The following points are important. The historical accidents responsible for the coming into being of such systems are diverse. Trad itionally, such systems are regarded as exceptions or sui generis. Instances of mixing are complicated as they can be overt or covert, structured or unstructured, complex or simple, blended or unblended, and therefore difficult to define. 6 Mixed systems present themselves to comparative lawyers in very diverse forms, there are ongoing states of mix, and a wide scope of knowledge is required to fully analyse this phenomenon. These problems must be addressed when stud ying mixed legal systems. It can of course be said that these difficulties are applicable to analysis of all legal systems and w know that not only are all modern legal systems mixed to a certain degree, at least as to pedigree, but that many more systems are shifting and in transition as new types of mixes come into being. 7 All law is mixed and there are no exceptions. It is only that the mixture is different Mixed legal systems rely on the theory of legal families, yet challenge it. The process of mix moves a legal system out of the style and the internal logical pattern of one trad ition or family of laws. The system first floats in the periphery, poised on the verges of two and sometimes three traditions. It then moves towards its new family, clinging nonetheless to settled peculiarities of the former. So it does not lose the characteristics of the first altogether, and does not acquire totally those of the new one; the levels of combinations and therefore the extent of the mix varies 8 An analysis of any mixed legal system shows that at least two different trad itions or cultures are or were in contact and that the end product of the encounters is a system utilising elements of more than one legal tradition. Beyond this, there is no general understand ing as to standards for measuring how these systems have come about, the degree of contact between the different trad itions or the correct characterisation of the outcome We are a tool of analysis to indicate whether simple rule-borrowing is a significant step in the ot have ooking at points of contact, intersection or confluence of legal trad itions. Yet we do nd formation of a mixed legal system, what is the degree of the necessary relationship between elements from different trad itions, that is, the underlay and the overlay, the significance of the element of when'mixing produces a mixed legal system, or the point at which a legal system can properly be called mixed In historical terms, most mixed legal systems were a consequence not only of strong movements of transmigration of legal institutions and ideas, mostly in the form of mpositions, but also of divergent linguistic, communal or religious trad itions indigenous to many legal systems are interrelated, such as in the el Dhen l stems are the consequences. mat 6Such mixes can be portrayed along a spectrum. See E. Orucu, ' A Theoretical Framework for Transfrontier Mobility ofLaw,, in R. Jagtenberg, E. Orucu A. De Roo(eds ) Transfrontier Mobility of Law, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 1995, p. 12 7For example, in the new South African mix created by the Constitution of 1996, the scope of the mix extended by regarding traditional law as part of South African law, as well as adding the Canadian and German models to the elements in the mix sFor the patterns of intemal logic and the outcome of movements ofelements between system s, see the schematic expose in Orucu, op. cit, supra n. 1, 339 and 343The following points are important. The historical accidents responsible for the coming into being of such systems are diverse. Traditionally, such systems are regarded as exceptions or sui generis. Instances of mixing are complicated as they can be overt or covert, structured or unstructured, complex or simple, blended or unblended, and therefore difficult to define.6 Mixed systems present themselves to comparative lawyers in very diverse forms, there are ongoing states of ‘mix’, and a wide scope of knowledge is required to fully analyse this phenomenon. These problems must be addressed when studying mixed legal systems. It can of course be said that these difficulties are applicable to analysis of all legal systems and we know that not only are all modern legal systems mixed to a certain degree, at least as to pedigree, but that many more systems are shifting and in transition as new types of mixes come into being.7 All law is mixed and there are no exceptions. It is only that the mixture is different. Mixed legal systems rely on the theory of legal families, yet challenge it. The process of mix moves a legal system out of the style and the internal logical pattern of one tradition or family of laws. The system first floats in the periphery, poised on the verges of two and sometimes three traditions. It then moves towards its new family, clinging nonetheless to settled peculiarities of the former. So it does not lose the characteristics of the first altogether, and does not acquire totally those of the new one; the levels of combinations and therefore the extent of the mix varies.8 An analysis of any mixed legal system shows that at least two different traditions or cultures are or were in contact and that the end product of the encounters is a system utilising elements of more than one legal tradition. Beyond this, there is no general understanding as to standards for measuring how these systems have come about, the degree of contact between the different traditions or the correct characterisation of the outcome. We are looking at points of contact, intersection or confluence of legal traditions. Yet we do not have a tool of analysis to indicate whether simple rule-borrowing is a significant step in the formation of a mixed legal system, what is the degree of the necessary relationship between elements from different traditions, that is, the underlay and the overlay, the significance of the element of ‘when’ mixing produces a mixed legal system, or the point at which a legal system can properly be called mixed. In historical terms, most mixed legal systems were a consequence not only of strong movements of transmigration of legal institutions and ideas, mostly in the form of impositions, but also of divergent linguistic, communal or religious traditions indigenous to the system itself. In contemporary terms most mixed legal systems are the consequences of cross-fertilisation and direct transposition. Today this phenomenon is due also to the fact that many legal systems are interrelated, such as in the EU, and there are selective mixes. Mixed 6Such mixes can be portrayed along a spectrum. See E. Örücü, ‘A Theoretical Framework for Transfrontier Mobility of Law’, in R. Jagtenberg, E. Örücü & A. De Roo (eds.), Transfrontier Mobility of Law, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 1995, p. 12. 7For example, in the new South African mix created by the Constitution of 1996, the scope of the mix is extended by regarding traditional law as part of South African law, as well as adding the Canadian and German models to the elements in the mix. 8For the patterns of internal logic and the outcome of movements of elements between system s, see the schematic exposé in Örücü, op. cit., supra n. 1, 339 and 343