland, Vol. 2, pp. 185, 196 for a listing of literature on this case See D.L. Carey Miller, Transferof Ownership, in: Reid Zimmermann, History of Private Law in Vol.2,pp.269, Jan M. Smits, The Harmonisation of Private La w in Europe: Some Insights from Evolutionary The Georgia JournalofInternational and Comparative Law 31(2002), pp 79, 908 specific actions) are combined. This is also reflected in the law of contract. South African law and Scots law both applied the fertile approach of accepting the general principle of specific performance (or implement) as the primary remedy of the creditor, but have derived their exceptions to that principle from English law and very much to their benefit. There are many more examples of this type of mixture and I think this is in particular where Scots law may serve as a fruitful model for the rest of Europe. Again, I should add that in property law it is much more difficult to mix the principled approach and the approach of formulating specific actions. This is clearly shown by the confusion created by the House of Lords in the well-known case of Sharp v Thomson. 23 It is generally held that the effort to import common law ideas by way of one case into a Romanist structure of property law was something in which the House of Lords did not succeed. David Carey Miller calls this the paradox of a mixed system in which, as he states, ‘civilian principles live in not always safe coexistence with a form of legal rule controlled by case law’.24 In the Principles of European Contract Law, the importance of combining principles and cases is often reflected as well. The principle on specific performance, for example, tries to mix the civil law principle and the common law exceptions, indeed having as a result that Scots law is well reflected in Article 9.102 PECL. One may say that the drafters of the PECL were in this respect fully exposed to evolutionary principles, although they did not know about it themselves. 6. Two final remarks I want to make two final remarks. The first is concerned with a possible counterargument against my line of reasoning that evolutionary theory tells us something about how a legal system (be it Scots private law or European private law) will develop. The counterargument is that evolutionary theory only applies as long as there is the possibility of a free selection of rules. As soon as the European legislature decides to enact a European Civil Code, the argument is no longer valid because then we will have uniformity that has been created and that has not come about in a spontaneous way. I believe this is a false argument. Evolutionary theory tells us something about what is likely to happen, building on experiences in all kinds of disciplines. Action on the part of the legislator should be incorporated in this theory. This means that if Darwinian analysis predicts that uniformity will not prevail, it also says something about the chances that any legislator actually comes up with uniform private law for Europe or about the chances of success of a European Civil Code (in the sense that it really creates uniform law in practice). Here, it is interesting to look at the evolutionary lesson that the more homogeneous the environment is, the fewer organisms will survive.25 There is poverty of species in the 23 Sharp v. Thomson, 1997 SC (HL) 66. Cf. Kenneth Reid, Property Law: Sources and Doctrine, in: Reid & Zimmermann, History of Private Law in Scotland, Vol. 2, pp. 185, 196 for a listing of literature on this case. 24 See D.L. Carey Miller, Transfer of Ownership, in: Reid & Zimmermann, History of Private Law in Scotland, Vol. 2, pp. 269, 303. 25 Jan M. Smits, The Harmonisation of Private La w in Europe: Some Insights from Evolutionary Theory, Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 31 (2002), pp. 79, 90