¹ Christian von Bar, E. Clive, Hans Schulte-Nölke et al. (eds.), Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law: Draft Common Frame of Reference. Interim Outline Edition (DCFR) (Munich 2008); Christian von Bar, Eric Clive, Hans Schulte-Nölke et al. (eds.), Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law: Draft Common Frame of Reference Outline Edition (DCFR) (Munich 2009). On the content and origin of these documents, see Reinhard Zimmermann, “The Present State of European Private Law” (2009) 57 American Journal of Comparative Law 479 ff.; idem, “Common Frame of Reference”, in Jürgen Basedow, Klaus J. Hopt and Reinhard Zimmermann (eds.), Handwörterbuch des Europäischen Privatrechts (Tübingen 2009), pp. 276 ff.

² “… a kind of ‘basic law’ in the field of patrimonial law for the States of the European Union”: Christian von Bar, “Die Study Group on a European Civil Code”, in Peter Gottwald (ed.), Festschrift für Dieter Henrich (Bielefeld 2000), p. 3 (referring to the working programme of the Study Group on a European Civil Code, founded by von Bar, that has decisively shaped the DCFR).

³ Hans Schulte-Nölke, “Die Acquis Principles (ACQP) und der Gemeinsame Referenzrahmen: Zu den Voraussetzungen einer ertragreichen Diskussion”, in Reiner Schulze, Christian von Bar and Hans Schulte-Nölke (eds.), Der akademische Entwurf für einen Gemeinsamen Referenzrahmen: Kontroversen und Perspektiven (Tübingen 2008), pp. 47 ff., 67 f.; idem, “Arbeiten an einem europäischen Vertragsrecht: Fakten und populäre Irrtümer” [2009] NJW 2161 ff. Cf. also, in this context, Hans Schulte-Nölke, “Ziele und Arbeitsweisen von Study Group und Acquis Group bei der Vorbereitung des DCFR”, in Martin Schmidt-Kessel (ed.), Der gemeinsame Referenzrahmen: Entstehung, Inhalte, Anwendung (Munich 2009), pp. 9 ff.; as well as idem, “Restatement – nicht Kodifikation: Arbeiten am ‘Gemeinsamen Referenzrahmen’ für ein Europäisches Vertragsrecht”, in Oliver Remien (ed.), Schuldrechtsmodernisierung und Europäisches Vertragsrecht (Tübingen 2008), pp. 25 ff. See also, along similar lines, Hugh Beale, “The Nature and Purposes of the Common Frame of Reference” (2008) 14 Juridica International 10, 11.

⁴ Schulte-Nölke, “Die Acquis Principles” (note 3 above), pp. 67 f.

⁵ Schulte-Nölke, “Ziele und Arbeitsweisen” (note 3 above), p. 14.

⁶ Schulte-Nölke, [2009] NJW 2161.

⁷ Reiner Schulze, “The Academic Draft of the CFR and the EC Contract Law”, in idem (ed.), Common Frame of Reference and Existing EC Contract Law (Munich 2008), pp. 3, 13 ff.; idem and Thomas Wilhelmsson, “From the Draft Common Frame of Reference towards European Contract Law Rules” [2008] European Review of Contract Law (E.R.C.L.) 154 ff.; Stefan Grundmann, “The Structure of the DCFR – Which Approach for Today's Contract Law?” [2008] E.R.C.L. 225 ff.; Horst Eidenmüller, Florian Faust, Christoph Grigoleit, Nils Jansen, Gerhard Wagner and Reinhard Zimmermann, “The Common Frame of Reference for European Private Law – Policy Choices and Codification Problems” (2008) 28 O.J.L.S. 659 ff.

⁸ Schulte-Nölke, “Die Acquis Principles” (note 3 above), p. 47.

⁹ Cf., e.g., Christian von Bar, “Die Study Group” (note 2 above), pp. 1 ff.; idem, Ole Lando and Stephen Swann, “Communication on European Contract Law: Joint Response of the Commission on European Contract Law and the Study Group on a European Civil Code” (2002) 10 European Review of Private Law (E.R.P.L.) 183, paras. [87] ff.

