Even when laws have been written down, they ought not always to remain unaltered.
ISBN/ISSN : 978-958-710-615-2
Año : 2010
Características : 17 x 24 cm., rustic cover, 862 pp.
See more in http://www.uexternado.edu.co/publicaciones/catalogo
| ||
FEATURES | Bonae Fideii Bilateral Onerous Consensual | |
MAIN OBLIGATIONS | -Buyer, Emptor: to pay the price -Seller, Vendor: a. to deliver the thing b. to take care of the thing between perfection of the contract and delivery (custodia) c. To give warranty against eviction: offer vacua posessio – peaceful and undistrurbed possession of the thing. d. To give warranty against latent defects of the thing (CAREFUL!!! Latent= not evident, the buyer is supposed to inspect the thing upon first view CAVEAT EMPTORIS). Not since the beginning, started by the Edicts. E. To pass to the buyer any actions to protect possession of the thing | |
RISK | General Principle: Periculum est emptoris: the buyer carries the risk of the thing. During classic period for vis maior (force majeur and fortuitous case – act of God). In Justinian era, also for innocent damage: culpa lata Risk shift: when either party is delayed to comply with his obligation – in mora- the risk goes back to the delayed party | Because the contract is perfected by consensus in a price and a thing, having a risk meant that even though the thing could have been damaged or destroyed, the contract still existed and the price was still owed. Click here to find out more on risk (text in italian) |
SPECIAL CASES | Spes: buy of expectations, hopes, futures Venditio res aliena: sales of things that belonged to third parties Sale of fungible things: they had to be somehow specified – not only by a measure or amount- | |
ERROR/ VIS/ DOLI | Error in negotium: Causal theory vs. Abstract theory Error in Persona Vis Doli | |
ACTIONS | Quanti Minoris Redhibitoria Ex emptio Bonae Fideii | |
Contract | PIGNUS |
Object | Guarantee of a debit/ Pledge |
Definition | Pignus was a contract in which a debtor delivered a thing to his creditor as security for the debt. The delivery of the thing gave rise to the obligation on the part of the debtor to return it upon payment of the debt. |
Type of contract | Real – perfected by the delivery of the thing-, bonae fidei |
Parties | Pledgor (debtor) in this contract both parties were benefitted Pledgee (creditor) |
Obligations | Pledgee: to return the thing upon payment – in case he excercised the right of sale if the debt was not paid, he had to return the balance of the proceeds after paying himself the amount of the debt)
Pledgor: expenses caused by the thing to the pledgee |
Features | There were three kinds of pignus in Roman Law:
|
Essential Elements | Credit Delivery of the Object Ownership of the object (if something was given in pignus, it could be sold in case of default of payment. If a third party allowed a thing to be pignus of someone else's credir, he was guaranteeing the other person's credit himself) |
Standard of care | Because both parties benefitted the standard of care is Omnia diligentia (culpa levis- bonus pater familiae- objective standard) |
Action | Pledgee: Actio pignoraticia directa Pledgor: Actio pignoraticia contraria |
Contract | DEPOSITUM |
Object | Safekeeping/Custody of things |
Definition | Depositum in a contract by which one person (depositor) delivered a thing to another one (depositee/ depositaruim) to keep for him gratuitously and to return it on demand |
Type of contract | Bilateral, Bonae fidei, real – perfected by the delivery of the thing- |
Parties | Depositor: Beneficiary of this contract Depositee/ depositarium |
Obligations | Depositee: To keep the thing delivered and return exactly what he has received on demand |
Features | Ownership is not transferred –difference with mutuum Use is not allowed- difference with commodatum |
Essential Elements | Delivery of the thing Irregular deposit: when fungible things or consumable things (like money) were delivered in deposit (for safekeeping purposes) it was considered an irregular deposit ( in reality is a mutuum but it was allowed as an irregular deposit to allow the action depositum which was bonae fideii instead of the Actio Condictio which was of strict law)- THINK ABOUT THE MONEY YOU PUT IN THE BANKS |
Standard of care | Depositee/Depositarium: was only liable for dolus , loss or damage caused by positive action from him Depositor: expenses and damages caused by the thing |
Action | Breach of depositee: fail to return the thing on demand: Actio depositum directa To enforce rights from this contract against the depositor: Actio depositum contraria |
Contract Name | MUTUUM |
Object | Loan of consumption |
Definition | There will be mutuum or consumption loan, when a party is obliged to deliver a number of things to another party that the latter is allowed to consume or exchange. The receiving party must return in the agreed time, as many things of the same kind and quality. The thing under this contract must be consumable or fungible when not consumable |
Parties | Lender Borrower: he is the beneficiary of this contract UNLESS the parties agree on interests |
Type of contract | Gratuit (Onerous onlyif there are interests agreed), real –perfected by the traditio-, stricti iuris |
Obligation | Borrower: To return equivalent + agreed interest |
Features | Compound interest (to charge interest over interests owed): Prohibited Usury limit: 1/12 per year in XII tables – reduce to 1/24 per year. Justinian: 4 to 12% depending on the person |
Essential Elements |
|
Standard of care | Borrower was the owner of the thing after it had been handed over. |
Remedies | Condictio |
Contract | COMMODATUM |
Object | Loan of use |
Definition | There will be a commodatum when a person gives something for free to another person an immovable, not fungible and not consumable object for him to use it. After the use has been done the same thing must be returned. |
Type of contract | Real, gratuit, bilateral, Bonae Fidei (praetorian origin) |
Parties | Commodans: Lender Comodatarium: Borrower- sole beneficiary of this contract |
Obligation | Lender: To allow the use of the thing Borrower: To return the thing after the agreed term |
Essential Elements |
|
Standard of care | Omnia diligentia: Borrower must take care of the thing as a bonus pater familias = objective standard/ higher care than he would take with his own things. Borrower is liable for loss when: thing is stolen (he should have taken care of it), when it is lost due to his/her negligence. Not liable for accident or loss for causes beyond his control (vis maior/force majeure) Lender is liable for: extraordinary expenses in caring of the thing, fraud (dolus) or gross negligence (culpa lata) |
Actions | Default of borrower: Actio commodati directa Different use by the borrower: Actio furti To enforce the borrowers rights: Actio commodati contraria |
Just before the moment of the truth, the spring blooms with its floral smells and the colorful collage of the season. STOP, smell the flowers, they are just there, outside your classroom! |
Getting ready!! |
And... action. |
Every participant was brilliant. |
Even if a bit nervous.... |
Shining |
The judges were impressed! |
Three venues, three sets of three judges simultaneously listening to the presentation of the cases |
It was not an easy choice: your presentations were of high quality |
Competent comunication took place |
An attentive audience : peer review |
Singing praises and handing prizes, I was the proudest tutor on earth. |
Many thanks Prof Meiring, you really made it happen! |
The object of Servitudes is to enable persons other than the owner of a thing to share in the
benefits derivable from the use of that thing, while preserving the interests of the owner as
fully as possible. The ownership is said to ' serve ' (' servit '), i. e. it is cur- tailed, it is not
absolutely free, though, at the same time, its economic effect is not done away with.
On the contrary, as against the servitude, ownership is the dominating right.
Characteristics: Servitudes only confer on the person entitled certain specific and clearly
defined rights of user ; in the second place, they are inalienable and non- transmissible,
being annexed to a definite subject whose destruction entails the destruction of the right.
Servitudes may be defined as real rights of user in a res aliena, limited in their nature and
annexed to a definite given subject. In the case of praedial servitudes, the owner of the land,
for the time being, is the person entitled to the servitude.
Praedial servitudes are either ' servitutes praediorum rusticormn,' i. e. servitudes which usually
occur in favour of a plot of agricultural land, or ' servitutes praediorum urbanorum,' i. e.
servitudes which usually occur in favour of buildings.
The most important rural servitudes are : the several rights of way (servitus itineris, actus, viae);
the right of conducting water over another's land (servitus aquaeductus) ; the right of drawing
water onanother's land (servitus aquae hauriendae).
- Mancipatio
- In Iure cessio
- Legacy
- Usucapio/ Longi temporis praescriptio after lex scribonia
- Adjudicatio
- Pacts and Stipulations
- Traditio (postclassical period)
Confusio: nemini res sua servit
Non-exercise of the right (2 yrs classic/ 10yrs postclassical inter presents
20 inter absents)
by bequest of the exemption from the servitude
Servitudes might also be the subjects of Actiones in rem (Dig. 7 6; 8 5). An Actio Confessoria or
Vindicatio Servitutis had for its object the establishing the right to a Servitus, and it could only
be brought by the owner of the dominant land, when it was due to land.
The object of the action was the establishment of the right, damages, and security against future
disturbance in the exercise of the right; and the action might be not only against the owner of the
servant thing, but against any person who impeded the exercise of the right. The plaintiff had of
course to prove his title to the Servitude
The Actio Negatoria or Vindicatio libertatis, might be brought by the owner of the property
against any person who claimed a Servitude on it. The object was to establish the freedom of
the property from the servitus, for damages, and for security to the owner against future disturbance
in the exercise of his ownership. The plaintiff had of course to prove his ownership and the defendant
to prove his title to the Servitude (Gaius, IV.3; Dig. 8 tit. 5).
Team No. | Team members | E.mail | Cause of action | Venue | Role |
1 | 1. Marie Claire Willys | 1 | NCB 144 | Plaintiff | |
2. Marc Roper | 2 | ||||
2 | 3. Mancha Mongwai | 1 | NCB144 | Defendant | |
4. Ahyung Song | 2 | ||||
3 | 5. Sbusiso Phunguwa | 1 | NCB144 | Plaintiff | |
6. Noscielo Matumbu | 3 | ||||
4 | 7. Domenick Kumalo | 1 | NCB144 | Defendant | |
8. Mash Nokwelo | 3 | ||||
5 | 9.Duduzile Tshabalala | 2 | NCB144 | Plaintiff | |
10. Kagiso Mahlangu | 3 | ||||
6 | 11. Mandy Dikotla | 2 | NCB144 | Defendant | |
12. Reason Maredi | 3 | ||||
7 | 13. Shmuel Moch | 1 | NCB144 | Plaintiff | |
14. David Wainstein | 2 | ||||
8 | 15. Sinenhlanhla Xulu | 1 | NCB144 | Defendant | |
16. Catherine Mokgehle | 2 | ||||
9 | 17.Vumbhoni Mathonsi | 1 | NCB149 | Plaintiff | |
18Mpho Matsitse | 3 | ||||
10 | 19. Njabulo Binda | 1 | NCB149 | Defendant | |
20 .Amantle Makwela | 3 | ||||
11 | 21Naaílah Abader | 2 | NCB149 | Plaintiff | |
22. Thandiwe Mchuny | 3 | ||||
12 | 23. Mapaseka Mello | 2 | NCB149 | Defendant | |
24.Samaria Mahlangu | 3 | ||||
13 | 25. Leila Ismail | 1 | NCB149 | Plaintiff | |
26Carien Erasmus | 2 | ||||
14 | 27 Kholeka Quinga | 1 | NCB149 | Defendant | |
28. Sylvia Maila | 2 | ||||
15 | 29.Michael Wellbeloved | 1 | NCB149 | Plaintiff | |
30. Robert Freeman | 3 | ||||
16 | 31.Brenda Cassell | 1 | NCB149 | Defendant | |
32. Jonathan Lievaart | 3 | ||||
17 | 33. Lungelho Mbatha | 2 | NCB150 | Plaintiff | |
34. Ayanda Lubisi | 3 | ||||
18 | 35.Nontsikelelo Dube | 2 | NCB150 | Defendant | |
36. Anzia Jacobs | cajacobs@live.ac.za | 3 | |||
19 | 37. Kgolodelo Makhuthudisa | 1 | NCB150 | Plaintiff | |
38. Thabo Ruth Phiri | 2 | ||||
20 | 39. Lauren Smith | 1 | NCB 150 | Defendant | |
40. Portia Jane Daniell | 2 |