A longstanding dispute in comparative law concerns convergence and divergence among different legal systems. The proponents of convergence note that legal systems confront functionally similar problems, which require them to adopt similar solutions. The advocates of divergence counter that legal systems rest on distinct principles, which have an enduring infuence that resists assimilation to a common form. This Article offers empirical evidence that sheds light on these rival positions. Leases are a very common form of holding assets in all legal systems and present functionally similar issues. However, as between common law and civil law legal systems, leases rest on fundamentally different legal principles. Leases at common law are regarded as a form of property, whereas leases in the civil law tradition are universally conceived as being a type of contract. Examining lease law in common law jurisdictions (primarily
all U.S. jurisdictions, England, Canada, and Australia) and 86 civil law jurisdictions, this Article fnds that on certain dimensions lease law has converged toward a hybrid form, with common law leases becoming increasingly “contractual” and civil law leases becoming “reifed” and sharing attributes associated with property law. On other dimensions, however, starting points continue to matter, enough so that one cannot say that legal systems around the world have converged toward a unifed conception of a lease. The evolution of lease laws is consistent with the complex systems theory of private law.
The Nature of Leasing
15 Feb 2026