¹⁰ Christian von Bar, “Die Funktionen des Gemeinsamen Referenzrahmens aus der Sicht der Verfasser des wissenschaftlichen Entwurfs”, in Schmidt-Kessel (ed.), Der gemeinsame Referenzrahmen (note 3 above), pp. 23, 28 f.; idem, “A Common Frame of Reference for European Private Law – Academic Efforts and Political Realities” (2008) 23 Tulane European and Civil Law Forum 37, 39 f.

¹¹ Martijn Hesselink, “The Common Frame of Reference as a Source of European Private Law” (2009) 83 Tulane L.R. 919, 923; with a long footnote containing references supporting that view. See also idem, CFR and Social Justice (2008), p. 11, also with a host of further references. For Hesselink, the choice of the term “Common Frame of Reference” is a “clever trick” designed to conceal the true nature of the project: “The European Commission's Action Plan: Towards a More Coherent European Contract Law?” (2004) 12 E.R.P.L. 397, 402. (That fact has also been noted by other observers; see, for example, Gerhard Wagner, “Die soziale Frage und der Gemeinsame Referenzrahmen” (2007) 15 Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht (ZEuP) 180, 182 f.); Simon Whittaker, “A Framework of Principle for European Contract Law?” (2009) 125 L.Q.R. 616, 623 ff., 645. Cf. also von Bar, (2008) 23 Tulane European and Civil Law Forum 40: “There is … no reason against also calling the Common Frame of Reference a ‘Code’” (though adding that to his mind the question is practically irrelevant).

¹² Schulte-Nölke, “Restatement – nicht Kodifikation” (note 3 above), pp. 26 ff.; idem, [2009] NJW 2162; cf. also von Bar, “Funktionen” (note 10 above), p. 25.

¹³ Joachim Zekoll, “Das American Law Institute – ein Vorbild für Europa?”, in Reinhard Zimmermann (ed.), Nichtstaatliches Privatrecht: Geltung und Genese (Tübingen 2008), pp. 101, 117 with further references concerning the American discussion.

¹⁴ “Report of the Committee on the Establishment of a Permanent Organization for the Improvement of the Law Proposing the Establishment of an American Law Institute…” (1923) 1 Proceedings of the American Law Institute 1 ff., 25, cf. also p. 29.

¹⁵ “Report of the Committee Proposing the Establishment of an American Law Institute” (note 14 above), pp. 6 ff., 66 ff., 69 ff., 77 f. Further references in Ralf Michaels, “Restatements”, in Basedow, Hopt and Zimmermann, Handwörterbuch des Europäischen Privatrechts (note 1 above), pp. 1295 ff.; Nils Jansen, The Making of Legal Authority: Non-legislative Codifications in Historical and Comparative Perspective (Oxford 2010), pp. 50 ff.

¹⁶ American Bar Association, “Report of the Special Committee Appointed to Consider and Report Whether the Present Delay and Uncertainty in Judicial Administration Can be Lessened, and If So, By What Means” (1885) 8 Annual Report of the American Bar Association 323, 329 ff.

¹⁷ Benjamin Cardozo, The Growth of the Law (New Haven 1924), p. 9. For more recent literature, see Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law, 3rd edition (reprinted New York 2007), p. 304; Arthur T. von Mehren, “Some Reflections on Codification and Case Law in the Twenty-First Century” (1998) 31 University of California at Davis L.R. 659, 668 f.; Nils Jansen and Ralf Michaels, “Private Law and the State: Comparative Perceptions and Historical Observations”, (2007) 71 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 345, 387 f.

¹⁸ See Melvin A. Eisenberg, “The Concept of National Law and the Rule of Recognition” (2002) 29 Florida State University L.R. 1229, 1251 ff.; Zekoll, “Das American Law Institute” (note 13 above), pp. 115 ff.; further, e.g., Arthur T. von Mehren, Law in the United States: A General and Comparative View (Deventer 1988), pp. 21 f.; John P. Frank, “Law Institute 1923–1998” (1998) 26 Hofstra L.R. 615, 638 ff.; Max Rheinstein, “Leader Groups in American Law” (1971) 38 University of Chicago L.R. 687, 692 f.; David V. Snyder, “Private Lawmaking” (2003) 64 Ohio State L.J. 371, 381 f.

