Now, because we're here in our capacity as the Justice for Fredersdorf Society, there's *another* interesting development else where in the document, regarding the colony of Kehlickendorf:
c) Near Kehlickendorf: Here, the timber estimate includes a residential and brewery house for the entrepreneur, as well as a windmill, a plank fence around the entrepreneur's garden, and four wells of timber, although the commission only found two wells and no plank wood, and the entrepreneur does not intend to build a residential and brewery house or a windmill in Kehlickendorf because of his neighboring Zernickow estate.
Now Pfeiffer has assured in Responso ad quaestionem 36 that the entrepreneur had stated several times that he wanted to build a house for himself in Kehlickendorf and that he had not made the above-mentioned wood estimate himself. However, he has also admitted that he had suspected that he would not build his own mill and brewery in Kehlickendorf and that he had sent the wood estimate to the entrepreneur as he had received it from Commissario Meschner, without reminding him of this suspicion or letting the Chamber know. As a result, because, as the commissioners have pointed out to Meschker, without notification of the combination of the Kehlickendorf business with the Zernickow business, the Construction Department could not have known that a separate house, a mill and a brewery in Kehlickendorf was not necessary, it happened that a rather considerable quantity of lumber has been unnecessarily agreed the local Entrepreneur.
As evident as this appears to be an undue advantage for the entrepreneur to the detriment of the royal interest, a well-founded concern should arise from the following consideration, which Pfeiffer is undoubtedly aiming at, namely that an entrepreneur cannot be credited with the special advantages arising from accidental circumstances, for example if he already owns a property from which he can use the company without having to incur the costs necessary for another entrepreneur, because on the one hand, Your Royal Majesty will not lose anything that has not already been earmarked for the establishment by the generaliter beneficia promised to him, and on the other hand, if the entrepreneur's special circumstances should be taken into account, the entrepreneur would actually be worse off than anyone else, either because he would lose the titulo oneroso could not fully enjoy the rights accorded to him, or would be compelled to permanently incorporate the company into his property.
At least we do not think that it would have been an unfair and unacceptable condition if the entrepreneur, in the event that he should find it advantageous to separate the company from his property, had requested the free building timber for the dwelling, mill and brewery at Kehckendorf, since these buildings, considered in and of themselves, are necessary for an entrepreneur, and if he sells the company without them, he always loses as much in the purchase price as the building timber, and consequently suffers a loss that would not have affected him if he had not had the convenience of being able to use the company from another property.
We therefore believe that Pfeiffer cannot be accused of anything here without violating fairness, but that he rather allowed the timber estimate to pass for as many buildings as the business at the Kehlickendorf establishment required without taking into account all the changing ancillary circumstances, and could not have worried whether the entrepreneur would actually erect these buildings for the time being or whether the company would use another property, especially since the Chamber knew without a doubt from the conditions protocol submitted in the year the favorable location of the Kehlickendorf establishment with the entrepreneur's Zernickow estate, and could assume that the entrepreneur would probably not be able to erect the buildings allocated for him for the time being, and nevertheless did not seem necessary to make further enquiries in this regard before the timber allocation was made.
But Pfeiffer is least of all concerned if the entrepreneur has not fully completed the work for which he was asked to provide lumber, since Pfeiffer could not have foreseen and prevented this incident.
Now, I wondered at first if the unnamed entrepreneur with a neighboring estate at Zernikow might be Johann Friedrich Kosack, because the Brandenburg archive catalogue say Fredersdorf leased Zernikow to him in 1753, but no, the same catalogue says "Erbzinskontrakt vom 17. Dez. 1753 mit dem Kämmerer Fredersdorf über die wüste Feldmark Kelickendorf." So it seems that if anyone is trying to efficiently combine the constructions of Kehlickendorf and neighboring Zernickow, it's Fredersdorf (and, at this date, Caroline Maria Daum, who marries him sometime between Dec 20 and Dec 30).
And it does sound to me like, while the Kriminal Senat is exonerating Pfeiffer, they're willing to entertain the idea that the entrepreneur (i.e., Fredersdorf) is at fault for not doing what he said he would do, but also to entertain Pfeiffer's defense that it's reasonable for the entrepreneur to do what he did. And since Fredersdorf's not on trial, this section ends here, and we move on to another colony.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Kiekemal, redux: Kehlickendorf and Zernikow
Date: 2024-08-02 08:34 pm (UTC)c) Near Kehlickendorf: Here, the timber estimate includes a residential and brewery house for the entrepreneur, as well as a windmill, a plank fence around the entrepreneur's garden, and four wells of timber, although the commission only found two wells and no plank wood, and the entrepreneur does not intend to build a residential and brewery house or a windmill in Kehlickendorf because of his neighboring Zernickow estate.
Now Pfeiffer has assured in Responso ad quaestionem 36 that the entrepreneur had stated several times that he wanted to build a house for himself in Kehlickendorf and that he had not made the above-mentioned wood estimate himself. However, he has also admitted that he had suspected that he would not build his own mill and brewery in Kehlickendorf and that he had sent the wood estimate to the entrepreneur as he had received it from Commissario Meschner, without reminding him of this suspicion or letting the Chamber know. As a result, because, as the commissioners have pointed out to Meschker, without notification of the combination of the Kehlickendorf business with the Zernickow business, the Construction Department could not have known that a separate house, a mill and a brewery in Kehlickendorf was not necessary, it happened that a rather considerable quantity of lumber has been unnecessarily agreed the local Entrepreneur.
As evident as this appears to be an undue advantage for the entrepreneur to the detriment of the royal interest, a well-founded concern should arise from the following consideration, which Pfeiffer is undoubtedly aiming at, namely that an entrepreneur cannot be credited with the special advantages arising from accidental circumstances, for example if he already owns a property from which he can use the company without having to incur the costs necessary for another entrepreneur, because on the one hand, Your Royal Majesty will not lose anything that has not already been earmarked for the establishment by the generaliter beneficia promised to him, and on the other hand, if the entrepreneur's special circumstances should be taken into account, the entrepreneur would actually be worse off than anyone else, either because he would lose the titulo oneroso could not fully enjoy the rights accorded to him, or would be compelled to permanently incorporate the company into his property.
At least we do not think that it would have been an unfair and unacceptable condition if the entrepreneur, in the event that he should find it advantageous to separate the company from his property, had requested the free building timber for the dwelling, mill and brewery at Kehckendorf, since these buildings, considered in and of themselves, are necessary for an entrepreneur, and if he sells the company without them, he always loses as much in the purchase price as the building timber, and consequently suffers a loss that would not have affected him if he had not had the convenience of being able to use the company from another property.
We therefore believe that Pfeiffer cannot be accused of anything here without violating fairness, but that he rather allowed the timber estimate to pass for as many buildings as the business at the Kehlickendorf establishment required without taking into account all the changing ancillary circumstances, and could not have worried whether the entrepreneur would actually erect these buildings for the time being or whether the company would use another property, especially since the Chamber knew without a doubt from the conditions protocol submitted in the year the favorable location of the Kehlickendorf establishment with the entrepreneur's Zernickow estate, and could assume that the entrepreneur would probably not be able to erect the buildings allocated for him for the time being, and nevertheless did not seem necessary to make further enquiries in this regard before the timber allocation was made.
But Pfeiffer is least of all concerned if the entrepreneur has not fully completed the work for which he was asked to provide lumber, since Pfeiffer could not have foreseen and prevented this incident.
Now, I wondered at first if the unnamed entrepreneur with a neighboring estate at Zernikow might be Johann Friedrich Kosack, because the Brandenburg archive catalogue say Fredersdorf leased Zernikow to him in 1753, but no, the same catalogue says "Erbzinskontrakt vom 17. Dez. 1753 mit dem Kämmerer Fredersdorf über die wüste Feldmark Kelickendorf." So it seems that if anyone is trying to efficiently combine the constructions of Kehlickendorf and neighboring Zernickow, it's Fredersdorf (and, at this date, Caroline Maria Daum, who marries him sometime between Dec 20 and Dec 30).
And it does sound to me like, while the Kriminal Senat is exonerating Pfeiffer, they're willing to entertain the idea that the entrepreneur (i.e., Fredersdorf) is at fault for not doing what he said he would do, but also to entertain Pfeiffer's defense that it's reasonable for the entrepreneur to do what he did. And since Fredersdorf's not on trial, this section ends here, and we move on to another colony.
Re: Kiekemal, redux: Kehlickendorf and Zernikow
Date: 2024-08-05 04:44 am (UTC)