Academic literature on the topic 'Actio exercitoria'

I limiti del praepositio data al magister navis erano indicati da tre fattori fondamentale La volnontà dell exercitor racchiusa nell’atto della installazione la persona magistri sulla nave come impresa marittima. Essa determinava il tipo di negozi ai quali magister era autoarizzato e queli ehe gli erano proibiti. Poi magister navis, salvo proibizione, era autorizzato a compiere negozi che erano intimamente connessi con il primo gruppo cioè p. es. prendere о dare le garenzie reali e/o personali. Terzo fattore cui incideva sui contenuto del praepositio era locus praepositionis cioè i negozi ehe erano conclusi per assicurare l’esistenza e l’efficienza della nave come mezzo di trasporto. A quest’ ultimo gruppo appartiene il mutuo concluso dal magister navis. I giuristi romani erano di contrastanti opinioni nei modi di legare il m utuo con praepositio.

Si tamen plures per se navem exerceant. Several Remarks on the Liability of ShipownersSummaryThe problem discussed in this paper regards the liability of several shipowners (exercitores) managing the same ship. In the title de exercitoria actione o f the Digest there are three texts that refer to this matter: D. 14,1,1,25; D. 14,1,4 pr. and D. 14,1,4,1. The first and the last one refer to a situation in which the shipowners appointed a captain (magister navis) as their agent and thus were held liable in solidum for contracts made by him with third parties. In these cases their joint and several liability had ground in the joint appointm ent of an agent (praepositio). The second text D. 14,1,4 pr. is not very clear and refers to shipowners that were managing the same ship per se, and in this case they could be sued pro portionibus exercitionis. Such a model of liability was justified by the reservation that they cannot be deemed as being each other’s captain (neque enim invicem sui magistri videbuntur). This text was widely discussed among romanists and gave ground to various interpretations. The main questions concerned were the following: whether shipowners dealt with the third parties personally or appointed an agent (magister navis), whether a contract was stipulated by all shipowners jointly or only one o f them, whether they were partners in a partnership or conducted their business independently. According to the most common interpretation the text refers to a situation in which the shipowners conducted their activity personally in the partnership. Having accepted the above view, to justify their liability pro portionibus exercitionis one must admit that they all acted as a party in a contract or, supposing a contract was stipulated by one of them, a partnership between shipowners was a particular kind of partnership in which a contract concluded by only one of the partners resulted in the liability of the others. N one of these interpretations seems to be convincing.First of all, one must take into consideration that the word exercitor was a technical term used to define someone conducting an economic activity through his agent (magister navis) so it was normally used in the context of the whole structure of exercitio navis that was based on the scheme exercitor — magister navis. Thus it seems more likely that exercere per se means not conducting an activity personally but rather „on one’s own account”, „independently”. Besides, the reservation neque enim invicem sui magistri videbuntur suggesting that plures exercitores conducted their activity personally is dubious since it refers to a concept of mutual praepositio, which was used by glossators and commentators to justify joint and several liability of partners and it may be possible that this reservation constituted a part of the gloss or was added to the original context later by some interpreter that did not understand Ulpian’s intention.A similar conclusion arises from the comparison of the text of D. 14,1,4 pr. with texts concerning the liability of several persons on the basis of actio institoria. From the text of D. 14,3,14 it appears that if no legal relationship that guaranteed the possibility of a recourse existed among several persons liable for the act of the agent, none o f them could be sued for the full am ount (in solidum) but they were held liable pro parte. In the case of actio institoria the fact of a joint appointm ent was probably treated as a manifestation of animus societatis that made it possible to treat the persons that had nom inated jointly the institor as partners and thus held them liable in solidum for contracts made by this agent. Hence the fact that in the text o f D. 14,1,4 pr. the shipowners did not appoint jointly their agent and were held liable pro portionibus exercitionis suggests that they were not partners but each of them managed a ship on his own account.If we adm it that plures exercitores that per se navem exerceant were the shipowners that did not conduct their business together we could indicate two situations in which they could be sued pro portionibus exercitionis. The first would be the case in which each o f the shipowners appointed his own agent on the ship and the contract with the third party was stipulated by all agents acting together. The second would be the case in which the shipowners appointed the same person as their agent but the praepositio was given by each o f them separately. in both cases each o f the shipowners could be sued with actio exercitoria only for his proper part since they could not be deemed to be partners and they could not sue each other with any action for a recourse.

THE CONTRACT OF PARTNERSHIP AS A BASE OF IN SOLIDUM LIABILITY IN ROMAN LAWSummary In the modern civil law joint and several liability of partners in a partnership is a rule rather than an exception. According to the common opinion this concept did not originate in the Roman law but was first invented in the medieval times by glossators and commentators. The Roman partnership created only a private relation between partners (who, due to a conclusion of that contract were reciprocally obliged to act together in accordance with a good faith in order to conduct common business and to divide profits and bear losses in proportion to their respective shares) and its conclusion did not affect their liability against third parties. The partners had no right to bind themselves contractually to any third parties, unless they all acted jointly (in this case, however, their joint representation was derived from their expressed declarations and not the existence of a contract o f partnership). Thus, any commitment made by an individual partner, even if made within the scope of a partnership having obtained other partners’ consent, was treated as a personal debt of this partner and the remaining partners were not liable against his contractor. Then, of course, the partner who made a commitment (acting within the partnership’s business) could claim a part of what he had paid to a third party from other partners in proportion to their respective shares in the common enterprise.Such a solution was necessary because of the purely consensual character o f the Roman partnership and the lack of any formal procedure of its conclusion and dissolution. The existence of that contract could not affect the model of the external liability of partners, because it would be too risky for third parties, which had no possibility to make sure if a contract of partnership between some persons had been actually concluded or not. Thus, the role of a contract of partnership in the Roman law was only limited to determine a mutual liability o f partners, to specify their respective rights and obligations and to define the scope of their liability against other partners.There are only a few written sources concerning so called specific kinds of partnership characterized by untypical joint and several responsibility of partners. Moreover these texts are not very clear and are difficult to interpret, so the issue of specific kinds of a partnership is a matter of doubts among Romanists. Some authors even believe that the specific types of partnership did not exist in the Roman law at all.It should be firstly observed that the texts regarding a contract of partnership itself (the texts included in the title pro socio of Justinian’ Digest) did not raise the question of the external liability of partners because they were devoted to internal settlement o f accounts within sociu Thus, taking into account only these texts one cannot ascertain that a conclusion of a contract of partnership could not affect in any way the model of the partners’ liability against third parties.Secondly, the other texts concerning the regulation of conducting an economic activity in the Roman law (actio institoria, actio exercitoria and actio de peculio) present some regularity in an introduction of joint and several liability of debtors.On the one hand that model of the liability was introduced in situations in which protecting safety of trade required that the creditor be able to claim a whole amount o f the debt from one person only.On the other hand this model of liability could be introduced only in these cases in which some internal relation existed between several debtors. On the grounds of such relations the debtor who satisfied in full the creditor’s claim could sue other debtors in order to recover their respective parts in the debt. In the Roman law that internal relation that guaranteed the possibility of a recourse could be either a joint-ownership or a partnership.Having considered that, one may say that the texts concerning specific kinds o f partnership do not prove existence of any special type of societas. These sources regard only the situations when a joint and several liability between several debtors was introduced because it was justified by the circumstances: that is the necessity to protect the safety of trade on one hand and the existence of the contract of partnership that guaranteed a possibility to realize the recourse, on the other.In conclusion one may say that although a closing of a contract of partnership did not create a joint and several liability of partners, in some cases its existence was decisive for introducing this model of liability since it guaranteed to every party a possibility to act against the others to obtain the recourse. Thus, Roman jurisprudence made an important step towards the future introduction o f joint and several liability of partners as a rule of a civil law.

La denominazione “actiones adiecticiae qualitatis” non ha le proprie origini nel diritto romano, ma è stata attribuita dai giuristi medioevali ad un gruppo di azioni prendendo spunto da un testo di Paolo riportato in D.14.1.5.1. La creazione di tale tipologia di azioni risale al II secolo a.C. ed è legata alla necessità di disciplinare una responsabilità del pater familias per i negozi compiuti dagli schiavi, figli o sottoposti entro i limiti della praepositio o ex causa peculiari. A tale categoria di azioni vengono ricondotte l’actio exercitoria, l’actio institoria e l’actio quod iussu che implicano una responsabilità illimitata dell’armatore, dell'imprenditore e del principale in base ad un’autorizzazione generale o specifica. L’actio de peculio, l’actio de in rem verso e l’actio tributoria, che a loro volta rientrano in tale categoria di azioni, sono, invece, a fondamento di uno schema di responsabilità limitata avente origine nella concessione di un peculium. Le actiones adiecticiae qualitatis costituiscono la prima forma di quella che oggi viene definita rappresentanza diretta, in quanto tramite queste viene affermata la responsabilità del pater familias per l’attività negoziale posta in essere dai suoi schiavi, figli o sottoposti. Queste sono, inoltre, poste a fondamento dei modelli organizzativi dell’attività imprenditoriale romana, in particolare alla base della distinzione tra responsabilità illimitata e limitata. La parte della tesi riguardante le actiones adiecticiae qualitatis in generale include una panoramica sulle dottrine moderne e sulle ricerche circa l’origine e la natura di tali azioni sotto il profilo delle strutture economiche e sociali. Sulla base della natura di tali azioni, viene poi analizzato il problema delle divergenze nella traduzione della terminologia tecnica in cinese e vengono proposte delle soluzioni. Dopo questa prima parte generale, si approfondiranno le singole azioni. Per quanto riguarda l’actio exercitoria, dopo aver tratteggiato le sue origini, ci si concentrerà sulla praepositio e sull’analisi delle caratteristiche dell’azione stessa, verrà poi studiata la connessione tra questa e la rappresentanza diretta. Sarà successivamente analizzata l’actio institoria, riguardo la quale, oltre ad un’analisi dei profili riguardanti le origini ed i contenuti, verrà ad esser evidenziata la peculiare tecnica giuridica elaborata in riferimento alla praepositio dell’institor e della sua pubblicità. Lo studio dell’actio quod iussu si concentrerà sulla differenza tra lo iussum e la praepositio e sul rapporto tra lo iussum, la praepositio e il mandato. Per quanto riguarda le azioni da cui discende una limitazione di responsabilità, la prima ad essere descritta è l'actio de peculio, azione di fondamentale rilievo nel contesto delle actiones adiecticiae qualitatis. Lo studio di questa inizia dai profili attinenti le sue caratteristiche in generale per porre poi l’accento sul rapporto tra l’azione e il peculium e la separazione patrimoniale che tramite questo era possibile realizzare. Verrà successivamente analizzata l’actio de in rem verso con approfondimenti circa il significato dell’“in rem versio”, i suoi requisiti ed il rapporto tra questa e l’actio de peculio. L’ultima azione di cui si parlerà è l’actio tributoria. Rispetto a tale azione sono due i punti di maggior rilievo: la separazione basata sull’esistenza di alcuni patrimoni destinati a delle determinate gestioni; il privilegio discendente da tali separazioni patrimoniali. L’ultima parte riguarderà l’influenza degli istituti derivati dalle azioni adiettizie sul sistema giuridico romanistico e sugli istituti del diritto civile vigente. In generale la mia ricerca avrà come oggetto principale, tra i vari problemi riguardanti le actiones adiecticiae qualitatis: la forma di tali azioni così come ricostruibile attraverso le fonti giustinianee; la soluzione romana dell’acquisto dell’obbligazione tramite l’attività negoziale degli schiavi, figli o sottoposti e l’organizzazione imprenditoriale basata su questa soluzione, così come il ruolo di tale sistema organizzativo e la sua evoluzione operata della giurisprudenza romana; le tecniche legislative elaborate dai giuristi romani e dal pretore per la costruzione di tali azioni. Lo studio delle actiones adiecticiae qualitatis nell’ambito del diritto commerciale romano richiede una ricerca piuttosto minuziosa su istituti specifici, si auspica, tramite questa, di riuscire a colmare talune lacune e modificare il modello tradizionale di ricerca sul diritto romano in Cina. Nella ricerca si tenterà di seguire non soltanto un punto di vista storico, ma si porrà l’accento sulla funzione che il diritto romano può avere per il diritto attuale. Nel tentativo di riuscire a “produrre risultati aventi valore attuale, anche se le leggi sono antiche” , assumendo come presupposto i mutamenti nella metodologia di ricerca, si tenterà di mettere a fuoco le connessioni fra il diritto romano e il diritto vivente, confermando così il ruolo del diritto romano: fondamento comune e anima della sistematizzazione del diritto civile moderno. Attraverso l’analisi delle fonti, combinata con lo studio della storia economica romana e la pratica giuridica del tempo, si tenterà di approfondire come i giuristi romani abbiano risolto i problemi specifici e come abbiano usato l’ars giuridica per offrire rimedi quanto migliori possibile. Più in particolare, si tenterà di dare una risposta alle seguenti domande: come riuscirono i giuristi romani a superare gli impedimenti che sorgevano in tema di rappresentanza diretta e di responsabilità limitata? Come si tentava di rispondere alle esigenze sociali riguardanti il rapporto tra la “classe” dei patres familias, ai quali apparteneva la maggior parte dei beni, e la forza lavoro? Come spiegano gli studiosi moderni questa “creazione tecnica” operata dai giuristi romani? Come possono tali azioni ispirare il diritto moderno? Le fonti utilizzate includono le Istituzioni di Gaio; le Istituzioni, il Digesto e Codex di Giustiniano. La bibliografia è prevalentemente composta da contributi in lingua italiana, da contributi di alcuni autori tedeschi tradotti in italiano, da contributi in lingua spagnola ed in inglese, comunque di studiosi attivi a partire dal ventesimo secolo.
