Compearative Hammurabi and Magna Carta on contract law
Comparative the Code of Hammurabi and Magna Carta on Contract Law
On the article 60 of Hammurabi says that “if any one give over the field to a gardener, for him to plant it as a garden, if he works on it and care of it for four years, in the fifth year the owner and gardener should divided it, the owner taking his part in charge ” and in Article 5 of Magna Carta law list that “ For so long as a guardian has guardianship of such land, she shall maintain the house , park, fish preserves, ponds, mill, and every thing else pertaining to it , from the revenues of the land itself. When the heir comes of age, .he shall restore the whole land to him, stocked with plough teams and such implements of husbandry as the season demands and the revenue from the land can reasonably bear”
through the article 60 of Hammurabi above we see that this article encourages the worker who works for free or the low level position try not to work for many year because if they work so many years still get the same position and lower pay, they won’t satisfy for daily living standard, the government of Hammurabi may think that all citizens shall have similar level of living standard and tries to prevent poor people from putting pressure from the rich.. If the government tries not to do so the responsibly of the whole society is government itself. So government is so clever about how to propose the law.
Another article of contract law the situation the same thing but the law is different, especially the Article 5 of Magna Carta law. When the guardian has guardianship for the life and when the heir becomes the old age, he shall restore the whole land to him. In this point we see that the government also tries to prevent the poor from the rich by let the owner think that they should not keep the guardian for long time for taking care of such the land, but in contrary the government encourages the poor keeping the lower job and lower pay for so long by not allow him/her to invest in other business or job. On the other hand, the guardian will not try to find out another job because she/he want that kind of land already.
On the article 60 of Hammurabi says that “if any one give over the field to a gardener, for him to plant it as a garden, if he works on it and care of it for four years, in the fifth year the owner and gardener should divided it, the owner taking his part in charge ” and in Article 5 of Magna Carta law list that “ For so long as a guardian has guardianship of such land, she shall maintain the house , park, fish preserves, ponds, mill, and every thing else pertaining to it , from the revenues of the land itself. When the heir comes of age, .he shall restore the whole land to him, stocked with plough teams and such implements of husbandry as the season demands and the revenue from the land can reasonably bear”
through the article 60 of Hammurabi above we see that this article encourages the worker who works for free or the low level position try not to work for many year because if they work so many years still get the same position and lower pay, they won’t satisfy for daily living standard, the government of Hammurabi may think that all citizens shall have similar level of living standard and tries to prevent poor people from putting pressure from the rich.. If the government tries not to do so the responsibly of the whole society is government itself. So government is so clever about how to propose the law.
Another article of contract law the situation the same thing but the law is different, especially the Article 5 of Magna Carta law. When the guardian has guardianship for the life and when the heir becomes the old age, he shall restore the whole land to him. In this point we see that the government also tries to prevent the poor from the rich by let the owner think that they should not keep the guardian for long time for taking care of such the land, but in contrary the government encourages the poor keeping the lower job and lower pay for so long by not allow him/her to invest in other business or job. On the other hand, the guardian will not try to find out another job because she/he want that kind of land already.
1 comment:
After reading this text we found some comments that I want share with the author. Mr. Chansath is kinda right when he said “through the article 60 of Hammurabi above we see that this article encourages the worker who works for free or the low level position try not to work for many year because if they work so many years still get the same position and lower pay, they won’t satisfy for daily living standard, the government of Hammurabi may think that all citizens shall have similar level of living standard and tries to prevent poor people from putting pressure from the rich.. If the government tries not to do so the responsibly of the whole society is government itself. Magna Carta law list that “ For so long as a guardian has guardianship of such land, she shall maintain the house , park, fish preserves, ponds, mill, and every thing else pertaining to it , from the revenues of the land itself. When the heir comes of age, .he shall restore the whole land to him, stocked with plough teams and such implements of husbandry as the season demands and the revenue from the land can reasonably bear”
If we look up randomly about this, yes! The government really encourages the poor people who are working for somebody else for ages to get something that they deserve like the owner should divided the land to the worker. But this doesn’t seem so fair to the owner. Even the worker has been working for the owner for 4 years but they don’t deserve the part of the land. And another hand, it didn’t state clearly how many they deserve. What if the gardener said he/she deserve ¾ of the land then it’s really not fair to the owner? The owner also pay the gardener, he didn’t letting them working without paying money. If it’s so they deserve part of the land. But they absolutely work with money so what is the fair to take a piece of land from the owner. This is not the idea to make people to live in the same standard. We talk about human rights, people should got the right fair. But if you let someone work for you for money and then after years they take your land, would you prefer that? And what are the reason to take somebody land while you always got paid every month? Another hand this idea makes all the poor people feel lazy in investing money or in any business idea. They will just go to work for someone for 5 years then they got the land. Any way, it can make the poor people living in the bad mood; do not try to do something that can support their living just waiting to violate the land from the rich.
So when people getting lazy. There will be no competitive in the country. People would just work as a gardener to take somebody else land, and there will be no development in that country. And then when the country full of poor people it can make the country chaos and it will be disorder.
Post a Comment