The Fiduciary Contract and the Administration of the Goods of Another Person in the New Civil Code. A Comparative Outlook
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Romanian legislator introduced the offices of the administration of the goods of another person and the fiduciary contract for the first time in the history of our legal system, in order to develop it and also to answer an existing social reality. These two legal institutions, whose practicability surely raises several questions in your mind, seem at times hard to make sense of, upon a general view. Among the causes for such difficulties we find that a part of the stipulations have been almost wholly taken from the legal system of other states, respectively: the notion of the administration of the goods of another person comes from the civil code of the province of Quebec, while the fiduciary contract was borrowed from the French Civil Code. It is worth mentioning that the French code does not comprise a different regulation for administrating the goods of another person, although the code of Quebec and that of Romania do. Apart from the analytical outlook of these two newly-founded institutions, the present study offers support for their inclusion into the Romanian legislation and an attempt to faithfully represent them in order to find any possible answers to issues which may be encountered in their application, by identifying the link between these two realities and point out their differences. Although they are regulated differently each from the other, we cannot avoid noticing the direct link between them, especially given that the legislator expressly makes clear references to the administration of the goods of another person within the framework of the fiduciary contract.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".