Unjust enrichment in the law of Ancient Rome

Богдан Петрович Карнаух

Abstract


The article addresses unjust enrichment in the law of Ancient Rome. The conclusion is made, that in the classic Roman law there was no general claim based on the fact of unjust enrichment. Instead there were a number of model situations in which the acquisition of assets was considered not to have any legal justification. In those specified model situations the obligation to return what was obtained arose. Those situations are: payment of a debt that in fact does not exist (condictio indebiti); handing something over for a future purpose that subsequently does not come to life (condictio causa data causa non secuta); handing something over for a future dishonorable purpose (condictio ob turpem causam); and handing something over for a future illegitimate purpose (condictio ob iniustam causam). Special attention is also paid to the obligation arising out of a theft which was construed in Ancient Rome much wider than nowadays. 

All of the above mentioned model situations are analyzed in detail. Regarding each one of them the following aspects are being studied: the preconditions for arising of the obligation; subject matter of the obligation; the scope of the duties and liability of the person which have been enriched.


Keywords


condictio; unjust enrichment; quasi-contracts; obligation

References


Thomas, J. A. C. (1976). Textbook of Roman Law. Amsterdam, New York, Oxford: North-Holland.

Baron, Yu. (2005). Systema rymskoho hrazhdanskoho prava: in 6 volumes. Saint-Petersburg: Yurydycheskyy tsentr Press [in Russian].

Windscheid, B. (1875) Ob obyazatelstvakh po rymskomu pravu. Saint-Petersburg: Typ. A. Dumashevskoho [in Russian].

Dernburg, H. (1911). Obiazatelstvennoe pravo / ed. P. Sokolovskyi. 3rd ed. Moscow: Pechatnia A. Y. Snehyrevoi [in Russian].

Zimmermann, R. (1990), The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition. Cape Town, Wetton and Johannesburg: Juta & Co, Ltd.

Zweigert, K., Kötz H. (1998). Vvedenye v sravnytelnoe pravovedenye: in 2 vol. Moscow: Mezhdunar. otnoshenyia [in Russian].

Puchkova, H.V. (2007). Zoboviazannia, shcho vynykaiut vnaslidok bezpidstavnoho zbahachennia, za rymskym pryvatnym pravom ta yikh retseptsiia u tsyvilnomu pravi Ukrainy. Candidate’s thesis. Odesa [in Ukrainian].


GOST Style Citations


  1. Thomas J. A. C. Textbook of Roman Law.  Amsterdam, New York, Oxford: North-Holland, 1976. xix, 562 p.
  2. Барон Ю. Система римского гражданского права: в 6 кн. Санкт-Петербург: Юридический центр Пресс, 2005. 1102 с.
  3. Виндшейд Б. Об обязательствах по римскому праву. Санкт-Петербург: Тип. А. Думашевского, 1875. 603 с.
  4. Дернбург Г. Обязательственное право / под ред. П. Соколовского. 3-е изд. Москва: Печатня А. И. Снегиревой, 1911. XVI, 396 с.
  5. Zimmermann R. The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition. Cape Town, Wetton and Johannesburg: Juta & Co, Ltd, 1990. 1241 p.
  6. Цвайгерт К., Кётц Х. Введение в сравнительное правоведение: в 2 т. Москва: Междунар. отношения, 1998. Т. 2. 512 с.
  7. Пучкова Г. В. Зобов’язання, що виникають внаслідок безпідставного збагачення, за римським приватним правом та їх рецепція у цивільному праві України: дис. ... канд. юрид. наук. Одеса, 2007. 198 с.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.21564/2414-990x.138.108137

Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2017 Богдан Петрович Карнаух

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

ISSN 2224-9281