English common law versus German Systemdenken? Internal versus external approaches

Universität Bochum (Germany). Correspondence address: Ruhr‐Universität Bochum, D‐44780 Bochum, tel: +49‐234‐32 22 831, email: karl.riesenhuber@rub.de. Paper presented to the Conference on Legal Methodology organised by the Utrecht Faculty of Law, Economics and Governance in cooperation with the Ius Commune Research School, chaired by Professor Ewoud Hondius. I would like to thank Alexander Jüchser, Florian Möslein and Frank Rosenkranz who have commented on earlier drafts of this paper as well as the par‐ticipants at the symposium and an anonymous reviewer. 1 K. Riesenhuber, System und Prinzipien des Europäischen Vertragsrechts, 2003. Some aspects are highlighted in K. Riesenhuber, ‘System and Principles of EC Contract Law’, 2005 European Review of Contract Law, no. 1, pp. 297‐322. 2 E. Hondius, ‘European Private Law – Survey 2002‐2004’, 2004 European Review of Private Law, no. 6, pp. 855, 860 et seq. I reproduce the relevant part of his review here as it may, together with the present text, give the reader an(other) impression of my position. ‘With his Erlanger Habilitationsschrift on the system and the principles of European contract law, written under the supervision of Stefan Grundmann, Karl Riesenhuber takes place in a long list of German and Austrian professorabiles (Drexl, Franzen, Grundmann, Heiderhoff, Heiss, Jansen, Kieninger, Leible, Lurger, Remien, Schmidt, Schulte‐Nölke, Vogenauer, Wurmnest and others) who are eager to provide a theoretical basis for European private law or part thereof. European private law may well be “pointillistic”, after a celebrated word coined by Kötz, this does not preclude that there is a system, is the conclusion of Riesenhuber. This notwithstanding the fact that the European legislature seems to be unfamiliar with this system: “An dem Teppich des Gemeinschaftsprivatrechts weben viele Brüsseler General‐ direktionen, ohne ein Muster vor Augen zu haben” (“the tapestry of Community private law is being woven by many of the directorates‐ general in the absence of any master plan”). In the first part of his three‐part book, Riesenhuber analyses the system of European private law in general. In parts two and three he then focuses on Contract law. He concludes that European contract law is now based on the following principles: the formale Rechtsgleichheit aller Privatrechtssubjekte (“formal equality of all citizens”), freedom of contract limited by the obligation to inform for enterprise, Selbstverantwortung (“self‐determination”), pacta sunt servanda limited by cooling‐off periods, the freedom to determine the contents of contracts limited by legislative or judicial control, the relativity of the binding force of contract (only as between the parties). In the view of Riesenhuber, there is no European principle of good faith, nor of the Transparenzprinzip so popular in Germany, or of consumer protection. Neither are the theories of Micklitz on a kompetitives Vertragsrecht (“competitive contract law”) or Lurger on vertragliche Solidarität (“contractual solidarity”) prevailing in Europe. Riesenhuber’s conclusions are somewhat surprising, taking into consideration that many directives which form the basis for the harmonisation of contract law precisely have been elaborated to protect consumers.’


Introduction
When Professor Hondius asked me to participate in this conference focussing on the methods of the law, I felt especially honoured.The subject assigned to me provides an opportunity to return to the subject of my book on System und Prinzipien des Europäischen Vertragsrechts in 2003 1 which Ewoud Hondius had kindly mentioned -if with some critical hints -in his survey on publications on European Private Law 2002-2004. 2And it further includes a challenge to go one step beyond.The focus of this conference, as Ewoud Hondius described it in his invitation letter, is on 'the link -if any -[of the methodology of legal research] with other disciplines, such as art, economics, history, linguistics, psychology and sociology'.More specifically, Hondius asked Professor Bell and myself: 'What is the better approach: on a case by case basis (common law) or aiming for a systematic overview (Germany)?'I will address both, the specific question as well as the more general theme.The essay first discusses the general question of what constitutes a 'systematic approach to law' (below, 1) and whether such an approach is suitable for European (private) law ( 2) and what methods it applies (3).This lays the ground for an answer to the first specific question on a comparison between a systematic approach and the common law approach (4).It is submitted that while the sources of the law of the respective legal systems differ, the methods have more in common than the question suggests.Both methods take an 'internal perspective' of the law and are thus to be distinguished from the 'external perspectives' of the various 'law and …' disciplines (5).I conclude with a summary and the suggestion that methods of the law, too, will ultimately be chosen by the 'market' in which the different approaches compete (6).

