Elementele și funcțiile patrimoniului

In the study, the author emphasizes the distinction between the elements of the patrimony and the patrimony as universality, which cannot be reduced to the sum of its component elements. The rights and obligations, as elements of the patrimony, are regarded as pecuniary values, and the ratio of proportionality between them marks the existence and degree of solvency of the patrimony. As legal universality, patrimony represents a unit distinct from the component elements that lose their identity and existence. The patrimony is autonomous from the component elements, from the changes made within their scope, without being altered in its existence. It is obvious that this relation between the unitary and the modification of the component elements as patrimonial values cannot leave aside the fungibility, as a mechanism of the real general universal subrogation, with universal title and with private title, in the cases and under the conditions provided by law with regard to the latter. As legal universality, patrimony was also analyzed from the perspective of its permanent character, inseparable from the natural person and the condition of existence of the legal person, from the perspective of its continuous, unique, unitary character, without this last character excluding its divisibility into patrimonial masses with specific legal regimes. As for the power exercised over the patrimony, this is distinct from the power exercised over the patrimonial rights considered ut singuli, susceptible of appropriation. As a legal universality, patrimony is not an asset, so that the power exercised over it may not be confused with a subjective patrimonial right, even if the patrimony expresses the affiliations to a certain person. Both in the case of subjective law and in the case of patrimony power operates, only that the object on which the power is exercised marks the difference. An analyzed aspect with multiple practical implications was the intrapatrimonial transfer, which aims at the transfer of goods from one patrimonial mass to another patrimonial mass and which cannot be qualified as alienation, because it intervenes within the same patrimony. In the final part of the study, the author delimits the company’s patrimony from that pertaining to the associates, stating that the elements brought as contribution that make up the social capital and those subsequently acquired represent asset elements of the company’s patrimony in respect of which the creditors have a gene