THE COLLECTED PAPERS OF PETER BIRKS The Roman Law of Obligations OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,24/6/2014,SPi PeterBirksintheOldCollegelibrary,UniversityofEdinburgh(s) THE COLLECTED PAPERS OF PETER BIRKS The Roman Law of Obligations Peter Birks EDITED BY Eric Descheemaeker 1 3 GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OXDP, UnitedKingdom OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries ©P.Birks,IntroductionbyE.Descheemaeker Themoralrightsoftheauthorshavebeenasserted FirstEditionpublishedin Impression: Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer CrowncopyrightmaterialisreproducedunderClassLicence NumberCPwiththepermissionofOPSI andtheQueen’sPrinterforScotland PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY,UnitedStatesofAmerica BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData Dataavailable LibraryofCongressControlNumber: ISBN –––– Printedandboundby CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon,CRYY LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork. Acknowledgements Iamgrateful,firstandforemost,toJacquelineBirksandAlexFlachfor their on-going help over the years in bringing this project to fruition; also to John Cairns and Ernest Metzger for their unstinting help and advice. ED Contents Tableof Legal Sources xi Tableof Ancient Non-Legal Sources xix Introduction xx . Obligations: The Conceptual Map  . Definition: What is an Obligation?  . Differentiation: Where doObligations Fitin the Roman View of the Law?  i. The difference between rights in remandin personam  ii. Differences between Gaius and Justinian  iii. Outside the institutional scheme  . Internal Organisation: How Are Obligations Arranged?  i. The classification of obligations used by Gaius  ii. The classification of obligations inStair  Part I. Contracts . The Organisation of Roman Contract  . Arrangement of the List inGaius’s andJustinian’sInstitutes  . Formal and Informal Contracts  . The Contract Litteris and the Rôleof WritingGenerally  . Justinian’s Contract Litteris  . The Rôle of Writing Outside Contracts Litteris  . Arra  . Writing and Stipulations  . Contracts Verbis  . Dotis Dictio (Declaration of Dowry)  . Iusiurandum Liberti (Freedman’s Oath)  . Stipulatio (Stipulation)  i. What was the formality?  ii. Why didstipulation not develop into a general law of contract complete initself?  iii. What limits were there on the scope of stipulation?  iv. Special applications of stipulation  viii CONTENTS . Contracts Consensu  . Emptio-Venditio (Sale)  i. Thedemonstratio  ii. Theintentio  iii. The action against the buyer  iv. Risk (periculum)  v. The passing of property  . Locatio-Conductio (Hire)  i. Thedemonstratio  ii. Theintentio  . Societas (Partnership)  i. Thedemonstratio  ii. Theintentio  iii. Thecondemnatio  . Mandatum(Mandate, Commission or Agency)  i. Thedemonstratio  ii. Theintentio  iii. Specialapplications  . Contracts Re  . Mutuum (Loan for Consumption)  . Commodatum(Loan for Use)  i. Thedemonstratio  ii. Theintentio  . Depositum(Deposit)  i. Thedemonstratio  ii. Theintentio  . Pignus (Pledge)  i. The contract ofpignus:the relationship between pledgor and pledgee  ii. The relationship between pledgee and res  Part II. Delicts . Furtum (Theft)  . The Action  . Paul’sDefinition  . The Intent  . The Act  i. What did contrectatiomean to the high classics?  ii. What did contrectatiomean to Justinian?  iii. Was there an earlier doctrine and nomenclature?  . The Absence of Consent  CONTENTS ix . Liabilityfor Helping  . Claimingthe Res  . AVariety of Penalties  . Rapina (Robbery)  . Damnum Iniuria Datum (Loss Wrongfully Caused)  . The Shapeof the Delict  . The Statute  . Interpretation inthe Statutory Core  i. Hasthe plaintiff suffered loss (damnum)?  ii. Didthat loss arise from a thing spoiled (res corrupta)?  iii. Didthe spoiledthing belongto the plaintiff (res actoris)?  iv. Didthe defendant dothe spoiling ‘corpore suo’?  v. Didthe defendant dothe harm wrongfully (iniuria)?  . The Praetorian Periphery  i. Hasthe plaintiff suffered loss (damnum)?  ii. Didthat loss arise from a thing spoiled (res corrupta)?  iii. Didthe spoiledthing belongto the plaintiff (res actoris)?  iv. Didthe defendant dothe spoiling ‘corpore suo’?  v. Didthe defendant dothe harm wrongfully (iniuria)?  . The Measure of Recovery  i. Liscrescit (thesuit enlarges)  ii. The original measure  iii. Fullvalue underchapter III?  iv. The measure inhigh classical law  . Iniuria (Contempt)  . The Name of the Delict  . The Action  . The Measure of Recovery  . The Edictal Provisions  i. Ofconvicium (shouted invective)  ii. Ofaffronts to sexual propriety  iii. ‘Let nothing be doneto cause infamy’  iv. The general edict de iniuriis  . The Scope of the Classical Delict  . The Classical Scope Re-StatedSummarily  . Requirements inRelation to Intention  . The History  i. The edictal phase  ii. The pre-edictal phase 