scholarly journals ROZLICZENIE KOSZTÓW PODRÓŻY W RAMACH SPÓŁKI A ZAGADNIENIE IMPENSA IN SOCIETATEM I PROPTER SOCIETATEM W ROZUMOWANIU LABEONA I JULIANA

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 19
Author(s):  
Zuzanna Służewska
Keyword(s):  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Economic Activity ◽  
Common Property ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The Other ◽  
Main Question ◽  
Total Community ◽  
The Common ◽  
Limited Scope ◽  
Business Trip

The participation of Partners in Travel Expenses and Losses. impensa in societatem and propter societatem According to Labeo and JulianSummaryThe problem discussed in this paper regards the participation of partners in travel expenses and losses suffered during a business trip. In the title pro socio of the Digest there are three texts that refer to this question: D. 17,2,52,4 and D. 17,2,52,15 and D. 17,2,60,1. The first one refers to sagaria negotiatio conducted in a form of a partnership and analyses the case of a partner who during a business trip was attacked by robbers who stole his property and injured his slaves. According to Julian (cited by Ulpian) all those losses (even all what was paid to a doctor for the treatment of the slaves) should be shared by all partners. The second text also refers to the expenses incurred by one of the partners during a business trip that should be shared with the other partner. The third one concerns the problem of sharing the expenses incurred for the medical treatment by one of the partners that had been wounded while trying to prevent the slaves, who were their common property, intended for sale from escaping. According to Labeo, in this case the part of the money spent on a doctor could not be claimed from the other partner as it was not spent in societatem but propter societatem.The main question discussed in relation to the above mentioned texts concerns the disagreement between Julian and Labeo in the matter of sharing the expenses incurred for the medical treatment in a partnership. This question has been widely discussed and analysed from various points of view among the Romanists (Gandolfi, Santucci, Meissel) who tried to explain the concept of impensa in and propter societatem and thus found some reasonable justification for the negative decision made by Labeo.In my opinion the case discussed by Labeo should be analised in relation to other texts focused on the problem of determining the limits of a common activity or a common patrimony in a partnership other than a societas omnium bonorum, as for example the texts of D. 17,2,58 pr.-1 or D. 17,2,52,4. Those texts clearly show the problems discussed by Roman jurists at the moment of the evolution from the traditional form of partnership societas omnium bonorum (based on the total community of all partners’ patrimonies) into a more limited form of partnership treated as an instrument of conducting an economic activity. Particularly in D. 17,2,58 pr., Celsus made a clear distinction between a partnership established for the purpose of “having” goods in common and “selling” goods in common which corresponds to the distinction between „società di mero godimento” based on the schema of societas omnium bonorum (and thus total community of all profits and losses) and „società questuarie” aimed to gain profits from some kind of an economic activity in which only the profits and losses resulted from conducting the common business were to be shared among partners). Consequently in a partnership established for the purpose of “having” goods in common all the losses that regarded the common patrimony were to be shared while in a commercial partnership losses not resulting from a partnership’s activity (even regarding the common patrimony) were not shared.From the analysis of those texts we could also deduce that in case of a partnership with a limited scope in order to determine whether some losses suffered by one of the partners should be shared it was crucial whether they would not have been suffered if the partnership had not existed. We could suppose that Labeo in D. 17,2,60,1 analysing the case of a wounded partner, used a similar scheme of thinking. In the case discussed by this jurist the slaves were the property of the partners but the aim of the partnership was to sell them and not to posses them. That is why even if the partnership had not existed their owner would have tried to impede their escape and as a consequence would have had to pay a the doctor’s fees. Thus one could not say that the loss suffered by the injured partner would not have been suffered if the contract of partnership had not been concluded and for this reason Labeo did not permit to claim its reimbursement from the other partner.The hypotheses that the problem discussed by Labeo should be interpreted from the point of view of the distinction between a universal type of a partnership and a partnership with a limited scope is also confirmed by the final part of the text of D. 17,2,60. Labeo, for making the distinction between the costs defined as spent in societatem and propter societatem clearer, mentioned other kinds of profits and losses that were to be shared only in a partnership omnium bonorum aimed to possess and administer goods in common, but were not shared in a partnership with a limited scope established for a purpose of buying and selling goods.

