La monnaie en droit : nature d'une abstraction outre fondée : essai dialectique et logique sur la dualité dans la catégoricité juridique et sur l'abstraction d'hérédité monétaire

This series of essays analyses the concept of money in the law, seeking to isolate its unique and highly abstract nature. Traditionallaw teaching characterizes money both as a fact and as a right premised as it is on the idea that common nouns like 'money' must have substantive meaning; it is thereby unable to accept that money, by virtue of its unique place amongst the categories of private law, is the mechanism supposing the indeterminate future by embedding the present into it. The difficulty with money is that, as a category, it is not included amongst the usual categories ofprivate law. Its abstract character prevents it from being included amongst objects that have extension. Rather money is defined by negation with respect to the usuallegal categories. It is thereby uniquely recognizable. In the subject-object relationship, paid money is obviously not a subject. In its strict meaning, money refers today to paper-money. It is true that the latter does exist physically because it is tangible. But paradoxicalIy, as an object, money is neither a sum owed, nor an obligation in kind, nor a good, nor representing a debt, nor a measurement, nor consumable, nor fungible in the relevant sense ofthose terms. How does one capture the substance of a notion that defies the usual categories of legal discourse? That is the fundamental difficulty of the thesis. The entirely unique way of defining money bears repeating: Cash money is not identical to a sum owed but extinguishes one as it is being paid; conversely, a sum owed is not identical with money received, since when money is paid without obligation, the sum can be recovered as undue (the undue becomes due). The definition ofmoney proceeds by 'corecurrence': it defines something indeterminate, in that one definition refers to the other and vice versa. Its nature stems from its function in the structure of prestations. But the legal scholarship treats it principally as a sum owed, without further distinguishing this type of debt from other prestations. Now, as the performance of an obligation, a sum ofmoney not only as much pays off any amount, due at one time or another, but, because those are paired to obligations in kind as the price owed in consideration ofparticular performances to be accomplished; the cashing of sums of money still conducts the movement of goods among persons. Whence a paradox: A sum of money is destined to circulate precise1y to extinguish sums (due). Legal scholarship generally teaches the thesis of unity of performance of obligations (payment in its broad civillaw meaning): AlI acts accomplished in the performance of obligations in kind and all payments of sums of money are put in the same bag. Now, they are first owed, then received. These operations are said to form a single set. This bag is time itself. 1t is an interpretation of the universe of prestations, more precise1y an interpretation of the notion of universe where the homogeneous actuality of a set excludes to give place to the possibility of future values by contrast to past values. To close the notion of a universe to that of an actual vi set, the trick is to close the duality 'set/member' by replacing the member by the set: one of the objects included in the set must be at once an existing element of the set and be the collection of aIl its elements, constituting thereby the substantive junction underlying this duality. This foundational object is usually called the zero of the set. In the set of performances of obligations (prestations) with which we are dealing here, there must similarly be an element in the nature of both a promise and a fact. That element is money. So money has a dual nature, both concept and referent of the concept. The sum owed is performed in money and, conversely, money is the sum transferred as payment: substituting one definition in the other, the performance of the sum owed is the sum transferred, a formula leading to infinite regression. Who then is the debtor of this sum transferred for as long as money did and will circulate? The conceptual difficulty with money is to understand this metamorphosis, where the performance of a fact in satisfaction of an obligation reveals itselfto be a promise. Why then bother to distinguish a promise from the performance of it? Money cumulates the categorical nature of a physical thing being delivered - in olden days gold, today paper-money - and the nature of a sum owed; this way of thinking would tend to reify debts, to confer them physical existence. Yet to owe money is fundamentally the duration of the term of a relationship between two persons. And to pay money is to put an end to this term. So paradoxically, to express it in a categorical duality, money has duration and at the same time it has none. Such a union of the polar opposites of a duality is not unprecedented. To help the reader realise this, l document how the theme of migration ofpecuniary value ofthings by means ofmoney being given in payment of amounts owed is reminiscent of metempsychosis (migration of the soul) used to conceptualise the foundation of the medieval Crown, the gift ofGod that consecrated the continuity of successive reigns of an hereditary line of regents. At that time, the historical continuity of the people was conceptualised by the King's two bodies: both that of an individual and that of the set of individuals subject to his reign. Unique amongst aIl, one foundational individual was considered to constitute a set of one. This platonic attitude was believed necessary in public law to resolve the conceptual difficulty of the historical continuity of a community despite the temporal nature of its individuals; it was put to similar use in private law with respect to money. The thesis of unity of performance of obligations - where, like in economics, the capacity to exchange goods is considered an ordinary good itself - appears to rely on the same conception of a necessary dual nature. In the universe of prestations, according to traditionallegal scholarship, an infinite set of successive values taking shape over an indefinite period of time is viewed as founded on a transcendental object which cumulates the opposite faces ofa duality: both sum (of money) and thing, both right and act accomplished in the performance of an obligation, both fact and future value. This traditional paradigm disregard the duality of prestations: pecuniary and non-pecuniary. It does so by giving a substantive value to the non vi-a existence of a sumo The explanation proposed here is one of structure. The universe of prestations is rather a dichotomy of two distinct dualities: 10 a categorieal duality, that of the performance of specifie prestations - where to have done something and not to have done it are characterised action and abstention, and 20 a modal (circular) duality: to owe an amount in currency or (exclusively) not to owe it, to have paid it or not. The obligation to deliver a particular performance to someone is paired to the sum of money owed by him in consideration of it; we altemate from nonpecuniary obligation to promises to pay an amount of money without one being able to have his cake and eat it too at any time. But still, one amount owed follow another thru money, money always being the tuming over of the sum owed. We are not obliged to state that money exists, or that it does not; it suffiees to say that it extinguishes the sum owed. Not only is the sum owed extinguished upon money being tumed (paid) in, but by virtue of nominalism it still can extinguish anew a further sum of same amount; it is sufficient that a creditor accept to be owed a sum ofmoney rather than to revert to the barter ofphysical things. This new reading of the payment of obligations draw apart two types of reasoning. The categorieal proof of a past specifie performance is different from the modality where the legal consequence of the extinction of a sum due is tumed over into the a priori possibility to still reiterate that same consequence against a sum that now may not yet be determined. The possibility of an historieal continuity does not have the finite nature of a fact. Money as an object transcends the concept of an ordinary object because it is circular: 'money' is "the end of a sum (owed) and (is still) money". In the hereditary line of sums, created to be extinguished or extinguished to be created, money is neither the predecessor nor a particular successor; it is the function of continuously opening up the possibility of further successors. Money is an abstraction and its unique character is confirmed in Canada since 1967. Once the convertibility of paper-money is dropped, money is no longer a promissory note: no longer does the central bank undertakes to exchange a bank note for gold or Dominion bonds. Paper-money is now trivially replaced only by paper-money. Finally, the abstract character ofmoney gives the central bank an most unusual status as a legal person. If the Crown is creditor of sorne persons and debtor to others, then by contrast the central bank - who is not a bank - is neither creditor, nor debtor ofpaper-money. The problem of fitting money within the traditional categories of the law does have an unexpected ending. Money presents itself as the complement of the concepts oflegal discourse. The cashing in of a sum triggers the end of its term, but still it calls one anew, eventually. So money is the bath of renewal of sums. In being characterised as neither... nor... it hops between the two terms by altematively negating them.

Keyphrases: Money, Sum, Right, Object, Crown, Category, Truth modality