private law will eventually become a mixed legal system' elements from the European- continental and the English legal tradition will blend, as happened earlier in South Africa and Scotland, countries commended on the flexibility of their legal systems Consequently, put more concisely, I argue for a free movement oflegal rules Unification through the free movement of legal rules has three important advantages over the centralist road which is advocated by most proponents of European private law. In the first place, unification happens in practice itself and not by n authoritatively imposed text which carries in it the risk of failure, since a text alone does not produce uniform lany. Not imposition, but the law opted for by those organizations and bodies which will have to apply the rules in the future themselves, as the law of superior quality is what is needed. How can we expect the succesful acceptance of an imposed ECC, where in twelve years France even failed to implement a directive on liability for defective products? Inasmuch as European private law is created in practice itself, monopolization by the one legal world view of the other, so feared by legrand, will not materialize In the second place, uniform law will only come about in those areas where it is really needed; this corresponds with the views of the European Parliament which called for a eCc only to the deg by the internal market. Co determines to what extent national rules will be adapted The economy, the motor of European integration, is also the motor of legal unification; it is not necessary, for instance, that a uniform law be drafted governing the typically real rights like emphyteusis(hereditary lease of real property)or common property of neighbours. In so far as unification along these lines has adverse effects because it encroaches in particular, on consumer interests, directives may be issued, as is currently done In the third place, the proposed mixed system lends itself for change, whereas hanging centralistically imposed rules is much more difficult. The acceptance of the Lando Principles is partly the result of the fact that they express a lex mercatoria, in full onformity with the, mostly economic, objectives of the European Union. However, in Europe which focuses more on social justice, other legal rules are desired. The perception of contract underlying the Lando Principles, stresses freedom of contract, which seems to be less compatible with modern ideas on contractual justice. Should there be no codification, then adaptation by natural course as advocated here is simple Formulated in terms of Law and Economics: the buyers in the legal marketplace demand legal rules which realize economic goals. However, free movement of legal rules guarantees that, whenever a different economic goal is desired, the marketplace can offer rules for that goal as well. To regulate contract there are both the classic rules See the various articles in Esin Orucu et al (eds ) Studies in Legal Systems: Mixed and Mixing, (The Hague, 1996) Pierre Legrand, The Impossibility of"Legal Transplants",4 Maastricht ournal of European and Comparative Law(1997), 1ll ff argues that since legal rules cannot be segregated from society and culture, legal transplants are impossible. In my view, about the possibil ity of a transplant one cannot say much in general: it depends on the uniqueness of the rule in question, i.e. its embedment in a particular country and culture See draft article 2. 101. See for a similiar criticism of the Union Principles and references to modern ideas my article in Europees contractenrecht(BW-krant Jaarboek 1995),(Arnhem, 1995),127f Error! bookmark not definedError! Bookmark not defined. private law will eventually become a `mixed legal system': elements from the European￾continental and the English legal tradition will blend, as happened earlier in South Africa and Scotland, countries commended on the flexibility of their legal systems.43 Consequently, put more concisely, I argue for a free movement of legal rules. 44 Unification through the free movement of legal rules has three important advantages over the centralist road which is advocated by most proponents of European private law. In the first place, unification happens in practice itself and not by an authoritatively imposed text which carries in it the risk of failure, since a text alone does not produce uniform law. Not imposition, but the law opted for by those organizations and bodies which will have to apply the rules in the future themselves, as the law of superior quality is what is needed. How can we expect the succesful acceptance of an imposed ECC, where in twelve years France even failed to implement a directive on liability for defective products? Inasmuch as European private law is created in practice itself, monopolization by the one legal world view of the other, so feared by Legrand, will not materialize. In the second place, uniform law will only come about in those areas where it is really needed; this corresponds with the views of the European Parliament which called for a ECC only to the degree required by the internal market. Commerce, after all, determines to what extent national rules will be adapted. The economy, the motor of European integration, is also the motor of legal unification; it is not necessary, for instance, that a uniform law be drafted governing the typically real rights like emphyteusis (hereditary lease of real property) or common property of neighbours. In so far as unification along these lines has adverse effects, because it encroaches, in particular, on consumer interests, directives may be issued, as is currently done. In the third place, the proposed mixed system lends itself for change, whereas changing centralistically imposed rules is much more difficult. The acceptance of the Lando Principles is partly the result of the fact that they express a lex mercatoria, in full conformity with the, mostly economic, objectives of the European Union. However, in a Europe which focuses more on social justice, other legal rules are desired. The perception of contract underlying the Lando Principles, stresses freedom of contract, which seems to be less compatible with modern ideas on `contractual justice'.45 Should there be no codification, then adaptation by natural course as advocated here is simple. Formulated in terms of Law and Economics: the buyers in the legal marketplace demand legal rules which realize economic goals. However, free movement of legal rules guarantees that, whenever a different economic goal is desired, the marketplace can offer rules for that goal as well. To regulate contract there are both the classic rules 43 See the various articles in Esin Örücü et al. (eds.), Studies in Legal Systems: Mixed and Mixing, (The Hague, 1996). 44Pierre Legrand, `The Impossibility of "Legal Transplants"', 4 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law (1997), 111 ff argues that since legal rules cannot be segregated from society and culture, legal transplants are impossible. In my view, about the possibility of a transplant one cannot say much in general: it depends on the uniqueness of the rule in question, i.e. its embedment in a particular country and culture. 45 See draft article 2.101. See for a similiar criticism of the Union Principles and references to modern ideas my article in Europees contractenrecht (BW-krant Jaarboek 1995), (Arnhem, 1995), 127 ff