scholarly journals Uncertain causation: two hunters dilemma

2020 ◽  
pp. 49-61
Author(s):  
Богдан Петрович Карнаух
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The Other ◽  
Vicious Circle ◽  
Common Denominator ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Common ◽  
Causal Nexus

According to the general principles of tort law, in order to succeed a plaintiff must prove causal nexus between the damage he or she sustained and the actions of a particular defendant. However, in some factual situations this task appears to be impossible, and the question arises whether the plaintiff should be left uncompensated or rather the general rule on proof of causation has to be relaxed. In a groundbreaking case Summers v. Tice (the facts of which are also known as ‘two hunters dilemma’), the Supreme Court of California favored the latter option. The Court shifted the burden of proof and decided that under these exceptional circumstances it is for each of the defendants to absolve himself from liability by providing evidence that he could not had caused the damage. The conclusion of the Court does not cause any doubts. However scholars dispute over the exact explanation of that conclusion, because it is the explanation that is crucial for future similar cases.The circumstances of the Summers case are thoroughly analyzed by many writers. Some suggest that even the number of defendants matters (supposing thus, that if there were three of them the court would not have reached the same conclusion). On the other hand, the character of their activity is underlined. The proponents of this point of view focus on the fact that the members of hunting party can coordinate their actions and it is this opportunity of coordination that justifies the burden shifting. The common denominator for numerous authors is spotlighting the fact that both hunters are at fault for causing the uncertainty, even though one of them might not be at fault for causing damage. However, in some other situation the uncertainty could have been caused without their fault. The author doubts if in the latter case the defendants should escape liability.The author offers the following explanation of the two hunters dilemma. Whenever it has been proven that defendants acted negligently subjecting the plaintiff to a certain type of risk and it has been proven that one of them did actually caused plaintiff’s damage, neither of the defendants can absolve himself from liability merely relying on the fact that the damage may have been caused by the other defendant. Otherwise the vicious circle will arise.

scholarly journals About Nusantara Architecture: a Matter of Either-or or Both-and toward Place for Better Living in the Humid Tropic

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Prijotomo
Keyword(s):  
Point Of View ◽  
Climate System ◽  
The Other ◽  
The West ◽  
Four Seasons ◽  
Tropical Areas ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Times ◽  
Natural Climate ◽  
Modern Era

<p>‘Space’ and ‘Better living’ are continuing issues and discourse in architecture. It covers as large as philosophical to practical ones. We may find, for instance, issues in space as one of construction of mind in one extreme, and space as one of volume in certain magnitude at its other extreme. In terms of better living we may also find similar extremes. We may also find that since the times of modern era, space is practically considered as volume of certain magnitude, as is exemplified in a number of standards of areas needed for particular activity;<br />while in terms of better living the focus is in comfort that should be provided in particular room. Unfortunately, we –the Indonesians-- hardly aware and realize that they are not only of western sources, but more importantly, of western mindset. Since they are beautifully and neatly concealed under one objectivity of mind and reason, science, most of us know and accept them as the objective and correct standards. The fact that the West (ie. Europe and North America) are region with four seasons climate system has unavoidably underlies the building of those standards and knowledge. Indonesia and other tropical areas of the world is not region in such a four seasons climate system; it is in a two seasons climate system. This two climate seasons is not simply a variant of climate system; it is of ‘the other’ climate system, as will be demonstrated in this paper. Hence, we may consider this paper as talking about space for better living’ from the point of view of climate system.</p><p>The clock remains ticking, While the ideals of having architecture that serves better living is always at hand, we are confronted with the question whose living: the wealthy few or every single people, the elite or the common and the elite people. To the four season climate system, living with artificial climate is not incorrect; even the attitude of taking aside the climate is understandable. To the two season climate system, living with natural climate is also not incorrect; and the attitude of optimizing the natural climate is understandable. These two climate system is fundamentally different, and it must be a fatal mistake and fundamental incorrectness to deal with one as a variant of the other. The fact that our knowledge in two season climate system is very poor, that does not mean that this system be discarded.</p><p>The call for architecture for better living is demanding a definite respond: a denial (and ultimately, elimination) of two season climate system, or an equal, yet distinct, both two and four season climate system. The former is quite easy while the latter requires hard work. The former will make architecture in Indonesia serves the wealthy few, while the latter will serves the whole people of Indonesia.</p>

scholarly journals TEORI THE SPREAD OF ISNAD (Telaah Atas Pemikiran Michael Allan Cook)

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 223
Author(s):  
Imam Sahal Ramdhani
Keyword(s):  
Point Of View ◽  
The Other ◽  
Link Theory ◽  
Engineering Work ◽  
The Common

erchange-newline"> It is closely related to “Common Link” phenomenon whom plenty of West Scholar on Hadith dealing their researches on it. By looking at thisphenomenon, this paper is trying to review Cook’s idea about common linkand the process of theory the spread of isna>d ‘s aplication in conceivingthe common link phenomenon. Based on this research, we understand thatCook brought a different point of view to the Common Link phenomenonwhich is poured forth on his critics to the Schachtian’s theory. For Cook,there are two essential points related to Common Link. First, Common Linkcan’t be justifid as a hadith counterfeiter. It is because Common Link tosome exctent is an engineering-work from the other narrator (periwayat).Second, Common Link can’t be a basic of hadith’s dating. Then, Cook’spoint of view pulled down Commen Link theory.

Milton in the Twentieth Century

John Milton ◽  
2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Lockwood
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Common Property ◽  
The Other ◽  
The Common ◽  
The University ◽  
Over Time ◽  
General Culture

This chapter examines Milton not as an absolute, but as a concept historically constructed and changing over time. It examines the ways in which the different Miltons are repaired and returned in the twentieth century. Two of those many Milton revivals form the focus of the chapter: one constructed in polemic about how and why to read Milton; and the other constructed in and by the availability of actual Milton editions that were read over the century. The first section discusses Milton's changing place within academia and his movement from being the common property of men of letters and the common reader in general culture to become the sole preserve of the university-bound specialist in the narrower and less-rewarding culture of higher education. The second section examines Milton readership. It outlines Milton's different periodicities of publishing and reading through the twentieth century.

Αỉώρα

Antichthon ◽  
1968 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
SP. Marinatos
Keyword(s):  
Common Property ◽  
Close Contact ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Intellectual Culture ◽  
Popular Belief ◽  
Archaeological Evidence ◽  
Classical Greece ◽  
Essential Unity ◽  
The Common ◽  
Similar Elements

My purpose in this paper is to demonstrate, if possible, the essential unity of many phenomena which are common throughout the field of human civilization. While the occurrences of these phenomena are widely separated in place and time, it would be best if we tried to explain them by ascribing them to a common origin. Where today we find similar elements in the folklore of races dwelling far apart, these were once the common property of peoples living in close contact with one another. After examining some of the most characteristic phenomena from the point of view of geography, anthropology, material and intellectual culture, I shall then try to demonstrate this point by means of archaeological evidence. For this purpose I shall isolate a single popular belief, namely that fertility may be ensured by means of the rite of swinging. This belief is well attested in classical Greece, as part of many religious rites and traditions, and is known as αỉώρα, the ‘swing’.

1. The Conceptual Setting

1958 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raymond H. Thompson
Keyword(s):  
Common Property ◽  
Space Time ◽  
The Other ◽  
Archaeological Research ◽  
General Outline ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Common ◽  
Ultimate Objective ◽  
The One ◽  
Conceptual Setting

It seems to have become the custom for the author of a paper on archaeological methodology to provide his readers with a review of the theoretical trends of the discipline. The general outline of these trends must by now be the common property of all literate anthropologists. do not consider it improper, therefore, to refrain from repeating a summary of them here. Much more important to this study of the nature of archaeological inference is a statement of the present aims of the discipline and the role which inference is expected to play in achieving these aims.Phillips and Willey (1953: 616) succinctly describe the proper ends of archaeological research:The ultimate objective of archeology is the creation of an image of life within the limits of the residue that is available from the past. The procedural objectives toward such a goal may be dichotomized into reconstructions of space-time relationships, on the one hand, and contextual relationships on the other.

scholarly journals Vindication of a Share in the Right of Common Share Ownership and Some Features of the Reclamation of Common Property

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 146-150
Author(s):  
A V Zarubin
Keyword(s):  
Common Property ◽  
The Other ◽  
Share Ownership ◽  
Legal Relationship ◽  
Common Ownership ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Right ◽  
Established Order ◽  
Relative Concept ◽  
A Share

The article analyzes the problem of vindication of share in the common ownership, due to the fact that the object of vindication is the property, at that time, as a share - relative concept. This feature has forced practitioners to adapt replevin to the recovery of shares. The result was a claim of recovery rights to the share. The lawsuit, which restored the right to share, of course, necessary participants of civil legal relationship, but its effective application requires differentiation of the vindicatory claim, a claim of recognition of rights and other means of protection.When compared to the above method of protection, the author comes to the conclusion that the right distinction is based on the factor of possessions. If the owner of the share at the same time with her lost possessions, shall be declared replevin. If the owner has only lost the title, you can apply the claim of recognition of ownership. Fixed rule about the applicability of the claim for restoration of the right to a share is intended to demonstrate the possibility of protecting the rights of the owner of the share.In addition, the paper analyzes the possibility of vindication of the shares, if the assignment was accompanied by the seizure of possession by the other co-owner. The author points out that there are forbidden by law to reclaim the property from the owner, because each of the disputants is only the owner of the share. The owner of a thing is the team co-owners. The basis of the protected ownership is the established order of use or the agreement of the owner with a team of co-owners.At the same time the article reveals some peculiarities of claiming common property.

Consultative Council of Western Powers

1950 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 510-512
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The Other ◽  
Common Interest ◽  
Total Expenditure ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Accurate Indication ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Common ◽  
Common Effort

Eighth SessionThe eighth session of the Consultative Council of Western Powers was held in Brussels on April 16 and 17, 1950. The main business of the meeting was to discuss how the costs of the joint defense projects could be shared. Up to this time each government had paid the costs of its own contingents at the disposal of the organization and all expenditure incurred within its own territory. From the French point of view this had tended to make the common effort relatively more expensive for France than for the other countries while from the United Kingdom point of view, simply fixing the percentages that each country should, bear of the total expenditure would not necessarily be fair, as an airfield built under the treaty plans could in peace time be an advantage to the country in which it was located. This point of view was, in turn, not particularly favored by the Belgians who felt that Belgium had contributed to the common defense proportionally as much as the other powers. The relative amount in each country's budget devoted to the common pool was not an accurate indication as each budget had been drawn up in an entirely different manner, making comparisons difficult. The only thing which counted was the final result: the number of men trained and equipped as well as the material which each country could put on the line; in this regard the Belgians felt they were certainly not lagging behind. It was finally agreed at the meeting that projects of common interest should be paid for in common. The procedure for such payment was to be the subject of proposals submitted to the governments.

scholarly journals Others in post-conflict contexts

2008 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 259-271
Author(s):  
Gordana Djeric
Keyword(s):  
Public Discourse ◽  
The Other ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Main Question ◽  
Identity Constructions ◽  
Post Conflict ◽  
The People ◽  
New States ◽  
The Common ◽  
Media Reports

Researches conducted so far within the project Spinning out of control: rhetoric and violent conflict. Representations of 'self' - 'other' in the Yugoslav successor states focused on exploring the relations towards the Other in a state of conflict. Moreover: most of the author's and coauthors' contributions were oriented towards discourse analysis in the context of violence. Except for the peaceful dismemberment of Montenegro and Serbia, proclamation of independence of other Yugoslav states did not go without violence, to a greater or lesser extent. The Other in these situations was predominantly the ethnic Other, and usually treated as enemy. For that reason, the greater part of our past work was oriented towards analysing media reports of the most stiking war events. Also, some of the contributions intentionally targeted media reportings of tense situations and those bearing the unpredictable outcomes, such as referenda or meetings discussing war and peace matters; or, we focused our inquiries on radical standpoints expressed by certain media or political parties - all that in order to explore the essencial forms of constructing and manifesting the Otherness on a rhetoric level. From a broader perspective, the analysed period, marked by the wars of ex - Yugoslavia in the last decade of 20th century, could be comprehended as the preiod of a state of emergency, where the old order had been brutally and radically destroyed and the new one was installed. In such a process, as it was shown, the relation towards the Other was also usually extreme and ethnically motivated. Now, after the constitution of seven new states where once former Yugoslavia was, new questions emerge. We are interested, as we were before, in the identity constructions, especially in the relations toward the Other, and Otherness in general, now in the period of transition and normalization of mutual relationships that these societies are undergoing. Along with the theories of ethnicity and identity construction, the key perspective remains discursive analysis. Our main question is What is happening with the phenomenon of Otherness in public discourse, in the peaceful times, or in the post conflict state? Do the ways of representing Others from the conflict times disappear, or do they 'freeze', that is to say, remain the same, or get manifested on some other levels and by different rhetorical tools? In short, what is happening with the Others in discourses that do not 'spin out of control'? Are the Others stable, mutable or flexible category and where are the imagological boundaries of Otherness? Who are the Others now? Are there any Others among us in ethnical sense? What is the nature of relation towards the common Yugoslav past, in other words, has the common past also become the Otherness for the people of former Yugoslavia? Are the 'refugees', 'cast-outs', 'displaced persons', 'returnees'... only the new names for the old display of Otherness? .

‘Carthage Must Be Destroyed’, 400 BC–146 BC

The Great Sea ◽  
2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Abulafia
Keyword(s):  
Good Reason ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The Other ◽  
Personal Factors ◽  
The West ◽  
Naval Power ◽  
Western Sicily ◽  
The Common ◽  
First Time ◽  
The City

While the war between Athens and Sparta for control of the Aegean was at its peak, other conflicts, further to the west, embroiled Greek cities in struggles for their life. Carthage was as significant a naval power in its sector of the Mediterranean as Athens was further to the east. In 415, the Carthaginians were content to look on while the Athenians attacked Syracuse. They could see that the Greeks were divided among themselves and too busy squabbling to turn their attention against the Phoenician trading stations on Sicily. From their point of view, anything that weakened Greek power in Sicily was welcome. On the other hand, the destruction of the Athenian forces posed a new problem, to which they found themselves responding rapidly. Not for the first time the Syracusans threatened to dominate the island. However, the real troublemakers proved once again to be the Elymian inhabitants of Segesta, who, not content with the havoc they had wreaked by calling in the Athenians, now appealed to Carthage for help against their old rivals, the Greeks of Selinous. The Carthaginians had good reason to support Segesta. It lay in an area dotted with Punic, that is Phoenician, colonies, notably Panormos (Palermo) and Motya. When in 410 the Segestans offered to become dependants of Carthage in return for protection, the Carthaginian assembly realized that the time had come to consolidate their city’s hold on western Sicily. The Segestan appeal marked a decisive moment in the transformation from a loose confederation of allies and trading stations presided over by Carthage to a Carthaginian empire that included among its subjects not just fellow-Phoenicians but subject peoples – ‘Libyans’, as the Berbers of North Africa were called by Greek writers, Elymians, Sikels and Sikans in Sicily, not to mention Sards and Iberians. There were other, personal factors at work among the Carthaginian elite, for the city was at this time controlled by a group of powerful dynasties that dominated its Senate. A prominent Carthaginian with the common name Hannibal is said to have conceived a passionate hatred for all Greeks after his grandfather Hamilcar was killed in battle against the Syracusan army at Himera in 480 BC.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document