A systematic approach to law
Before we consider the potential conflict any further, we need to shed some more light on what a systematic approach to the law entails.This is all the more important as different centuries had different notions of a 'system'. 3This is not the place to discuss various approaches and their historical development, and I will restrict myself to describing what I mean when I speak of a system.I should make it explicit at the outset that I will talk about the lex lata as a system.Correspondingly, a systematic approach is concerned with what German lawyers describe as Dogmatik: the teachings and doctrines of current law. 4 It is particularly important to make a strict distinction between, on the one hand, lex lata from the law as it could be or as it has been or as it is in other countries or legal systems and, on the other, lex lata from the law as it should be (from one perspective or another).Dogmatik or a systematic approach is a perspective de lege lata and not de lege ferenda.
Returning to our definition of a system, we can first differentiate between the outer order of the law as it occurs in its division into different statutes (of different ranking) and their organisation in books, chapters, articles, paragraphs and sentences.German-tongue methodology speaks of an 'outer system' (äußeres System) and distinguishes this from the 'inner system' (inneres System).Following Claus-Wilhelm Canaris we can consider 'unity' (Einheit) and 'order' (Ordnung), understood as coherence or consistency (wertungsmäßige Folgerichtigkeit), to be the characteristic elements of an inner system. 5When we speak of law as a system, we thus consider the legal rules as forming a 'coherent whole' (geordnetes Ganzes).Both consistency or coherence and unity can be understood as postulates of the idea of justice: the principle of equality with its generalising tendency that demands that like cases be treated alike and that different cases be treated differently according to the aspects and degree in which they differ.Canaris defines a system as 'an axiological or teleological order of general principles'.In this definition, the element of a teleological order is meant to express the idea of consistency or coherence.The element of general principles is meant to express the aspect of inner unity. 6 systematic approach to law thus considers the numerous rules to constitute a 'whole' which follows an 'inner order' as expressed by the underlying principles.The basic idea underlying the systematic approach is the idea of equality as an aspect of justice.Systematic legal thinking thus emphasises the generalising tendency of justice according to which like cases should be treated alike and different cases should be treated differently.

EU private law as a system
The present conference is not specifically dedicated to European private law.Yet, it is well known that Professor Hondius has a keen interest in and that much of his research (and presumably that of his Ph.D. students) is dedicated to European private law. 7Furthermore, the development of a 'European' legal method is certainly one of the most important challenges for jurisprudence today.Thus, a few words on the issue may not go amiss, given that Systemdenken is an approach that was initially developed as a method of national law.I will first look at EU law and discuss aspects of the (Draft) Common Frame of Reference for European contract law 8 afterwards.Methodological aspects of the interrelationship between both have been discussed elsewhere. 9

EU private law
Can EU private law be properly understood as a system?Law-making in the area of EU private law has often been characterised as merely 'pointillistic'. 10With this rather extravagant term, Hein Kötz intended to characterise how the legislator, instead of codifying a whole area of the law such as sales, lease or torts merely regulates isolated 'points' of the law such as rules on doorstep selling, liability rules for package travel contracts or controlling unfair terms in consumer contracts.While recent legislation on occasion aims at so-called codification, 11 the basic tenet holds true even today.In common usage, however, pointillism describes a technique of expressionist art where the painting consists of numerous individual points and where the viewer can only grasp the whole picture once he steps back. 12While EU private law legislation still consists of only rather few 'points', it is argued that an order can nonetheless be discerned. 13he central aspect of a systematic approach is coherence (above, 1).Certainly, coherence is much more easily achieved where a legislator regulates all aspects of, say, contract law.That does not mean, though, that coherence is not possible where only specific aspects such as rights of withdrawal or obligations to inform are being regulated. 14Recent developments confirm this approach, given that the EU legislator expressly attempts to achieve greater coherence. 15In the area of contract law, the Commission first announced this goal in its 2001 communication. 16And it is this starting point that leads to both the proposal for an integrated consumer protection directive 17 as well as the (Draft) Common Frame of Reference (DCFR).The former is yet another example of so-called codification.In the area of employment legislation, the recent Sex Discrimination Directive 2006/54 pursues the same approach of consolidation and greater coherence.The DCFR, on the other hand, is, from this perspective of current EU legislation, a tool that has been devised specifically to enhance coherent legislation. 