Balance theory

One of the words that a law student most often hears during his five years of study is the word THEORY. At first, I found it difficult to get used to the fact that the word “THEORY” is used by lawyers in a special way. After high school, I expected that theory was at least something as fundamental and with such important consequences as EINSTEIN THEORY or DARWIN THEORY. Meanwhile, in law studies THEORY, it’s something completely different. Let me give you an example: during a lecture in civil law Prof. E. Wojnaicka explained to us that in the event of withdrawal from the mutual agreement, the settlement of the parties may take place according to the theory of balance or in accordance with the theory of reimbursement of benefits.

When I heard this, I expected the lecturer to present us with something as fascinating and puzzling as EVOLUTION THEORY and RELATIVITY. Meanwhile, the lecturer explained: “The balance settlement is based on the fact that the value of the parties’ mutual benefits is counted and the party who has received more returns the surplus or BALANCE to the other party.

And the whole THEORY. The second theory: THE THEORY OF REIMBURSEMENT OF BENEFITS, exhausts in its entirety in what only two-thirds of its name says. The habit of using the word theory I have not got rid of to this day.