Who was the real owner of a car that was stolen after it was repossessed from the buyer by the seller? Who was the real owner of a car that was destroyed by fire after it was reclaimed from the buyer by the seller? Is it at all relevant to ask who the real owner was? In other words, is it better to have a unitary, conceptual approach when such questions are answered or is it better to have a functional, Scandinavian approach? Should questions about ownership be analyzed and answered in the same way independently of the setting in which they are posed? Is “ownership” the same thing in e.g. insurance claims cases as in situations where a bankruptcy estate must be defined concerning property on its way out from or in into the estate? And in cases of placement of risk between a seller and a buyer; are the answers still the same or does the setting influence the outcome?
In DCFR VIII. – 1:202 there is a broad definition of ownership and in VIII. – 2:101 et sec. there are detailed rules about the transfer of ownership. There are no equivalents in Swedish law. Are we in Sweden better or worse off? Is it really more effective (functional) to solve each specific question only on its own merits or is the lack of a comprehensive written legal system in reality a disadvantage?