The Roman law of obligations

332 Pages·2014·1.605 MB·English

by  Birks, Peter, Descheemaeker, Eric (ed.)

THE COLLECTED PAPERS OF PETER BIRKS
The Roman Law of Obligations
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,24/6/2014,SPi
PeterBirksintheOldCollegelibrary,UniversityofEdinburgh(s)
THE COLLECTED PAPERS OF PETER BIRKS
The Roman Law
of Obligations
Peter Birks
EDITED BY
Eric Descheemaeker
1
3
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OXDP,
UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship,
andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof
OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©P.Birks,IntroductionbyE.Descheemaeker
Themoralrightsoftheauthorshavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin
Impression:
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin
aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe
priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted
bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics
rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe
aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe
addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform
andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
CrowncopyrightmaterialisreproducedunderClassLicence
NumberCPwiththepermissionofOPSI
andtheQueen’sPrinterforScotland
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress
MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:
ISBN ––––
Printedandboundby
CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon,CRYY
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand
forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials
containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
Acknowledgements
Iamgrateful,firstandforemost,toJacquelineBirksandAlexFlachfor
their on-going help over the years in bringing this project to fruition;
also to John Cairns and Ernest Metzger for their unstinting help and
advice.
ED

Contents
Tableof Legal Sources xi
Tableof Ancient Non-Legal Sources xix
Introduction xx
. Obligations: The Conceptual Map 
. Definition: What is an Obligation? 
. Differentiation: Where doObligations Fitin the Roman
View of the Law? 
i. The difference between rights in remandin personam 
ii. Differences between Gaius and Justinian 
iii. Outside the institutional scheme 
. Internal Organisation: How Are Obligations Arranged? 
i. The classification of obligations used by Gaius 
ii. The classification of obligations inStair 
Part I. Contracts
. The Organisation of Roman Contract 
. Arrangement of the List inGaius’s andJustinian’sInstitutes 
. Formal and Informal Contracts 
. The Contract Litteris and the Rôleof WritingGenerally 
. Justinian’s Contract Litteris 
. The Rôle of Writing Outside Contracts Litteris 
. Arra 
. Writing and Stipulations 
. Contracts Verbis 
. Dotis Dictio (Declaration of Dowry) 
. Iusiurandum Liberti (Freedman’s Oath) 
. Stipulatio (Stipulation) 
i. What was the formality? 
ii. Why didstipulation not develop into a general law
of contract complete initself? 
iii. What limits were there on the scope of stipulation? 
iv. Special applications of stipulation 
viii CONTENTS
. Contracts Consensu 
. Emptio-Venditio (Sale) 
i. Thedemonstratio 
ii. Theintentio 
iii. The action against the buyer 
iv. Risk (periculum) 
v. The passing of property 
. Locatio-Conductio (Hire) 
i. Thedemonstratio 
ii. Theintentio 
. Societas (Partnership) 
i. Thedemonstratio 
ii. Theintentio 
iii. Thecondemnatio 
. Mandatum(Mandate, Commission or Agency) 
i. Thedemonstratio 
ii. Theintentio 
iii. Specialapplications 
. Contracts Re 
. Mutuum (Loan for Consumption) 
. Commodatum(Loan for Use) 
i. Thedemonstratio 
ii. Theintentio 
. Depositum(Deposit) 
i. Thedemonstratio 
ii. Theintentio 
. Pignus (Pledge) 
i. The contract ofpignus:the relationship between
pledgor and pledgee 
ii. The relationship between pledgee and res 
Part II. Delicts
. Furtum (Theft) 
. The Action 
. Paul’sDefinition 
. The Intent 
. The Act 
i. What did contrectatiomean to the high classics? 
ii. What did contrectatiomean to Justinian? 
iii. Was there an earlier doctrine and nomenclature? 
. The Absence of Consent 
CONTENTS ix
. Liabilityfor Helping 
. Claimingthe Res 
. AVariety of Penalties 
. Rapina (Robbery) 
. Damnum Iniuria Datum (Loss Wrongfully Caused) 
. The Shapeof the Delict 
. The Statute 
. Interpretation inthe Statutory Core 
i. Hasthe plaintiff suffered loss (damnum)? 
ii. Didthat loss arise from a thing spoiled (res corrupta)? 
iii. Didthe spoiledthing belongto the plaintiff (res actoris)? 
iv. Didthe defendant dothe spoiling ‘corpore suo’? 
v. Didthe defendant dothe harm wrongfully (iniuria)? 
. The Praetorian Periphery 
i. Hasthe plaintiff suffered loss (damnum)? 
ii. Didthat loss arise from a thing spoiled (res corrupta)? 
iii. Didthe spoiledthing belongto the plaintiff (res actoris)? 
iv. Didthe defendant dothe spoiling ‘corpore suo’? 
v. Didthe defendant dothe harm wrongfully (iniuria)? 
. The Measure of Recovery 
i. Liscrescit (thesuit enlarges) 
ii. The original measure 
iii. Fullvalue underchapter III? 
iv. The measure inhigh classical law 
. Iniuria (Contempt) 
. The Name of the Delict 
. The Action 
. The Measure of Recovery 
. The Edictal Provisions 
i. Ofconvicium (shouted invective) 
ii. Ofaffronts to sexual propriety 
iii. ‘Let nothing be doneto cause infamy’ 
iv. The general edict de iniuriis 
. The Scope of the Classical Delict 
. The Classical Scope Re-StatedSummarily 
. Requirements inRelation to Intention 
. The History 
i. The edictal phase 
ii. The pre-edictal phase 