18In this function, it provides a 'frame of reference' for the legislature and enables it to locate the multitude of individual, if you will: punctual rules on the map of a (more or less) complete system of contract law. 19Integrated into the DCFR are the Acquis Principles: 20 A set of rules devised to reflect the acquis communautaire of EU contract law (or patrimonial law) as it stands today, however with appropriate adaptations to ensure coherence. 21The Acquis Principles also reflect an endeavour to promote coherence in EC legislation. 22ertainly, these aspects of EU legislation cannot prove that the legislator always intentionally aimed to adopt rules that fit into a system.On the contrary, it has to be acknowledged that many rules of existing EU legislation in the area of private law are not coherent.The obvious examples are different lengths and beginnings of withdrawal periods.From a principled approach, one could challenge the right of withdrawal in the Distance Selling Directive 23 as unwarranted. 24Yet, the fact that individual rules do not 'fit' does not refute the idea that the sum of norms should be understood as a consistent whole.(It does, however, pose specific questions of interpretation [see below, 3]).Robert Rebhahn recently vigorously argued for a systematic method of EU private law: He concludes on a pessimistic note, though.'Let us finally ask whether traditional methods of interpretation provide for orientation in the analysis of decisions of the European Court of Justice in the first place.Jurisprudence or legal method in a traditional sense seems to presuppose three things: first, an endeavour of all actors involved -legislator, courts and observers -to build a coherent legal order which, to the extent possible, is free of contradictions and, in this sense, "systematic"; secondly, the conviction that the applicable law should be deduced from statutes and thus be "found" rather than "made" by the courts; as well as, third, the conviction that such deduction should follow certain rules which have to be obeyed by the courts and the observation of which can be appreciated by outside observers (so that, consequently, the observers are not restricted to merely reporting decisions and, apart from that, to applauding).Today, each of these three prerequisites is, on the level of EU law, rather less developed than on the level of the national law of the Member States.More often than not, it is rather unclear which basic structure of legal reasoning the courts follows: Is it normative or topical or a "thinking in concrete orders", especially that of the internal market?What role legal method should play in future EU law is a question which turns on the behaviour of all actors involved.Without a clear jurisprudence, there is no rule of law, questions of methods are constitutional issues.' 25

The (Draft) Common Frame of Reference
The (Draft) Common Frame of Reference is devised as a multifunctional tool, and while one of its functions is to serve as an aid for the legislator (above 2.1.at note 19), it can also serve as a set of rules in its own right.The draftsmen have always considered the possibility that the 'political CFR', to be developed out of the DCFR, could, in the future, be chosen as the applicable law.
The DCFR displays elements of a system, thus warranting a systematic method, in more than one way.First, it is a good example of a systematic codification.The various subjects are presented in an orderly form, structured in books, chapters, articles, paragraphs and sentences, 26 and those form an 'outer system' (äußeres System).It was Franz Bydlinski who specifically emphasised that the formal order of the law in an outer system should not be neglected and is, indeed, an important element for achieving an inner order. 27The 'inner system' (inneres System) as opposed to the formal order of the outer system is constituted by the principles underlying the rules.Again, the DCFR displays an express explicit commitment to a systematic approach.The drafters have now adopted a new introductory part, specifically dedicated to 'The underlying principles of freedom, security, justice and efficiency'. 28

Systematic approach and method
The systematic approach has practical consequences for the methods of the law.It is a central element of both the interpretation 29 as well as the development (Rechtsfortbildung) 30 of the law.
Systematic interpretation is a traditional element of interpretation.In its most basic application, it is rather self-evident: If we want to understand the meaning of a word, we have to read it in the context of the whole sentence, paragraph, article, book and statute.It thus presupposes an outer system and the expectation that the rule-maker intended a meaningful order.While the role of interpretation with regard to the outer system can hardly be overemphasised, an interpretation with regard to the inner system is equally important.Bydlinski speaks of prinzipiell-systematische Auslegung (a principled-systematic interpretation) 31 and thus hints at its relation to purposive interpretation.With a principled-systematic approach, we refer to the principles underlying the rules for the construction of a provision.
