D. 3,5,8 und die Regel ‘ratihabitio mandato comparatur’
In: Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis / Revue d'histoire du droit / The Legal History ReviewSearch for other papers by Lisa Isola in
Current site
Google Scholar
D. 3,5,8 and the rule ‘ratihabitio mandato comparatur’. ‒ The rule ‘ratihabitio mandato comparatur’ is deduced from various texts (see D. 46,3,12,4; D. 43,16,1,14; D. 50,17,152,2). In D. 3,5,8 Scaevola appears to disagree when he says that ratihabitio of an improperly conducted business does not lead to a mandate but to negotiorum gestio. In order to explain this it has been suggested that the rule only dealt with the effects of ratihabitio vis-à-vis third parties and did not concern the relationship between principal and agent. If this were the case, one would have to explain why Ulpian in D. 50,17,60 explicitly mentions an actio mandati for that situation. Most scholars, therefore, assume an interpolation of D. 50,17,60, but it is equally possible that Ulpian’s decision can be attributed to its original context or that the law changed between Scaevola and Ulpian.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
14
Verwendete Ausgabe: Lyon 1627, Sp. 387 ff.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 254 | 47 | 5 |
| Full Text Views | 192 | 3 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 85 | 16 | 0 |
D. 3,5,8 und die Regel ‘ratihabitio mandato comparatur’
In: Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis / Revue d'histoire du droit / The Legal History ReviewSearch for other papers by Lisa Isola in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
D. 3,5,8 and the rule ‘ratihabitio mandato comparatur’. ‒ The rule ‘ratihabitio mandato comparatur’ is deduced from various texts (see D. 46,3,12,4; D. 43,16,1,14; D. 50,17,152,2). In D. 3,5,8 Scaevola appears to disagree when he says that ratihabitio of an improperly conducted business does not lead to a mandate but to negotiorum gestio. In order to explain this it has been suggested that the rule only dealt with the effects of ratihabitio vis-à-vis third parties and did not concern the relationship between principal and agent. If this were the case, one would have to explain why Ulpian in D. 50,17,60 explicitly mentions an actio mandati for that situation. Most scholars, therefore, assume an interpolation of D. 50,17,60, but it is equally possible that Ulpian’s decision can be attributed to its original context or that the law changed between Scaevola and Ulpian.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 254 | 47 | 5 |
| Full Text Views | 192 | 3 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 85 | 16 | 0 |