Condictional liability in the Roman law

Condiction refers to an action that originates in Roman Law and was used for the restitution of a thing found with the defendant unjustifiably (sine causa). The thing is commonly acquired by the defendant on the basis of plaintiff's action which had unjustifiably transferred ownership over the...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Cvetković-Đorđević Valentina
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: University of Belgrade, Faculty of Law, Belgrade, Serbia 2014-01-01
Series:Anali Pravnog Fakulteta u Beogradu
Subjects:
Online Access:http://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0003-2565/2014/0003-25651402229C.pdf
_version_ 1818017109611905024
author Cvetković-Đorđević Valentina
author_facet Cvetković-Đorđević Valentina
author_sort Cvetković-Đorđević Valentina
collection DOAJ
description Condiction refers to an action that originates in Roman Law and was used for the restitution of a thing found with the defendant unjustifiably (sine causa). The thing is commonly acquired by the defendant on the basis of plaintiff's action which had unjustifiably transferred ownership over the thing to the defendant (datio). Pursuant to condiction, the defendant is liable for the acquired thing and the scope of his liability is determined as of the time of acquisition and not of the time of raising the condiction. Hence, the defendant is obliged to restore what he initially acquired and not what he possesses at time the condiction is raised. As opposed to the Roman Law's condiction, in modern law of unjust enrichment the defendant is also liable for the property benefit that he sine causa acquired in any way, and he is obliged to compensate the quantum he possesses at the moment when the claim is raised. Although the scope of liability under Roman Law's condiction and under contemporary unjust enrichment is established according to different criteria sometimes the same solution may be reached if defendant's good faith (bona fides) is taken into account. The defendant who acquired a thing in good faith is not liable under condiction if at the time when the condiction is raised he does not possess the thing or he has not acquired its surrogate. Under unjust enrichment, on the other hand, the defendant would not be held liable if, at the moment the restitution claim is raised, he is not enriched any more. However, if the defendant acted in bad faith his liability is of the same scope as the one under the Roman Law's condiction because the defendant is liable for the quantum of benefit that has existed at the moment of acquisition and not at time the claim was raised.
first_indexed 2024-04-14T07:21:35Z
format Article
id doaj.art-59302973f3b7479a840499557bdfc45e
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 0003-2565
2406-2693
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-14T07:21:35Z
publishDate 2014-01-01
publisher University of Belgrade, Faculty of Law, Belgrade, Serbia
record_format Article
series Anali Pravnog Fakulteta u Beogradu
spelling doaj.art-59302973f3b7479a840499557bdfc45e2022-12-22T02:06:08ZengUniversity of Belgrade, Faculty of Law, Belgrade, SerbiaAnali Pravnog Fakulteta u Beogradu0003-25652406-26932014-01-0162222924310.5937/AnaliPFB1402229C0003-25651402229CCondictional liability in the Roman lawCvetković-Đorđević Valentina0University of Belgrade, Faculty of Law, Belgrade, SerbiaCondiction refers to an action that originates in Roman Law and was used for the restitution of a thing found with the defendant unjustifiably (sine causa). The thing is commonly acquired by the defendant on the basis of plaintiff's action which had unjustifiably transferred ownership over the thing to the defendant (datio). Pursuant to condiction, the defendant is liable for the acquired thing and the scope of his liability is determined as of the time of acquisition and not of the time of raising the condiction. Hence, the defendant is obliged to restore what he initially acquired and not what he possesses at time the condiction is raised. As opposed to the Roman Law's condiction, in modern law of unjust enrichment the defendant is also liable for the property benefit that he sine causa acquired in any way, and he is obliged to compensate the quantum he possesses at the moment when the claim is raised. Although the scope of liability under Roman Law's condiction and under contemporary unjust enrichment is established according to different criteria sometimes the same solution may be reached if defendant's good faith (bona fides) is taken into account. The defendant who acquired a thing in good faith is not liable under condiction if at the time when the condiction is raised he does not possess the thing or he has not acquired its surrogate. Under unjust enrichment, on the other hand, the defendant would not be held liable if, at the moment the restitution claim is raised, he is not enriched any more. However, if the defendant acted in bad faith his liability is of the same scope as the one under the Roman Law's condiction because the defendant is liable for the quantum of benefit that has existed at the moment of acquisition and not at time the claim was raised.http://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0003-2565/2014/0003-25651402229C.pdfcondictional liabilityliability for unjust enrichmentgood faith
spellingShingle Cvetković-Đorđević Valentina
Condictional liability in the Roman law
Anali Pravnog Fakulteta u Beogradu
condictional liability
liability for unjust enrichment
good faith
title Condictional liability in the Roman law
title_full Condictional liability in the Roman law
title_fullStr Condictional liability in the Roman law
title_full_unstemmed Condictional liability in the Roman law
title_short Condictional liability in the Roman law
title_sort condictional liability in the roman law
topic condictional liability
liability for unjust enrichment
good faith
url http://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0003-2565/2014/0003-25651402229C.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT cvetkovicđorđevicvalentina condictionalliabilityintheromanlaw