Again, while a systematic interpretation is based on a presumption that the law constitutes a coherent whole, we often encounter provisions that do not seem to fit (systemfremde Normen).Certainly, where the legislator intended to digress from the system or even change it, courts have to accept this and are not entitled to derogate from the rule.Yet, where an individual rule does not fit into the system, it may be warranted to construe it narrowly with regard to the general system of the law. 32 systematic approach is equally important where courts further develop the law beyond the literal meaning of the rules (Rechtsfortbildung), 33 e.g., by means of analogy.When we apply a norm by analogy, we extend its scope of application to a case not covered by the rule but materially equivalent to those covered in a case of lacunae.The basic principle underlying analogy is the principle of equality that requires treating like cases alike.The conclusion by analogy is thus inherently linked to systematic thinking (Systemdenken).

Common law versus Systemdenken?
Let us now return to the question posed by Professor Hondius whether a case-by-case approach is preferable to a systematic approach.The question presupposes a fundamental difference, and one may well doubt whether it exists.
Certainly, the differences between continental European civil law and common law should not be underemphasized; in fact, they have often been stressed. 34here is no Wissenschaft at common law!' 35 'The common law is a historical development rather than a logical whole, and the fact that a particular doctrine does not logically accord with another or others is no ground for its rejection.'36 'Arguments based on logical consistency are apt to mislead for the common law is a practical code adapted to deal with the manifold diversities of human life (…).' 37 'The Englishman is naturally pragmatic, more concerned with result than method, function than shape, effectiveness than style; he has little talent for producing intellectual order and little interest in the finer points of taxonomy.'38 'By and large English lawyers and writers have tended to think of it as almost a virtue to be illogical, and have ascribed that virtue freely to their law; "being logical" is an eccentric continental practice which common-sensical Englishmen indulge at their peril.'39 There are, however, opposite voices and tendencies as well. 40This is certainly true with regard to statutory law.41 To begin with, the Law Commission 42 (in the phase before a statute is devised and enacted) arguably pursues a systematic approach and contributes to a systematic development of the law.Its task is 'to take and keep under review all the law (…) with a view to its systematic development and reform'.43 Not surprisingly, statutes in the UK are drafted in a systematic fashion and display a systematic order.Consequently, systematic interpretation plays an important role here too.Thus, English courts resort to a 'contextual interpretation' in order to understand the meaning of words and sentences, thus referring to the 'outer system' of the law.44 Their interpretation rests on 'guiding principles' of the law, thus referring to the 'inner system' of the law.45 The shift from a rather formal approach to interpretation, constrained by the mischief rule, 46 to the purposive construction has also contributed to a systematic method, based on the purpose of the law.
As the example of Roman law illustrates, a case law approach can, at the same time, be systematic. 47Common law lawyers also emphasize the necessity of understanding the law as a coherent whole. 48And indeed, one can discern a systematic approach not only in statutory law but in the common law as well. 49Thus, it should be noted that the common law method of developing the law on a case-by-case basis requires a comparison of cases, likening and distinguishing, a method that is committed to the principle of equality. 50Even equity jurisprudence reveals signs of a generalising tendency of justice.While its hallmark is the consideration of all aspects of the individual case, it does so in a relatively fixed order of rules developed over centuries. 51The law of restitution is another example.Based on the seminal works of Goff and Jones, 52 as well as Birks, 53 courts increasingly consider this area of the law as a structured whole. 54Not only legal practice, but scholarship too displays a systematic approach.Thus, standard textbooks not only present the material in a systematic order 55 but place special emphasis on not only describing the individual rules but revealing the underlying principles. 56ndeed Lord Mansfield famously said about the common law that it 'does not consist of particular cases, but of general principles which are illustrated and explained by those cases'.

125
Lawyers trained in civil law systems, on the other hand, certainly do not disregard case law. 58On the contrary, even in a codified legal system, case law plays an important role.This is certainly true for areas where the law is not codified at all as is the case, for example, with the German law of industrial action (Arbeitskampfrecht).Furthermore, codifications often, perhaps even necessarily contain general clauses that need to be structured by case law.The principle of Treu und Glauben (good faith) in § 242 BGB is a prominent example.And finally, interpretation also contains an element of the development of the law and is thus open to further structuring by the courts.Indeed, as codifications grow older, the layer of jurisprudence that interprets, supplements and sometimes derogates from or covers it becomes thicker and, to some extent, a systematic approach may be complemented with a case-by-case approach.