¹⁹ Hesselink, (2009) 83 Tulane L.R. 925, n. 23; von Bar, Lando and Swann, (2002) 10 E.R.P.L. 183, paras. [61] ff.

²⁰ See Schulte-Nölke, [2009] NJW 2163.

²¹ Albert V. Dicey, A Treatise on the Rules for the Selection of the Parties to an Action (London 1870); idem, The Law of Domicile as a Branch of the Law of England in the Form of Rules (London 1879). The immediate model was, apparently, Albert V. Dicey, A Digest of the Law of England with References to the Conflict of Laws, 2nd edition (London 1908).

²² Schulte-Nölke, “Restatement – nicht Kodifikation” (note 3 above), p. 26.

²³ Samuel Williston, “The Restatement of Contracts: Statement by Samuel Williston” (1932) 18 American Bar Association Journal 775, 777. Williston was the “reporter” (i.e. the author) of the first Restatement on Contracts. For the same reason, incidentally, the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts do without comparative notes and legal reasoning supporting the model rules.

²⁴ Ole Lando and Hugh Beale (eds.), Principles of European Contract Law, Parts I and II (The Hague 2000); Ole Lando, André Prüm, Eric Clive and Reinhard Zimmermann (eds.), Principles of European Contract Law, Part III (The Hague 2003). On the PECL, see Reinhard Zimmermann, “Principles of European Contract Law”, in Basedow, Hopt and Zimmermann, Handwörterbuch des Europäischen Privatrechts (note 1 above), pp. 1177 ff.

²⁵ See James Gordley, The Philosophical Origins of Modern Contract Doctrine (Oxford 1991).

²⁶ For an overview of sales law, see Peter Huber, “Comparative Sales Law”, in Mathias Reimann and Reinhard Zimmermann (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law (Oxford 2008), pp. 937 ff.; on general contract law, see E. Allan Farnsworth, “Comparative Contract Law”, loc.cit., pp. 899 ff.

²⁷ Nils Jansen, Binnenmarkt, Privatrecht und Europäische Identität (Tübingen 2004), pp. 23 ff.

²⁸ Nils Jansen, “Negotiorum Gestio and Benevolent Intervention in Another's Affairs: Principles of European Law?” (2007) 15 ZEuP 958 ff.; Lukas Rademacher, “Die Geschäftsführung ohne Auftrag im europäischen Privatrecht” [2008] JURA 92 ff.

²⁹ European Group on Tort Law, Jaap Spier, “General Introduction”, in Principles of European Tort Law: Text and Commentary (Vienna 2005), para. [31]. The same applies to the law of unjustified enrichment which is full of neologisms and startling inventions and which does not follow any of the established, national taxonomies: see Christiane Wendehorst, “Ungerechtfertigte Bereicherung”, in Schulze, von Bar and Schulte-Nölke (eds.), Der akademische Entwurf für einen Gemeinsamen Referenzrahmen (note 3 above), pp. 215 ff.; Jan M. Smits, “A European Law of Unjustified Enrichment?”, in Antoni Vaquer (ed.), European Private Law Beyond the Common Frame of Reference (Groningen 2008), pp. 151 ff. According to Swann, one of the architects of the DCFR's law of unjustified enrichment, its drafting is bound to create the impression “of constructing a castle in the air”: “The Structure of Liability for Unjustified Enrichment: First Proposals of the Study Group on a European Civil Code”, in Reinhard Zimmermann (ed.), Grundstrukturen eines Europäischen Bereicherungsrechts (Tübingen 2005), pp. 157, 158.

³⁰ Christiane Wendehorst, “Das Vertragsrecht der Dienstleistungen im deutschen und künftigen europäischen Recht” (2006) 206 Archiv für die civilistische Praxis (AcP) 205, 290 ff., 292.

³¹ Hannes Unberath, “Der Dienstleistungsvertrag im Entwurf des Gemeinsamen Referenzrahmens” (2008) 16 ZEuP 745, 759 ff., 774.

