IUS VENDENDI OF THE PLEDGEE AND THE ISSUE OF THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR EVICTION IN ROMAN LAW
Abstract
In this paper we are discussing the following issues: the development of the right to sell (ius vendendi) the pledge by the pledgee in case of pignus; the question of the basis of the pledgee’s right to transfer the ownership onto the buyer as a non-owner, contrary to the ‘nemo plus iuris’ rule; and related to these, the question of the responsibility for eviction. Our main research question is, who will be responsible for the eviction of the pledged thing from the buyer – the creditor or directly the debtor? This question was very topical in ancient Rome. A significant number of sources evidence that pledging other peoples’ things was frequent practice. This was enabled by the fact that land records as well as records of other things served primarily to secure tax collection, they were not accurate and were seldom available to private individuals. Following the casuistic solutions of classical jurists based on the bona fidei principle, we can find an answer to our question in the Justinian law: the debtor is directly responsible for the eviction of the sold pledge – an answer that is, in our opinion, also acceptable in the contemporary law.
References
Магдолна Сич, „Катастри, земљишни регистри и исправе о купопродаји у старом Риму – елементи модерних земљишних књига“, Зборник радова Правног факултета у Новом Саду (Зборник радова ПФНС) 2/2013 (vol. 47).
Renato Perani (Перани), Pignus distrahere. L’ alienazione della cosa pignorata da parte del creditore, Milano 2013/2014, in https://air.unimi.it/retrieve/handle/2434/230098/301269/phd_unimi_R09253.pdf (11. 11. 2017).
William Warwick Buckland (Бакланд), A Textbook of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian, Cambridge 1921, 477; John Henry Wigmore (Вигмор) „The Pledge-Idea: A Study in Comparative Legal Ideas“ III, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1897.
Javier Rodriguez Diez (Родригез), Potestas alienandi, Transfer of ownership by a non-owner from Roman law to the DCFR, 2016, https://www.academia.edu/30612716/Potestas_alienandi_Transfer_of_ownership_by_a_non-owner_from_Roman_law_to_the_DCFR (8. 11. 2017).
Магдолна Сич, Милан Милутин, „Прибављање својине на предмету залоге од стране заложног повериоца у римском праву (impetratio dominii)“, Зборник радова ПФНС 2/2016 (vol. 50).
Alberto Burdese (Бурдезе), Lex commissoria e ius vendendi nella fiducia e nel pignus, Torino 1949.
Pietro De Francisci (Де Франчиши), Il trasferimento della proprietà: storia e critica di una dottrina, Padova 1924.
Paul Koschaker (Кошакер), „Emilio Albertario, Studi di diritto romano II: cose — diritti reali — possesso“, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte: Romanistische Abteilung (ZSS) 63 (1943).
Max Kaser, „Studien zum römischen Pfandrecht“, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 44/1976.
Paolo Frezza (Фреца), Le garanzie delle obbligazioni. 2. Le garanzie reali, Padova 1963.
Гај, Институције, (приредио и превео Обрад Станојевић) Београд 2009.
Giovanni Guida (Гвида), Problematiche vecchie e nuove in tema di responsabilità del venditore, http://dspace-roma3.caspur.it/bitstream/2307/3735/1/PROBLEMATICHE%20VECCHIE%20E%20NUOVE%20IN%20TEMA%20DI%20RESPONSABILITA%27%20DEL%20VENDITORE.pdf (31. 10. 2017).
Магдолна Сич, „Куповина предмета залоге од стране заложног повериоца према Папинијанију (Fragm. Vat. 9)“, Зборник радова ПФНС 2/2010 (Vol. 44).
Tony Honoré (Оноре), Emperors and Lawyers, 2. изд., Oxford 1994.
Paolo Frezza, Le garanzie delle obligazioni, Parte terza, Pisa 1958.
William Warwick Buckland (Бакланд), A Textbook of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian, Cambridge 1921, 477