From Industrial to Legal Standardization, 1871-1914

Tilmann J. Röder wrote his PhD thesis at the Max Planck Institute for European Legal History in Frankfurt am Main. He has been a senior research fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg since 2006 and is responsible for rule of law projects in Islamic countries including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Egypt. He recently publishedConstitutionalism in Islamic Countries: Between Upheaval and Continuit (with Rainer Grote, eds., OUP 2011),

'This is a pioneering study that can be recommended to anyone interested in the history of international business and the contracts and legal standards that came to underpin it.'Reviewed for EH.Net by Robin Pearson, Department of History, University of Hull (December 2012).

• List of TablesList of AbbreviationsList of References and SourcesForewordIntroductionThe Subject and Focus of the Present StudyState of Research and SourcesChapter OneStandard Contract Terms in National and International Trade1.1.Weapons, Contracts and the Dominance of Standardisation1.2.Contract Terms and Conditions in Individual Countries1.2.1.The Beginnings of Standardisation in Technology and Law (ca. 1770-1830)1.2.2.Intensification of the Mass Phenomenon (approximately 1830-1870)1.2.3.Institutionalisation and State Control (ca. 1870-1914)1.3.Contract Terms in Worldwide Commerce1.3.1.The Internationalisation of Business (1871-1914)1.3.2.Adjustment of Contract Bases to Economic InternationalisationChapter TwoThe Earthquake Clause in Fire Insurance Contracts: The Development of a Standard (1906-1907)2.1.The Aftermath of an Earthquake2.1.1.A Paradise for Fire Insurers2.1.2.‘San Francisco is gone’.2.1.3.The Worldwide Earthquake in the Insurance Business2.1.4.The Beginning of Damage Settlements2.1.5.Points of Conflict in Material Law2.1.5.1.Pure Tremor Damage2.1.5.2.Damage Equally Caused by the Collapse of Buildings and Fire2.1.5.3.Pure Fire Damages2.1.5.4.Damages from Explosions, Blasting, and Sundry Causes2.1.6.Attempts to Reach Out-of-Court Settlements2.1.6.1.Insurers Seeking Alliances2.1.6.2.The Escalation of the Conflicts over Damages2.1.6.3.The Preparation for Juridical Disputes2.1.7.Court Cases and Settlements2.1.7.1.Law of Evidence and Levels of Review: Steps in Favour of the Injured Parties2.1.7.2.Cases Involving Damages Caused by Partial Building Collapse2.1.7.3.Cases involving Fire Damage2.1.7.4.Court Cases and Settlements Abroad2.1.8.The Earthquake Balance Sheet: The View from the International Insurance Business2.2.The Reactions of the Insurance Industry2.2.1.The San Francisco Disaster: Difference in the Perception of the Events2.2.2.Danger or Risk? Differences in the Perception of the Possible2.2.3.San Francisco, Valparaiso, Kingston: The Global Dimension2.2.4.Radical Thought Experiments2.2.5.The Initial Consequences in the Crisis Regions2.2.6.Additional Premiums or an Earthquake Clause?2.3.The Motors of an International Standardisation of the Earthquake Clause2.3.1.The Project of the Four Reinsurers 2.3.1.1.Origin of the ‘Earthquake Commission’2.3.1.2.Activation of the Global Networks2.3.1.3.A Stock-Taking at the End of 1906: International Regulation Pluralism2.3.1.4.Reinsurers as Legal Comparatists2.3.1.5.The Perfect Earthquake Clause2.3.2.Opposition in England and the United States2.3.2.1.The United States of America: The Power of Politics and Society2.3.2.2.Great Britain: The Power of the Market 2.3.3.Adherence to the Concept of the Earthquake Clause2.4.A New Standard for the World: Result of the Second PartChapter ThreeThe Earthquake Clause in Fire Insurance ContractsThe Limits of International Standardisation (1907-1912)3.1.The Introduction of Unitary Earthquake Clauses3.1.1.Basic Features of National Developments3.1.1.1.Spain and Portugal3.1.1.2.France and Belgium3.1.1.3.Germany and Austria-Hungary3.1.1.4.First Results3.1.2.Germany: A Broad Consensus on the Earthquake Question3.1.2.1.The Fire Insurance Industry at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century3.1.2.2.‘San Francisco’ Reaches Germany3.1.2.3.Contemporary Estimates of the Earthquake-Fire Danger in Germany3.1.2.4.The Earthquake Regulations at the Time of the San Francisco Disaster3.1.2.5.The German Discourse of the Earthquake Regulations in the AVB and Law3.1.2.6.International Standardisation through Legislation (November 1907-May 1908)3.1.2.7.A New Earthquake Clause in the New AVB (1908-1909)3.1.2.8.No Business Abroad without an Earthquake Clause?3.1.2.9.Adoption of the Earthquake Clause by Public Institutions3.1.3.Provisional Conclusion3.2.Rejection of the Earthquake Clause and its Alternatives3.2.1.The Outlines of National Developments3.2.1.1.Great Britain and the Netherlands3.2.1.2.The United States of America and Canada3.2.1.3.Initial Results3.2.2.California: Standard Policies as the Threshold for International Standardisation?3.2.2.1.The Insurance Industry at the Turn of the Twentieth Century3.2.2.2.Contemporary Estimates of the Earthquake-Fire Danger in California3.2.2.3.The Earthquake Regulations at the Time of the San Francisco Catastrophe3.2.2.4.‘Drastic Insurance Legislation expected’ (1906)3.2.2.5.The Development and Failure of the First Standard Policy Draft (1907) 3.2.2.6.Reform of the Law of Civil Procedure and of the Law of Supervision (1907)3.2.2.7.The Market Decides it All: The Insurers’ Discussion and Removal of the Earthquake Clauses (1907)3.2.2.8.The Development and Success of the Second Standard Policy Draft (1907-1909)3.2.2.9.Reactions from the Insurance Industry and the Public3.2.3.Preliminary Results3.3.No Consensus on the Earthquake Clause3.3.1.Character of National Developments3.3.1.1.Switzerland3.3.1.2.Scandinavia, Russia and Italy3.3.1.3.Initial Results3.3.2.Italy: Discourse Control instead of Clause Reform3.3.2.1.The Fire Insurance Industry at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century3.3.2.2.Will ‘San Francisco’ Come to Italy?3.3.2.3.Contemporary Assessments of the Earthquake-Fire Danger in Italy3.3.2.4.The Earthquake Regulations at the Time of the San Francisco Catastrophe 3.3.2.5.Recommendation of the Reinsurers on Clause Reform (July 1907)3.3.2.6.No Reactions (1907-1908)3.3.2.7.An Earthquake and its Consequences: ‘Messina non c’era più’3.3.2.8.Reinterpretation of the Earthquake Clause in Court (1909-1910)3.4.The Reasons for Success and Failure: Results of the Third PartChapter FourSummary: Paradigmatic Changes in the Law4.1.New Regulatory Requirements4.2.New Structures of the Formation of Norms4.2.1.Scope, Conditions and Limits of the Standard Form Practice4.2.2.Standardisation of the Contractual Bases as a Novel Organisational Strategy4.3.Tendencies in the Replacement of State Law4.3.1.Development of Law between Autonomy and the State’s Claim to Regulation4.3.2.The Genesis of a Transnational Legal System?AppendixBibliographyIndex