The Doctrines of Specification and Accession: Potential Bases for Legal Ownership through Labor?

Abstract

This paper explores the viability of the doctrines of accession and specification as potential sources of a historical-legal basis for ownership rights accruing to labor by recognizing its unique capacity to create value. Focusing on examples from American case law, the origin and development of these doctrines are documented. The changes in these doctrines, from their first appearance in the early civil law or Code of Justinian to the present, often reflect the historic changes in the composition of products, the legal relationship between labor and capital and the changes in the dominant mode of production. The purpose of this inquiry is to determine if a legal rationale exists which justifies collective ownership of the means of production.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abrahamsson

Bengt

Broström

Anders

(1980) The Rights of Labor, trans. by David

McCune.

Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage Publications.

Amiss v. State of Louisiana (1976) 340 So. 2d. 1085.

Baker v. Mersch et al . (1890) 45 N.W. 685.

Bozeman Mortuary Association v. Fairchild et al . (1934) 68 S.W. 2d. 756.

Carpenter et al. v. Lingenfelter et al . (1894) 60 N.W. 1022.

Hunter et al. v. Scruggs Drug Store, Inc . (1940) 113 F. 2d. 971.

IDS Leasing Corporation v. Leasing Associates, Inc . (1979) 590 S.W. 2d. 607.

Kemp-Booth Co., Limited v. Calvin (1936) 84 F. 2d. 377.

Lampton's Executors v. Preston's Executors (1829) 24 Ky. 454.

10.

Mixon v. Georgia Bank and Trust Co. et al . (1980) 267 S.E. 2d. 483.

11.

Nozick

Robert

(1974) Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.

12.

Passieu v. B.F. Goodrich Company (1938) 199 S.E. 775.

13.

Thomas

J.A.C.

(1976) Textbook of Roman Law. Oxford: North-Holland Publishing Company.

14.

Wm. H. Wise and Co. v. Rand McNally and Co . (1961) 195 F. Supp. 621.

15.

Zandbergen v. Burch (1978) 576 P. 2d. 812.