De pluraliteit van schuldenaars bij verbintenissen.

Problem statement and research questionsIn Napoleonic legal practice, the scope and the effects of the concepts solidarity, indivisible liabilty and in solidum liability cause a great deal of confusion. Fundamentally, these concepts are equally effective for they serve the same purpose to create a liability for the whole debt. The research analyses the scope and effects of those legal concepts as they exist and examines whether their functional equality could result in an identical legal regulation.The second problem relates to the distinctive scope of the partial liability and the liability for the whole debt. Napoleonic law presumes partial liability (art. 1202 CC), however in legal practice the exceptions are frequent, particularly in commercial law, contractual liability and tort law. The research surveys the rationale of the presumption of divisibility as well as the rationale of the exceptions and examines their respective scope for effectivity and fairness in practice. A third problem concerns the demarcation of the concept 'plurality of debtors'. A plurality of debtors originates from different persons who are liable for the same (extra)contractual performance. The answer to the question in which circumstances the same (extra)contractual performance exists, is rather difficult. In tort law, the question is related to the doctrine of complex causality, which is thoroughly examined in the thesis. The research also focuses on the question whether a plurality of debtors necessarily implies a plurality of obligations, rather than it may result from one single obligation. In conclusion, the research answers the general research question as to how contemporary law regulates the liability in case of a plurality of debtors and how it should regulate this liability to contribute to an effective and fair legal system.status: publishe