³² Wendehorst, (2006) 206 AcP 205, 290 ff.; Unberath, (2008) 16 ZEuP 759 ff.

³³ Kåre Lilleholt, “A European Law of Lease?”, in Vaquer (ed.), European Private Law (note 29 above), pp. 55, 59.

³⁴ von Bar, Lando and Swann, (2002) 10 E.R.P.L. 183, para. [62]: “… a formulation of shared law in terms of a mere reflection of the existing rules is not feasible in view of the existing multitude of systems of private law in Europe. … a mere description of deviations from the existing national legal systems is insufficient. What is called for is the composition of uniform basic rules (‘Principles’), …. which overcome the existing substantive differences”.

³⁵ Schulte-Nölke, [2009] NJW 2161; cf. also Beale, (2008) 14 Juridica International 13 f.

³⁶ Schulte-Nölke, [2009] NJW 2162.

³⁷ Schulte-Nölke, “Restatement – nicht Kodifikation” (note 3 above), pp. 27 ff.; idem, “Die Acquis Principles” (note 3 above), p. 63; cf. also von Bar, “Funktionen” (note 10 above), p. 26.

³⁸ Mauro Bussani and Ugo Mattei, “The Common Core Approach to European Private Law” (1997/98) 3 Columbia Journal of European Law 339, 340; Mauro Bussani, “Current Trends in European Comparative Law: The Common Core Approach” (1998) 21 Hastings International and Comparative L.R. 785, 786 f.

³⁹ Bussani, (1998) 21 Hastings International and Comparative L.R.787.

⁴⁰ von Bar, Lando and Swann, (2002) 10 E.R.P.L. 183, para. [62]: The Principles of European law “construct a building plan for a future European legal system”.

⁴¹ See Lando and Beale, Principles of European Contract Law, Parts I and II (note 24 above), p. xxii: “The Principles are intended to reflect the common core of solutions to problems of contract law”.

⁴² But see Schulte-Nölke, [2009] NJW 2165. The reference to the former President of the German Federal Supreme Court, Hirsch, “Erwartungen der gerichtlichen Praxis an einen gemeinsamen Referenzrahmen für ein Europäisches Vertragsrecht” [2007] Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht und Insolvenzpraxis 937, incidentally, leads astray; Hirsch does not explore such a function of the CFR, or of comparative notes, in his article.

⁴³ Luisa Antoniolli and Anna Veneziano (eds.), Principles of European Contract Law and Italian Law: A Commentary (The Hague 2005); Harriët N. Schelhaas et al. (eds.), The Principles of European Contract Law and Dutch Law: A Commentary (The Hague 2002–2006). See also Hector L. MacQueen and Reinhard Zimmermann (eds.), European Contract Law: Scots and South African Perspectives (Edinburgh 2006).

⁴⁴ Jansen, (2007) 15 ZEuP 963 ff., 980 ff.; Rademacher, [2008] JURA 92, 93 ff.

⁴⁵ Cf. Schulze, von Bar and Schulte-Nölke (eds.), Der akademische Entwurf für einen Gemeinsamen Referenzrahmen (note 3 above); Schmidt-Kessel (ed.), Der gemeinsame Referenzrahmen (note 3 above). Martin Schmidt-Kessel, together with Hans Schulte-Nölke and Christian von Bar, is professor at the European Legal Studies Institute of the University of Osnabrück, and, within the framework of the DCFR, chairs the Working Team on gratuitous contracts.

⁴⁶ Mauro Bussani and Vernon V. Palmer (eds.), Pure Economic Loss in Europe (Cambridge 2003); James Gordley (ed.), The Enforceability of Promises in European Contract Law (Cambridge 2001); Michele Graziadei et al. (eds.), Commercial Trusts in European Private Law (Cambridge 2005); Eva-Maria Kieninger et al. (eds.), Security Rights in Movable Property in European Private Law (Cambridge 2004); Thomas Möllers and Andreas Heinemann (eds.), The Enforcement of Competition Law in Europe (Cambridge 2007); Barbara Pozzo (ed.), Property and Environment (Bern and Durham USA 2007); Ruth Sefton-Green (ed.), Mistake, Fraud and Duties to Inform in European Contract Law (Cambridge 2005); Franz Werro and Vernon V. Palmer (eds.), The Boundaries of Strict Liability in European Tort Law (Cambridge 2004); Reinhard Zimmermann and Simon Whittaker (eds.), Good Faith in European Contract Law (Cambridge 2000).