Much of what common law lawyers do thus certainly seems to be rather akin if not identical to a systematic legal method.And, on the other hand, civil law lawyers do proceed, in certain areas, on a case-by-case basis. 59In other words, the sources of the law seem to differ more than the methods.Indeed, the common law method has aptly been described as proceeding by analogy, a method that we have identified as being also inherently linked to a systematic approach (above, 3).And where the English courts interpret statutes, they proceed on similar terms as continental courts.Here too, a systematic interpretation with its reference to both the outer and the inner system of the statute is a central part of interpretation. 60hus, it is perhaps not so much a competition between methods that should be considered but rather a difference in the sources of the law.The question then is not whether a case-by-case approach is preferable to a systematic approach, but rather whether the sources require the one or the other.Indeed, we find ample examples of both systematic and case-oriented approaches where lawyers trained in common law countries and lawyers trained in civil law countries deal with a single subject.Consider some of the various books on EU employment law for example.Catherine Barnard's book 61 certainly displays a systematic order of the subjectmatter.Her discussion is, however, rather more case-oriented than my own treatment 62 which, for the most part, focuses on a systematic exploration of the issues.Fuchs and Marhold, 63 both trained in continental legal systems, combine a textbook approach with an intensive discussion of exemplary cases, thus effectively achieving a mixture of textbook and casebook.

Internal and external perspectives
Let us consider the relation of a systematic approach to other disciplines.Professor Hondius mentions art, economics, history, linguistics, psychology and sociology.One may even add comparative law as a sub-discipline of law.In fact, the systematic method employed in 'System und Prinzipien des Europäischen Vertragsrechts' has been criticised for insufficiently taking comparative law into account. 64Similarly (though with some differences) it could be criticised for not considering other disciplines such as art, economics, history, linguistics, psychology and sociology.
A systematic approach is what Hesselink has recently described as an internal perspective as opposed to the external perspective 65 of the 'law and …' disciplines such as law and economics, behavioural law and economics, law and literature etc.Both English common law and continental civil law traditionally take an internal perspective.The internal perspective is the result of what lawyers perceive their task to be: Traditional scholarship is concerned with how courts (do and should) decide cases.Courts, however, do not make the law but, following the division of powers, apply the law. 66This is certainly true for the civil law but even applies with regard to common law jurisdictions.It is true that common law courts have a more open way of reasoning and arguing. 67Still, a case-by-case approach finds its justification in the binding force of precedent rather than in the law-making powers of the judge.Here too, the judge is being considered as a law-finder rather than a law-maker. 68his internal perspective is thus a common feature of both the systematic method and the case-by-case approach, and it distinguishes both from the external perspective of art, economics, history etc.As 'other' disciplines they stand outside the law and thus cannot -or not without further requirements -contribute to finding the law.If a legal rule is inefficient from an economic perspective, this does not invalidate the legal rule.If a legal rule is counterproductive because it disregards the insights of behavioural theory, again, this does not render the from the rule invalid or inapplicable.If a legal rule disregards the lessons we can learn from history or the experience of other legal systems, this still does not derogate from the rule. 69his is not to say that other disciplines may never play any role for the internal perspective.Where, as for example in the law of capital markets, the legislator lays down the achievement of efficiency as an objective of the rule, lawyers may have to take economic insight into consideration when interpreting and applying the law (purposive or historical interpretation). 70Certain fields of the law may be open to or even require input from other disciplines.This is, for example, the case where the rules of competition law such as Articles 101(3), 102 TEU presuppose economic analysis. 71, 72 Similarly, the law against unfair commercial practices may be open to taking the insight of behavioural theory into account.Where the law pursues the enhancement of uniformity on an international scale, a national court may be entitled to consult a comparative legal insight. 73Again, where the law appeals to good morals, good faith or even justice, a judge may be entitled to have recourse to ethics or sociology.Furthermore, other disciplines or comparative law may have an inspirational function and open up the panorama of possible interpretations or developments. 74In this latter case, though, other disciplines or comparative law do not play a formal role in the interpretation and application of the law: A judge may or may not make use of such instruments: if he does not, he certainly cannot be accused of a déni de justice; if he does, on the other hand, he can still not evade the binding commands of the law.In other words: However inspirational the solution of another country's legal system may be, however inspirational economic, psychological or sociological considerations for the 'best' law may be, a judge has to apply the law as it stands.
Other disciplines thus need to find a door to enter into the sphere of the law in order to become part of the internal perspective, and these doors are rare and fairly narrow.Therefore, other disciplines play a limited role only in adjudication where an internal perspective is required.There is a good reason for this.It has already been mentioned that the division of legislative and adjudicative powers is the central principle that requires a distinction between internal and external perspectives.While the legislator may entrust the courts with the task of pursuing, say, economic goals such as efficiency, there are reasons of principle and of practicability that limit this option.As a matter of principle, a transfer of rule-making powers to the courts must be limited where a division of powers reigns.As a matter of practicality, the courts do not make good law-makers.They lack the necessary infrastructure 75 to even adequately pursue comparative legal work. 76The sobering insight of different studies is that when courts engage in comparative law, there is a good possibility that they will get it wrong. 77Similarly, while some public agencies such as the German Bundeskartellamt, the EU Commission or comparable antitrust offices are specially equipped to carry out specific economic investigations, courts simply do not have the instruments to make economic, psychological or sociological studies.Where, however, the necessary economic, psychological or sociological material was available, we again encounter an objection of principle.Courts do not have the authority to decide which of various competing strands of thought of, say, economics, psychology or sociology the law should follow.That is a matter for parliaments to decide.
If their contribution to the work of the courts is thus inherently limited, other disciplines may be all the more important where we take an external perspective.To say that courts take an internal perspective does not mean that lawyers never take an external perspective.This is in particular the case where law-making is concerned.In fact, it was Claus-Wilhelm Canaris who said that good scholarship work always has the law-making perspective in mind too. 78ake, for example, the rights of withdrawal.From a private law theory point of view, rights of withdrawal are certainly critical in that they interfere with the principle of the binding nature of the contract (pacta sunt servanda). 79At the same time, they can be considered as minimally intrusive, given that they merely provide for a procedural mechanism that gives the consumer the possibility to have a second decision concerning the contract, yet with an inverse onus of action (he has to do something to avoid the contract). 80From the perspective of the law-maker, it has to be considered, though, whether rights of withdrawal actually work in practice, i.e. whether they give the consumer an effective opportunity to reconsider.Empirical studies seem to show that only a very small, even negligible, percentage of consumers make use of their right of withdrawal. 81This may indicate that such rights do not ensure an adequate protection of the free will and the self-determination of the consumer or protect them from disadvantageous contracts.It has been suggested that behavioural theory may provide some understanding of why consumers do not withdraw from a contract once concluded. 82Different psychological mechanisms may be at work here.One could be the so-called endowment effect: We value things more once we have acquired them. 83Furthermore, we avoid cognitive dissonance: Once we have made a decision, we endeavour to confirm it and selectively perceive information that supports our decision more than information that does not. 84An extraordinarily low withdrawal rate may be due to those (and/or other) psychological mechanisms.
What follows from that?Certainly, all this has little, if any, effect on the law as it stands (the lex lata).Following various EU directives, rights of withdrawal are a central instrument of consumer protection in the national laws of the Member States.If it should transpire that the right of withdrawal is not a good mechanism, this does not change the law.In this particular case, there is arguably little room for courts to take behavioural insight into account at all.In adequate cases (i.e.: where the national law so allows) the courts may, perhaps, use behavioural insight when they judge whether consumer information about the right of withdrawal has been sufficient. 85ut, then again, why should they?The EU legislator had not taken today's behavioural theory into account when it installed the rights of withdrawal.Neither had it instructed courts to do so -and perhaps for good reason.If behavioural theory should inform us that consumers behave in a systematically irrational manner, what follows from that?We (the legislator!) may accept such findings and decide to paternalistically steer consumer behaviour ('de-biasing'), basically treating consumers like foster-children who cannot decide on their own.We (again: the legislator) may, on the other hand, install a legal mechanism that allows consumers to care for themselves once they overcome the behavioural barriers.Other consequences are conceivable too.There is, indeed, a vigorous debate between neoclassical economics and behavioural economics and the latter is by no means universally accepted. 86The discussion re-emphasises that we encounter value judgements of a nature that are not for courts but for legislators to make.
