[w7]

Their entire statement of

> civil law system ... does not rely on agreements, contracts, negotiations or precedents. It cannot be 'interpreted'

betrays that they've never examined legal proceedings in either system.

Contracts apparently don't exist in civil law, and when asked to explain the differences between "Jurisprudence Constante" and "Stare Decisis", I guess "Jurisprudence Constante" means precedent doesn't exist!

I think they're confused on the differing weight and roles of case law in rendering decisions between the two systems, and over corrected.

[unity1001]

> Contracts apparently don't exist in civil law

This does sound like insincere debate. Where does in my comments it says that contracts dont exist in civil law. It says civil law is not BASED on contracts, agreeements and precedents. The common law is.

And no, the complications that are so beautifully and 'respectably' named in the common law dont exist in civil law. The law is always clear - if something is not covered by an immediate law, it is covered by a broader law that affects those cases.

[w7]

Do we have a different understanding of the word "rely"?

You didn't even use the word "BASED".

When you say:

> It does not rely on agreements, contracts, negotiations or precedents.

Why would they exist conceptually if they're not relied upon?

They're obviously relied upon when.. something related to contracts is in dispute.