VI. Der römische Eigentumsvorbehalt als Vorbehalt des Besitzes

Author(s):  
Jakob Fortunat Stagl

AbstractRoman retention of title clauses as retention of possession. It is the dominant view that Roman law did not know retention of title clauses (pactum reservati dominii) which is, accordingly, considered to be an invention of the medieval ius commune. This opinion is true to the extent that retention of title was inefficient from the Roman point of view because the buyer as possessor was always in the position of acquiring ownership by acquisitive prescription (usucapio), the requirement of good faith being met in these instances. The Roman lawyers, therefore, devised different means to make sure that the buyer would get the use of the sold good (detentio) without becoming possessor thus preventing the dreaded usucapio. This ‘retention of possession’ (Besitzvorbehalt) is the Roman functional equivalent to modern retention of title.

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 987-1006
Author(s):  
Ivan Milotić

The boundary dispute between Lovran and Mošćenice of 1646 quite recently received some attention in the literature and was simultaneously adequately elaborated form palaeographic and philological point of view. Despite the fact that it is substantially a legal act, its legal content did not receive adequate attention of the scholars, which may primarily be said with reference to its institutes, terms and expressions whose precision, accuracy and legal technical at first sight most evidently depart from the local feudal legal customs and legal traditions. Moreover, nevertheless that these terms and expressions were written down in Italian language of the time, they evidently represent Italianized version of terms, expression and legal concepts that originally belong to Latin language. Additionally, their mentions in the document at hand have no resemblance to the usual medieval descriptions of the legal phenomena which have a little in common with normative language or to administrativefunctional style of that time which distinctively shaped the legal documents. Because all these indications suggest that the key terms, expressions and institutes pertinent to the boundary dispute between Lovran and Mošćenice (and its resolution) might be borrowed from the Roman legal tradition (which outreached this territory by means of ius commune) and the Romano-canonical process, this paper examines origin, roles and functions which were achieved in practice by their use in this particular legal matter. The paper will specifically explore the procedural mechanism which was employed to reach settlement of the boundary dispute between Lovran and Mošćenice and will additionally provide a deeper insight into the possibility that in this particular case arbitration conceptually based on the Roman law was employed as the means of dispute resolution.


2000 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
WDH Sellar

This article is the revised text of the lecture delivered to the Stair Society at its Annual General Meeting in November 1997. It defends the proposition that Scots law, from the time of its emergence in the Middle Ages, has been a “mixed” system, open to the influence of both the English Common Law and the Civilian tradition. It also compares and contrasts the Reception of the Anglo-Norman law with that of Roman law. The former was quite specific as regards both time and substantive legal content. The Reception of Roman law, on the other hand, took place over a considerable period of time, and its effects were complex and diffuse. Above all, the Civilian tradition and the wider ius commune provided an intellectual framework against which to measure Scots law. Both Receptions exercised a profound influence on the continuing development of Scots law.


2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaakko Husa

AbstractThis article examines the complicated legal-cultural process in which Roman law became Byzantine law and Roman legal discourse altered into Byzantine legal discourse. Roman law’s transformation into Early Byzantine law is analysed from the point of view of legal language which mutated from Latin to Greek. The approach is legal cultural and legal linguistic and focuses on the overall shape and general patterns. The goal is to highlight how legal-cultural transformation was incremental, language-bound and that there was no radical or sudden culmination point. Moreover, the analysis answers generally to the question of why sixth-century Byzantine legislative Greek contained frequent Latin loans, expressions, phrases and distortions. The discussion concentrates on the Novellae as an integral part of the process of legal cultural and linguistic change from Roman to Byzantine. Instead of going into detailed linguistic analysis, this article underlines generally the contextuality of law and the importance of legal culture


2013 ◽  
Vol 03 (09) ◽  
pp. 56-61
Author(s):  
Ebrahim Shoarian Sattari

Good Faith is one of the important principles in contract law. This principle is inherited from Roman law and it has been mostly developed in civil law system. Observation of Good faith and Fair dealing in French and German law and many other countries is considered as legal obligation. Good faith, also, is of special stand In Chinese law of contract. Since Good faith is considered as important and valuable, it has been recognized in Common Law System and adopted in English and American law. Islamic law also contains numerous examples of obligations that are based on Good Faith principle. Nowadays, good faith principle has been incorporated in important international instruments such as CISG, UPICC, PECL, and DCFR and its scope has been developed. If good faith principle was being considered in fulfilling of contracts, today it also is considered as important in pre-contractual and conclusion stages of contracts. The aforementioned documents contain regulations for observing good faith in preliminary negotiations, conclusion of contract, fulfilling of contract and the interpretation thereto. The present Article is attempted to show that Good faith is important in all stages including preliminary negotiation and it should be incorporated in domestic legislations. Remedy for breach of this duty in the pre-contractual sphere should be limited only to compensation for damages.


2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 10-22
Author(s):  
Todor Kolarov

The article strives to analyse the origin of the institute of procedural substitution (for the lack of a better term) in Bulgaria through historic overview, starting with the law of Ancient Rome, going through ius commune and finishing with the contemporary legal regime. From a procedural standpoint, the conclusion is that the institute came into being at the end of the XIX and beginning of the XX century. While manifestations of procedural substitution can be found in the Roman law, this is not an indication of a formulation of the legal institute itself.


Author(s):  
Oscar Valente Cardoso

Resumo: O artigo trata da oralidade no processo civil brasileiro, sob as perspectivas histórica e normativa, com o objetivo de examinar a regulamentação atual pelo Código de Processo Civil e o tratamento conferido pelo Anteprojeto do novo Código. Aborda aspectos conceituais e classificações da oralidade e sua evolução histórica, no Direito Romano, no Ius Commune da Idade Média e na Idade Moderna, especialmente em Portugal e no Brasil. No Brasil, examina-se a regulamentação da oralidade no Regulamento 737 e nos Códigos de Processo Civil de 1939 e 1973, para, ao fim, verificar a existência (ou não) de mudanças no projeto da nova codificação processual. Palavras-Chave: Oralidade; Direito Romano; Idade Média; Ius Commune; Código de Processo Civil. Abstract: This article deals with orality in Brazilian civil procedure, under normative and historical perspectives, in order to examine the current regulation by the Brazilian Civil Procedure Code and the treatment given by the new Code draft. It addresses conceptual aspects, and orality classifications and its historical evolution, in Roman Law, Middle Age Ius Commune and Modern Age, especially in Portugal and Brazil. In Brazil, it examines orality legal regulation, in Regulation 737, and in 1939 and 1973 Civil Procedure Code, in order to, finally, determine the existence (or not) of changes in the new Code draft. Keywords: Orality; Roman Law; Middle Age; Ius Commune; Civil Procedure Code.


Author(s):  
Alesya V. Demkina ◽  

The article deals with the relatively new rules of Art. 434.1 the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on the conduct of negotiations. Taking into account the current wording of the said rule and the experience of foreign legislation on pre-contractual liability, the article argues for different theories justifying the nature of pre-contractual legal relations and liability and gives different positions of the authors on this issue. Proceeding from the doctrinal concept of obligation and characteristics of pre-contractual relations themselves the conclusion is made that these relations, firstly, are regulated by law and, secondly, they are not simply a legal relation but an obligation. It is based on certain actions of the negotiating partners that give rise to such an obliga-tion. As such, any action that is sufficiently certain (in some cases it may be required by law) and expresses the intention of the person to regard himself as negotiating with the addressee, who will in return perform the same sufficiently certain action, can be regarded as such. The specified characteristics of an action allow us to conclude that, from the point of view of classification of legal facts, this action is an act (because it is performed with a certain in-tention evident to other participants of civil turnover) and, moreover, it is also a transaction. Special rules of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation stipulate that the actions performed to enter into negotiations (for example, if the conclusion of a contract is binding on one party) or the actions of both partners entail legal consequences - the obligation to negotiate in good faith. The analysis of these legal relationships identifies three stages in their development, charac-terises them and attempts to answer more precisely the question of who can be a participant in the negotiation process depending on the stage of the negotiation process. The subject matter of an obligation arising during pre-contractual contacts will be actions aimed at negotiating and concluding a contract. The content of the obligation arising in the course of pre-contractual contacts, based on Art. 434.1 of the Civil Code will be the obligation to negotiate in good faith (paragraph 2 of the above rule). Assuming that the legislator provides an indicative list of actions that should fall within the scope of bad faith conduct, an indicative list of the "standard" of good faith conduct at the negotiation stage is given. This includes the obligation to provide full and truthful information to a party, including the reporting of circumstances that, due to the nature of the contract, must be brought to the attention of the other party (e.g. in a sale, all encumbrances on the subject of the contract must be reported). In addition, persons are obliged to negotiate only if they intend to conclude a contract, not to terminate negotiations suddenly and unjustifiably, and to take into account the rights and legitimate interests of the other party to the negotiation. The obligation under this obligation may also include a requirement not to disclose infor-mation obtained during the negotiation of the contract.


Author(s):  
Paul J. du Plessis

The term European ius commune (in its historical sense) signifies that, from the fourteenth to the start of the sixteenth centuries, most of Europe shared a common legal tradition. Many local and regional variations on the law existed, but the terminology, concepts, and structure provided by elements of Roman law provided a common framework. This chapter traces how Justinian’s codification came to influence the modern world. The influence of Roman law in the modern world is immense: it constitutes the historical and conceptual basis of many legal systems throughout the world. Its impact has not been confined to those countries in Western Europe that historically formed part of the Roman Empire. Wherever Europeans went, they normally took their law (usually based to some extent on the principles of Roman law) with them.


2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 469-482
Author(s):  
Ivan Milotić

The protocol of Petar Lazarić, who was simultaneously a domestic priest, prebendary and a notary of Mošćenice, dates back to 1621. It originated in Mošćenice and records in glagolithic script a resolution of a private dispute concerning the property division which was achieved in arbitration. Although the wording of the documents reveals the glagolithic script and is fully made in the Croatian language, if we go beyond that and explore the origins of the essential terms and expressions, we may reach a conclusion that the document substantially records Latin (or Italian) legal technical language which was slightly Croatised in the process of its adoption into the legal system of the commune of Mošćenice. Moreover, the content of the document puts forth legal principles, concepts and institutes of the extrajudicial dispute resolution which were consistently applied in Mošćenice following the model of arbitration in Roman law. All the essentials of the document at hand reflect the strong influences of the Roman legal tradition and the ius commune. The author provides an analysis in this paper which addresses all the relevant institutes that were applied in the arbitration dispute at hand referring to the procedural and substantive law at the same time. The author searches for the Roman model of these institutes, evaluates them from perspective of Roman and canon law of the Middle and New Ages and, finally, he brings this particular legal source in relation to the other two which originated in Mošćenice in the first half of the 17th century that both record significant influences of the Roman legal tradition of the time: The Statute of Mošćenice of 1637 and the boundary dispute between Lovran and Mošćenice of 1646.


Author(s):  
Catherine Hezser

Rabbinic law on women, children, and slaves developed on the basis of biblical law and in the context of the Greco-Roman and Sasanian cultural environments in which Palestinian and Babylonian rabbis lived. The discussions were innovative in their adaptation of biblical law to new circumstances. From a sociological point of view, women, children, and slaves were dependents of the householder who were generally associated with the private sphere of the household. At the same time, they differed from each other with regard to honor, which only free persons possessed, and with regard to gender, since male children were raised to become Torah-observant male Jews themselves. Palestinian rabbinic law shows interesting similarities with and differences to Roman law of which rabbis would have been aware even if direct influences cannot be established.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document