The study touches upon the theme of the relationship between condictio and actio in factum in the matter of innominate contracts. More precisely, the question arises whether the atio in factum could have performed a merely repetitive function, rather than lead to the protection of the negative interest. In this regard the author deals with Iul. 60 dig. D. 39.6.18.1 and Iav. 13 epist. D. 19.5.10, on the subject of donatio mortis causa and (quasi-)usufruct respectively. What the two texts have in common is the fact that in both cases the use of an actio in factum pretoria (pursuant to Gai 4.46) is envisaged in a purely repetitive function and that for both cases a relationship with the issue of the protection of nova negotia has been hypothesized, in particular for Iav. 13 epist. D. 19.5.10. The author’s conclusions go in the direction of excluding such a connection.

Romano Giuseppe (2021). L’actio in factum come surrogato dell’azione di ripetizione? A proposito di Iul. 60 dig. D. 39.6.18.1 e Iav. 13 epist. D. 19.5.10. ANNALI DEL SEMINARIO GIURIDICO, 64, 167-202.

L’actio in factum come surrogato dell’azione di ripetizione? A proposito di Iul. 60 dig. D. 39.6.18.1 e Iav. 13 epist. D. 19.5.10

Romano Giuseppe
2021-01-01

Abstract

The study touches upon the theme of the relationship between condictio and actio in factum in the matter of innominate contracts. More precisely, the question arises whether the atio in factum could have performed a merely repetitive function, rather than lead to the protection of the negative interest. In this regard the author deals with Iul. 60 dig. D. 39.6.18.1 and Iav. 13 epist. D. 19.5.10, on the subject of donatio mortis causa and (quasi-)usufruct respectively. What the two texts have in common is the fact that in both cases the use of an actio in factum pretoria (pursuant to Gai 4.46) is envisaged in a purely repetitive function and that for both cases a relationship with the issue of the protection of nova negotia has been hypothesized, in particular for Iav. 13 epist. D. 19.5.10. The author’s conclusions go in the direction of excluding such a connection.
2021
Romano Giuseppe (2021). L’actio in factum come surrogato dell’azione di ripetizione? A proposito di Iul. 60 dig. D. 39.6.18.1 e Iav. 13 epist. D. 19.5.10. ANNALI DEL SEMINARIO GIURIDICO, 64, 167-202.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
07 Romano 2.pdf

Open Access dal 02/02/2023

Tipologia: Versione Editoriale
Dimensione 469.86 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
469.86 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10447/536179
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact