Duress in the Roman-Dutch law of obligations
- Authors: Glover, Graham B
- Date: 2005
- Language: English
- Type: Article
- Identifier: vital:6337 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1012402
- Description: [From the introduction]: The institutional writers and practitioners of 16th, 17th and 18th century Roman- Dutch law looked to the Roman law of obligations to form the foundation upon which they erected their structure of private law. During the course of the reception, the idea was that Roman law was supposed to be referred to and applied only where the indigenous law did not already cater for a legal problem.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2005
- Authors: Glover, Graham B
- Date: 2005
- Language: English
- Type: Article
- Identifier: vital:6337 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1012402
- Description: [From the introduction]: The institutional writers and practitioners of 16th, 17th and 18th century Roman- Dutch law looked to the Roman law of obligations to form the foundation upon which they erected their structure of private law. During the course of the reception, the idea was that Roman law was supposed to be referred to and applied only where the indigenous law did not already cater for a legal problem.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2005
Metus in the Roman law of obligations
- Authors: Glover, Graham B
- Date: 2004
- Language: English
- Type: Article
- Identifier: vital:6336 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1012401
- Description: [From the introduction]: An entire title of book four of Justinian’s Digest is devoted to explaining the doctrine of metus as it was understood at the time of the codification of the Roman law. That title begins with the following statement: "The praetor says: 'I will not hold valid what has been done under duress.'" This unequivocal statement of legal principle illustrates, in very general terms, that by the time the Corpus Iuris Civilis was compiled, the Romans disapproved of persons using threats to inspire the creation of legal obligations, and that it was possible to avoid the legal consequences of an obligation because it was induced by metus. The Corpus Iuris Civilis remains our most valuable source of authority with regard to how duress cases were treated in Roman times. But the relevant textual sources pose some fundamental difficulties. Far from containing a coherent, structured analysis of the law, the relevant passages in fact amount to a jigsaw-puzzle of uncoordinated, haphazard, and occasionally contradictory legal propositions
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2004
- Authors: Glover, Graham B
- Date: 2004
- Language: English
- Type: Article
- Identifier: vital:6336 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1012401
- Description: [From the introduction]: An entire title of book four of Justinian’s Digest is devoted to explaining the doctrine of metus as it was understood at the time of the codification of the Roman law. That title begins with the following statement: "The praetor says: 'I will not hold valid what has been done under duress.'" This unequivocal statement of legal principle illustrates, in very general terms, that by the time the Corpus Iuris Civilis was compiled, the Romans disapproved of persons using threats to inspire the creation of legal obligations, and that it was possible to avoid the legal consequences of an obligation because it was induced by metus. The Corpus Iuris Civilis remains our most valuable source of authority with regard to how duress cases were treated in Roman times. But the relevant textual sources pose some fundamental difficulties. Far from containing a coherent, structured analysis of the law, the relevant passages in fact amount to a jigsaw-puzzle of uncoordinated, haphazard, and occasionally contradictory legal propositions
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2004
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »