-

The popular idea of lawyers is that right of preemption is one of the causes of taking possession and in consideration of opposition of this legal structure to principle of freedom of contracts and other generals principles like prohibiton of involuntary taking possession and involuntary making an owner, the lawyes construe that the right of preemption is opposed to prineiple.
It comes into view that right of preemption is indemnity for damage of preemptor no a cause of taking possession.
There is difference between two ideas c.c and if it is a csuse of taking possession in cinsideration of his opposition to principles it must be limited to conditions of Article is indemnity in consideration of principle of «no harm)) and generales principles of tort it must be extensively interpreted and it isn't limited to Article 808 c.c Nevertheless even if preemtion is indemnity it must be exeptionally interpreted because it is opposed to generales principles of tort. Therfore for indemnity for damage of preenptor the limits of preemption must be extended or the legislature must legislate about right ot recovery