The name, “actiones adiecticiae qualitatis”, has not its origins in Roman law, but is a name that indicates a kind and it was given by medieval jurists to a set of actions inspired by the D.14.1.5.1 of Paul. It is generally accepted that these actions were available at the second century B.C. These actions were given by praetor to make pater familias take the responsibility for the activities of his independents because of his authorization. Three of these actions: actio exercitoria, actio inistitoria, and actio quod iussu, which impute unlimited responsibility to the ship-owners, on the base of his authorization, which put someone in control of any business; in additional, the other three of these actions are actio de peculio, actio de in rem verso, and actio tributoria which impute limited responsibility to the pater familias, on the base of the existence of some certain peculium given to his dependants. These actions were the origin of the representation, through of which the third can ask the principal to take the responsibility directly；and these actions constructed the core of the legal system of roman enterprises. The part of the thesis concerning actiones adiecticiae qualitatis in general includes an overview of the modern doctrines and the research about the origin and nature of these actions under background of economical and social structures. Based on the nature of these actions, the problem of differences in translation of technical terminology in Chinese is then analyzed and some solutions are proposed. After the first part in general, switch to the insights relating to individual actions. With regard to actio exercitoria, after the investigation of its origins, we will focus on praepositio and the characteristics of the action, then the connection between this action and direct representation. Then it will analyze actio institoria, about which, in addition to an analysis of the profiles on the origins and contents, will be highlighted to the peculiar legal technique developed in reference to praepositio dell'institor and its advertisement. The study of actio quod iussu will focus on the difference between the iussum and praepositio and the relationship between actio quod iussu with actio institoria, and actio mandati. With respect to those actions which impute a responsibility limited, the first to be described is the actio de peculio, which has the fundamental importance in the actiones adiecticiae qualitatis. The study of this starts with issues arising from its characteristics in general, then put the emphasis on the relationship between the action and peculio and the separation of properties, which is realized by the system of peculio. Will then analyze the actio de in rem verso with insights about the meaning of “in rem verso”, its requirements and the relationship between this action and actio de peculio. The last action which will be discussed is actio tributoria. Compared with other actions, there are two major points: the separation of properties of pater familias based on the existence of certain property intended, and the privileges descending from the separation of properties. The last part will concern the influence of these institutions derived from actiones adiecticiae qualitatis on the system and institutions particulars in legal system of civil law. The present study has three important points: studying different feature of these actions in legal sources from Gaius to Justinian; the importance of these actions in the path of the evolution of the system of the obligation which is made through others activities and the legal system of Roman enterprises on the basis of that; the legislative technical and the path of the evolution of the law in the course of constructing these actions by the Roman praetor. The study of the theme of actiones adiecticiae qualitatis requires a rather detailed research on specific institutions. Through this, try to fill gaps and change the traditional model of research on Roman law in China. We will attempt to do the research not only from an historical point of view, but to emphasize the role that may have on current law and, in this approach, the focus, of course, will not only from a historical point of view, but to emphasize the role that may have on current law. In order to " produrre risultati aventi valore attuale, anche se le leggi sono antiche ", the study tries to focus on the connections between Roman law and living law, confirming its features common foundation and ‘soul’ of the systematization of modern civil law. Through the analysis of sources, combining the economic history and Roman legal practice at that time, try to investigate how the Roman jurists have solved specific problems and how they used the ars to offer legal remedies as best as possible to the people . How the Roman jurists were able to overcome the obstacles that stood in terms of direct representation and limited responsibility? And how they tried to satisfy the social needs concerning the relationship between the "class" of pater familias, which owned the majority of property of society, and the workforce, consisted mostly of slaves, which can not be a person in the law? And for the modern jurists how to explain this creation technique made by the Roman jurists? What inspirations we can get from these actions? These are the main questions it will try to answer in this work. Scopes of the sources used in thesis include the Institutiones of Gaius, Institutiones, Digesta and Codex of Justinian. The bibliography consists mostly of Italian writings, some writings of German authors rendered in Italian, as well as some writings written in Spanish and English, attributable by jurists from the twentieth century.