Cause of the acquisition

Our study investigates the concept of cause of contract. The study's main purpose is to give an adequate definition for cause, valid for all acquisitive transactions (die Zuwendung) and analyze the impact of cause to those transactions. Our study consists of three parts. In the first part we examined the historical development of the cause. The second part goes into the definition of cause and also introduces the abstract and causal transaction systems. In the last part we discuss the impacts of cause to acquisitive transactions. The first part is divided into two sections: Roman law and medieval law. In Roman law, cause is mainly important for two types of contract: stipulatio and innominate contracts. If the cause of an obligation arising from a stipulatio doesn't exist or fails, the debtor can demand his liberation from the obligation, or recover what he had handed over for the payment of his debt by a personal action called condictio. For innominate contracts, cause is used as a means to expand the Ius Civile contracts system. Even though a pact doesn't fall under one of the Ius Civile contracts, it is considered as legally binding as long as it has a valid cause. In medieval law, the concept of cause is used to abandon the formalism. Thus, informal contracts made for a valid causa are legally binding. In the second part we defined cause as the purpose of the acquisition on which the parties of the acquisition agree. The agreement on the purpose is called the cause agreement. Causal transactions need a cause in order to be valid. The validity of abstract transactions doesn't depend on the existence of a cause. In imperfect abstract transactions, the absence of cause gives the debtor or transferor has a right of recovery due to unjust enrichment. However in perfect abstract transactions, the absence of cause doesn't grant a right to recover. In the last part, we examined the impact of cause to acquisitive transactions. If the cause illegal or immoral, it is considered invalid. Thus the transaction made for this invalid cause will be void whether it is causal or abstract. If the cause doesn't exist the validity of the transaction depends on whether it is causal or abstract. If the cause of the transaction subsequently falls, the acquisition is considered as an unjust enrichment and can be recovered (condictio ob causam finitam). If the cause fails to materialize (causa non secuta), we can bring up unjust enrichment or frustration of contract. Also the Code of Obligations provides special provisions for some particular cases of non-materializing of the cause such as default and impossibility of performance.