This book attempts to offer a fresh view through a source-oriented approach in order to provide an outlook of the evolution of the transfer of ownership by a non-owner in Roman law, as well as the dogmatic and systematic standpoints among the jurists of the ius commune. Regarding modern private law, this starting point has brought along a radical distinction based on whether the alienation takes place in the context of direct representation or not.
Fluctus barrel price plus#
This starting point had a decisive effect for the study of the transfer of ownership by a non-owner in Roman law, particularly concerning the significance of the voluntas domini, the way in which legal guardians alienate, the scope of praetorian innovations, the possibility to transfer ownership through formal acts and the role of the nemo plus rule.
Regarding the study of Roman law, this involved assuming the existence of a primitive prohibition to alienate through a non-owner, since ‘direct representation’ was seen as a later innovation. Key to this controversy is the introduction by German scholars, in the course of the 19th century, of the notion of ‘direct representation’ in order to approach the transfer of ownership by a non-owner. However, the dogmatic framework surrounding it has often led to controversy when studying both Roman and modern private law. The transfer of ownership by an authorized non-owner is a common situation in everyday commercial practice.
0 kommentar(er)