⁴⁷ Hein Kötz, European Contract Law (Oxford 1997).

⁴⁸ Filippo Ranieri, Europäisches Obligationenrecht, 3rd edition (Vienna 2009).

⁴⁹ Hugh Beale, Arthur S. Hartkamp, Hein Kötz and Denis Tallon (eds.), Cases, Materials and Text on Contract Law (Oxford 2002); Walter van Gerven, Jeremy Lever and Pierre Larouche, Cases, Materials and Text on National, Supranational and International Tort Law (Oxford 2000); Jack Beatson and Eltjo Schrage (eds.), Cases, Materials and Texts on Unjustified Enrichment (Oxford 2003).

⁵⁰ For comparative commentaries on the PECL, see note 43 above.

⁵¹ Stefan Vogenauer and Jan Kleinheisterkamp (eds.), Commentary on the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) (Oxford 2009).

⁵² Christian von Bar, The Common European Law of Torts (Oxford 1998–2000).

⁵³ Cees van Dam, European Tort Law (Oxford 2006).

⁵⁴ In the meantime, apart from the Principles of European Tort Law previously mentioned, and the European Tort Law Yearbook (from 2001), more than thirty individual volumes have appeared. In addition a Digest on European Tort Law has been tackled (the first volume of which has appeared in 2007).

⁵⁵ Peter Schlechtriem, Restitution und Bereicherungsausgleich in Europa (Tübingen 2000–2001).

⁵⁶ Overview in Reinhard Zimmermann, “Comparative Law and the Europeanization of Private Law”, in Reimann and Zimmermann, Oxford Handbook (note 26 above), pp. 548 ff.; Jansen, “Europäisches Privatrecht”, in Basedow, Hopt and Zimmermann, Handwörterbuch des Europäischen Privatrechts (note 1 above), pp. 548 ff. For the common tradition of European private law see Jansen, “Ius commune”, in Basedow, Hopt and Zimmermann, Handwörterbuch des Europäischen Privatrechts (note 1 above), pp. 916 ff.; Johannes Liebrecht, “Rechtsgeschichte”, loc.cit., pp. 1245 ff.

⁵⁷ For France, Konrad Zweigert and Hein Kötz, Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung, 3rd edition, (Tübingen 1996), 78 ff., 84 ff.; for Germany loc.cit., pp. 137 ff., 142 ff.; Paul Koschaker, Europa und das römische Recht, 4th edition (Munich 1966), p. 205; Reinhard Zimmermann, “The German Civil Code and the Development of Private Law in Germany”, in idem, The New German Law of Obligations: Historical and Comparative Perspectives (Oxford 2005), pp. 10 ff.

⁵⁸ Horst Heinrich Jakobs, Wissenschaft und Gesetzgebung im bürgerlichen Recht nach der Rechtsquellenlehre des 19. Jahrhunderts (Paderborn 1983), p. 160. The BGB can thus, at least to some extent, be seen to be a restatement of the Roman-law based rules as they were applicable in 19th century Germany.

⁵⁹ See the “Report of the Committee Proposing the Establishment of an American Law Institute” (note 14 above), p. 28; cf. also Zekoll, “Law Institute” (note 13 above), pp. 112 ff.

⁶⁰ Whittaker, (2009) 125 L.Q.R. 623 ff., 645.

⁶¹ On which see, most recently, Jan Peter Schmidt, “Kodifikation”, in Basedow, Hopt and Zimmermann, Handwörterbuch des Europäischen Privatrechts (note 1 above), pp. 986 ff. On the phenomenon of transjurisdictional codification, see Jürgen Basedow, “Transjurisdictional Codification” (2009) 83 Tulane L.R. 973 ff.

⁶² For criticism, see Schulze, “The Academic Draft” (above note 7), pp. 13 ff.; cf. also idem and Wilhelmsson, [2008] E.R.C.L. 154 ff.

⁶³ It may be possible, as the authors of the DCFR in their Introduction to the Outline Edition (note 1 above), para. [74], emphasize (but do not recommend!) to “recontractualize” the content of Books II and III. One would then, however, end up again with the PECL on the one hand, and, on the other hand, with the so-called Acquis Principles, i.e. an attempt, on the part of a Research Group on the Existing EC Private Law (Acquis Group), to lay down in a systematic fashion the acquis communautaire in the field of consumer contract law (on these Acquis Principles, see Nils Jansen and Reinhard Zimmermann, “Restating the Acquis Communautaire? A Critical Examination of the ‘Principles of the Existing EC Contract Law’ (2008) 71 M.L.R. 505 ff.; Hans C. Grigoleit and Lovro Tomasic, “Acquis Principles”, in Basedow, Hopt and Zimmermann, Handwörterbuch des Europäischen Privatrechts (note 1 above), pp. 12 ff.). These Acquis Principles would, incidentally, no longer be up to date if the European Commission should decide to pursue its project of a new Consumer Rights Directive, drafted completely independently of both Acquis Principles and DCFR (see note 66 below).

⁶⁴ See Ole Lando, “The Structure and the Legal Values of the Common Frame of Reference (CFR)” [2007] E.R.C.L. 244, 250.

⁶⁵ That is what the Commission of the European Union (i.e. the body that has financed the preparation of the DCFR out of funds from the 6th Framework Programme for Research) envisages: see “European Contract Law and the Revision of the Acquis: The Way Forward”, COM(2004) 651 final (under 2). For a comment, from the point of view of the Study Group ECC, see Christian von Bar, (2008) 23 Tulane European and Civil Law Forum 43.

⁶⁶ It may not, therefore, be entirely accidental that the Proposal for a Directive on Consumer Rights (COM(2008) 614 final) appears to have been conceived and drafted quite independently of the DCFR. Thus, the DCFR has not been used as a “tool box”: see Zimmermann, (2009) 57 American Journal of Comparative Law 486 ff.; Peter Rott and Evelyne Terryn, “The Proposal for a Directive on Consumer Rights: No Single Set of Rules” (2009) 17 ZEuP 456 ff.; Hans-Wolfgang Micklitz and Norbert Reich, “Crónica de una muerte anunciada: The Commission Proposal for a ‘Directive on Consumer Rights’” (2009) 46 Common Market Law Review 471, 472.

⁶⁷ This is what Schulte-Nölke, [2009] NJW 2164, emphatically states.

⁶⁸ See, most recently, Filippo Ranieri, “Die deutsche Pandektistik: Europäischer Aufstieg und Niedergang eines rechtswissenschaftlichen Modells”, in Joachim Lege (ed.), Greifswald – Spiegel der deutschen Rechtswissenschaft 1815–1945 (Tübingen 2009), pp. 417 ff.; Wolfgang Ernst, “Zur Struktur des CFR”, in Schmidt-Kessel (ed.), Der Gemeinsame Referenzrahmen (note 3 above), pp. 55 ff., 70, suspects that in view of the structural similarity of the DCFR with the BGB it may one day be said that the DCFR is “a BGB translated into English”.

⁶⁹ These are: Freedom, Security, Justice, and Efficiency.

⁷⁰ Schulte-Nölke, [2009] NJW 2164 f.; idem, “Die Acquis Principles” (note 3 above), pp. 64 ff.; von Bar, Lando and Swann, (2002) 10 E.R.P.L. 183, paras. [69]–[77].

⁷¹ Schulte-Nölke, [2009] NJW 2161 ff.

⁷² Hans Schulte-Nölke, “EC Law on the Formation of Contract – from the Common Frame of Reference to the ‘Blue Button’” [2007] E.R.C.L. 332 ff.; idem, “Restatement – nicht Kodifikation” (note 3 above), pp. 41 ff. Cf. also von Bar, “Funktionen” (note 10 above), pp. 30 f.; Dirk Staudenmayer, “European Contract Law – What Does It Mean and What Does It Not Mean”, in: Stefan Vogenauer and Stephen Weatherill (eds.), The Harmonization of European Contract Law (Oxford 2006), pp. 236 ff.; Basedow, (2009) 83 Tulane L.R. 995 f.

⁷³ von Bar, Beale, Clive and Schulte-Nölke, “Introduction”, in von Bar, Clive and Schulte-Nölke, Outline Edition (note 1 above), para. [80].

⁷⁴ That is, essentially, acknowledged also by Hesselink, (2009) 83 Tulane L.R. 961 ff.

⁷⁵ In another publication, Schulte-Nölke actually acknowledges that: Hans Schulte-Nölke, “Wovon Europas Juristen träumen …” (2009) 17 ZEuP 673, 674: “European model rules are supposed … to be applied”; similarly Beale, (2008) 14 Juridica International 17. Schulte-Nölke's focus, therefore, is now no longer on “beauty” (cf. supra, note 4 above), but on “functionality”.

⁷⁶ See, in the context of the rules regarding “benevolent intervention in another”s affairs”, James Gordley, “The State's Private Law and Legal Academia”, in Nils Jansen and Ralf Michaels (eds.), Beyond the State: Rethinking Private Law (Tübingen 2008), pp. 219, 222 f.

⁷⁷ See generally Jansen, Non-legislative Codifications (note 15 above), esp. pp. 17, 42 ff., 65 ff., 130 ff.

⁷⁸ Martin Schmidt-Kessel, “Europäisches Zivilgesetzbuch”, in: Basedow, Hopt and Zimmermann, Handwörterbuch des Europäischen Privatrechts (note 1 above), pp. 551, 554. Christian von Bar has also, repeatedly, emphasized the “involvement in a political process” on the part the DCFR-network: see (2008) 23 Tulane European and Civil Law Forum 48; cf. also (still, at that time, hesitating) idem, “Ein gemeinsamer Referenzrahmen für das marktrelevante Privatrecht in der Europäischen Union”, in Heinz-Peter Mansel (ed.), Festschrift für Erik Jayme (Munich 2004), vol. II, p. 1230: “Only the future can show whether this alliance between the promotion of research and politics is a felicitous idea”.

⁷⁹ Schulte-Nölke, [2009] NJW 2161 ff.

⁸⁰ See, especially, the contributions by Christian von Bar and Martijn Hesselink, notes 9–11 above.

⁸¹ See, e.g., (2007) 15 ZEuP 109–323; 4th European Jurists Forum (Section 1) (2008), pp. 185–204; Eidenmüller, Faust, Grigoleit, Jansen, Wagner and Zimmermann, (2008) 28 O.J.L.S. 659 ff.; Simon Whittaker, “The ‘Draft Common Frame of Reference’: An Assessment commissioned by the Ministry of Justice”, available online at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/eu-contract-law-common-frame-reference.pdf; the contributions by Thomas Pfeiffer and Wolfgang Ernst in (2007) 207 AcP 227–282; Schulze and Wilhelmsson, [2008] E.R.C.L. 154 ff.; Grundmann, [2008] E.R.C.L. 225 ff.; Schulze, von Bar and Schulte-Nölke (eds.), Der akademische Entwurf für einen Gemeinsamen Referenzrahmen (note 3 above, especially the contributions by Faust, Eidenmüller, Wagner and Wendehorst); Schmidt-Kessel, Der gemeinsame Referenzrahmen (note 3 above), especially the contributions by Wolfgang Ernst and Helmut Koziol; (2008) 16 ZEuP 677–812, especially the contributions by Ulrich Huber and Hannes Unberath; Jan M. Smits, “A European Law of Unjustified Enrichment?” (above note 29); Zimmermann, (2009) 57 American Journal of Comparative Law 484 ff.; as well as the contributions in Gerhard Wagner (ed.), The Common Frame of Reference: A View from Law & Economics (Munich 2009).