The example can further illustrate that courts are not well equipped to make such value judgements either.While there may be behavioural explanations for a low withdrawal rate, these may or may not be correct or conclusive.Indeed, it seems that they can be challenged with the instruments of behavioural theory itself.Behavioural studies have pointed out that an endowment effect does not occur where the possessor acquires something with a view to later giving it away again. 87Other studies indicate that rights of withdrawal make consumers less happy with their choice as they leave the decision process open, thus effectively preventing the activation of mechanisms that would normally lead to the avoidance of cognitive dissonances. 88-I do not claim here that these insights could (fully) explain a low withdrawal quota.They do indicate, though, that there can be serious doubts as to whether behavioural theory conclusively explains a low withdrawal rate; the issue at hand may well be debated even on the ground of behavioural theory.Where lawyers do not have training in behavioural theory, 89 they are thus not well equipped to rely on such theory.All this makes the discussion on the basis of behavioural theory intrinsically difficult.It does not, of course, prevent lawyers from taking adequate notice of the state of the art in, say, economics, psychology, sociology etc.As a bottom line, I would still maintain that lawyers can profit from taking an insight from other disciplines into account in the law-making discourse.Indeed, this will often seem an indispensable complement to the (limited) internal perspective where law-making and thus policy decisions are concerned.
Beyond their role as tools for the legislator, other disciplines can enhance our understanding of the law.Take the example of the control of unfair contract terms.Controlling the content of contracts conflicts with the fundamental principle of freedom of contract which covers the freedom to determine the content of a contract.Where the law trespasses on the freedom of contract, this requires a justification.Economic theory can contribute to our understanding of the rules on the control of unfair contract terms. 90It tells us that in a market economy the legal system does not usually have to worry about the fairness of contractual exchange, given the control of supply and demand by market forces.While the theory of the invisible hand is nowadays much debated the basic tenet still holds true.With standard contract terms, market forces cannot fulfil their controlling function.For market control presupposes that the market works and this presupposes that demanders on the market can see, understand and compare what is being offered.While the price and the qualities of, say, a car are easy to detect and to compare, this is different for standard contract terms.They are difficult to understand in the first place and 'competing' standard terms of different offerors can hardly be compared, certainly not efficiently.Thus, it is certainly justifiable for the legislator to step in to rectify a market failure here.If we look at the EU Unfair Contract Terms Directive we find that the main subject-matter and the price are not, in principle, subject to judicial control.This conforms to our considerations on market control, as does the counter-exception pursuant to which the subject-matter and the price may be subject to judicial control if the clauses are not transparent.This economic rationale may also be useful for the application of the law in borderline cases.If the failure of market control is the underlying consideration, then judicial control is warranted where the market does not exert effective control.Aspects of the contract that receive sufficient attention by the consumer and are thus subject to market control do not need to be judicially controlled.91

Conclusion
Let me pull the strings together and come to some conclusions.I have tried to demonstrate that the systematic approach has its merits.For one thing, it finds a solid basis in the principle of equality.For another, its core aspect of coherence conforms to the express or implied intention of the legislator.This is also true for EU legislation.The codification of existing directives and the Common Frame project are ample evidence of striving for coherence.
While the common law tradition and the continental legal systems differ substantially with regard to the sources of the law, it is submitted that they do not differ as much with regard to the methods for finding the law.A case-by-case approach proceeds by analogy or distinction and is no less concerned with equality or coherence than a systematic approach on the basis of codified law.Both, common lawyers and civil lawyers have in common that they pursue internal approaches to the law.This distinguishes their approach from that of other disciplines such as comparative law, law and economics, behavioural law and economics etc. which take an external perspective on law.Such external approaches are of the utmost interest for legislators.Their contribution to the application of the lex lata is more limited, though; it requires a 'door' through which external insights can enter into the sphere of the law.
I cannot, of course, claim the position of an authoritative judge in a competition of legal methods in Europe, and neither would I want to.Such competition, it is submitted, will be decided by the legal community, a market for legal or methodological ideas, if you like.It is this forum that will also decide about the appropriate place of other legal methods in the adjudication of the law.The internal systematic approach favoured by many lawyers trained in continental legal systems certainly has much to be commended.But, again, it should be stressed that it certainly does not deny the role of court decisions or the need to accommodate them within the legal system.