The theoretical framework this paper presupposes is that uniformity of law in most of the cases cannot be created by just the imposition of rules in a centralist way. Private law is-at least to some extent- more than just rules and could at least to some degree be considered as part of a national legal culture. Would this be different, there would not be a need to assess any organic evolution of legal norms, other than the evolution of legislation itself law would then be nothing but a positivist artefact of some Sovereign. Moreover, it would not be a question anymore whether it is possible to predict the extent of uniformity that can be created in the future because this would then follow automatically from the famous "berichtigende Worte des gesetzgebers". Two different claims are immanent in this presupposition The first one is that the mere drafting and enacting of" Principles'"of European private law does not in itself lead to uniformity. Private law is to a certain extent harmonisation resistant even when confronted with centrally imposed rules. To which extent this is the case, is a question this paper intends to shine a brighter light on. Too radical however is the contention of Pierre Legrand that legal systems(.) have not been converging, are not converging and will not be converging. Legrand's idea of law as entirely embedded in the society and culture of a specific country has not been recognised as insight Moreover, Legrand's idea of comparative law would by many comparative lawyers not be recognised as falling within the limits of that discipline at all. F H. Lawson for example once stated that comparative law is in itself bound to be superficial"; linking law to other societal and cultural phenomena of a specific country would be impossible The second claim I implicitly make, is that a greater extent of legal uniformity than exists right now is possible, but should to a large extent come about in an organic way. This opens up a whole variety of research themes, related to other disciplines than the law and aiming at the study of cases where organic, spontaneous, orders have originated through evolution and not by creation. I previously defended that the best way of unification of law in Europe would be through a competition of legal rules. In transplanting legal rules from one country to another on a market of legal culture, the best legal rule for Europe may survive. This does not automatically imply that any rule glorifies in some instances, diversity of law may be just as good as uniformity as long as there is a free movement of legal rules, at least creating the possibility of legal change Some of the questions this theory presents us with( When will uniformity prevail? Which rule is the best to survive? Is that rule the result of a race to the bottom or not? are there differences in 5 An elaboration of this framework can be found in JAN SMITS. THE MAKING OF EUROPEAN PRIVATE LAW (2002) For the most outspoken defence of this thesis, see PIERRE LEGRAND, LE DROIT COMPARE (1999) As has been investigated by R.C. Clark, The Morphogenesis of Subchapter C: An Essay in Statutory Evolution and Reform, 87 YALE L.J. 90(1977) and R.C. Clark, The Interdisciplinary Study of legal Evolution, 90 YALE L.J. 1238(1981) JULIUS VON KIRCHMANN, DIE WERTLOSIGKEIT DER JURISPRUDENZ ALS WISSENSCHAFT(1848), 89 9C. in particular PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW(Ole Lando& Hugh Beale eds, 2000) Pierre Legrand, European Legal Systems are not Converging, 45 INT'L CoMp. L.Q. 52, 61-62(1996) Cf. ALAN WATSON, LEGAL TRANSPLANTS AND EUROPEAN PRIVATE LAW(lus Commune Lectures No. 2 METRO 2000) F.H. Lawson, The Field of Comparative Law, 61 JURID. REV. 16(1949) I3 Jan Smits, A European Private Law as a Mixed Legal System, 5 MAASTRICHT JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN AND COMPARATIVE LAW [M.J. 328(1998) Cf Ugo Mattei, Eficiency in Legal Transplants: An Essay in Comparative Law and Economics, 1994 INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF LAW AND ECONOMICS [L.R. L.E. ]32 The theoretical framework this paper presupposes5 is that uniformity of law in most of the cases cannot be created by just the imposition of rules in a centralist way. Private law is – at least to some extent – more than just rules and could at least to some degree be considered as part of a national legal culture.6 Would this be different, there would not be a need to assess any organic evolution of legal norms, other than the evolution of legislation itself7 ; law would then be nothing but a positivist artefact of some Sovereign. Moreover, it would not be a question anymore whether it is possible to predict the extent of uniformity that can be created in the future because this would then follow automatically from the famous “berichtigende Worte des Gesetzgebers”.8 Two different claims are immanent in this presupposition. The first one is that the mere drafting and enacting of “Principles” of European private law9 does not in itself lead to uniformity. Private law is to a certain extent harmonisation resistant, even when confronted with centrally imposed rules. To which extent this is the case, is a question this paper intends to shine a brighter light on. Too radical however is the contention of Pierre Legrand that “legal systems (…) have not been converging, are not converging and will not be converging.”10 Legrand’s idea of law as entirely embedded in the society and culture of a specific country has not been recognised as insightful.11 Moreover, Legrand’s idea of comparative law would by many comparative lawyers not be recognised as falling within the limits of that discipline at all. F.H. Lawson for example once stated that comparative law is in itself “bound to be superficial”; linking law to other societal and cultural phenomena of a specific country would be impossible.12 The second claim I implicitly make, is that a greater extent of legal uniformity than exists right now is possible, but should to a large extent come about in an organic way. This opens up a whole variety of research themes, related to other disciplines than the law and aiming at the study of cases where organic, spontaneous, orders have originated through evolution and not by creation. I previously defended that the best way of unification of law in Europe would be through a competition of legal rules.13 In transplanting legal rules from one country to another on a “market of legal culture”,14 the best legal rule for Europe may survive. This does not automatically imply that any rule glorifies: in some instances, diversity of law may be just as good as uniformity as long as there is a free movement of legal rules, at least creating the possibility of legal change. Some of the questions this theory presents us with (When will uniformity prevail? Which rule is the best to survive? Is that rule the result of a “race to the bottom” or not? Are there differences in 5 An elaboration of this framework can be found in JAN SMITS, THE MAKING OF EUROPEAN PRIVATE LAW (2002). 6 For the most outspoken defence of this thesis, see PIERRE LEGRAND, LE DROIT COMPARÉ (1999). 7 As has been investigated by R.C. Clark, The Morphogenesis of Subchapter C: An Essay in Statutory Evolution and Reform, 87 YALE L.J. 90 (1977) and R.C. Clark, The Interdisciplinary Study of Legal Evolution, 90 YALE L.J. 1238 (1981). 8 JULIUS VON KIRCHMANN, DIE WERTLOSIGKEIT DER JURISPRUDENZ ALS WISSENSCHAFT (1848), 89. 9 Cf. in particular PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW (Ole Lando & Hugh Beale eds., 2000). 10 Pierre Legrand, European Legal Systems are not Converging, 45 INT’L & COMP. L.Q. 52, 61-62 (1996). 11 Cf. ALAN WATSON, LEGAL TRANSPLANTS AND EUROPEAN PRIVATE LAW (Ius Commune Lectures No. 2, METRO 2000). 12 F.H. Lawson, The Field of Comparative Law, 61 JURID. REV. 16 (1949). 13 Jan Smits, A European Private Law as a Mixed Legal System, 5 MAASTRICHT JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN AND COMPARATIVE LAW [M.J.] 328 (1998). 14 Cf. Ugo Mattei, Efficiency in Legal Transplants: An Essay in Comparative Law and Economics, 1994 INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF LAW AND ECONOMICS [I.R.L.E.] 3