Actio ex recepto

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Roman law, the actio ex recepto was a praetoric action with which the person bringing things, from different legal relationships, could take action against those liable under the contractually agreed safekeeping obligation.

It was introduced for the seaman ( nauta ), later expanded to include the shopkeeper ( caupo ) and the innkeeper ( stabularius ). The seaman was initially absolutely liable for any damage incurred when taking over the goods from the traveler ( receptum nautarum ), including accidental sinking through storms, shipwreck or piracy. The owner of the goods could hold himself harmless by means of the lawsuits from actio locati and actio conducti .

This liability went too far for Labeo , which is why he suggested limiting it to disregard of proper security ( custodia ). He granted the custodian subject to supervision a right of objection . Labeo argued for increasing public pressure and stressed that the so far applied spell formulas for problems concerning the locatio conductio already not quite fit. The praetors reacted and formulated - possibly based on the Hellenistic model - a positive regulation to reduce liability. As a result of the reduction in liability, the custodian was no longer subject to the strictness of absolute liability. In order to be able to keep himself harmless if necessary, he received the active legitimation for a modified actio furti . The sources do not explicitly disclose it, but it is assumed that the liability waiver was based on the principle of bona fides .

The original liability was limited from the point in time to cases in which special guarantees were issued or the other party to the nauta caupo stabularis consciously wanted to bear extraordinary dangers by bringing in items. Since a traffic habit quickly emerged , people were increasingly content with "tacit agreements".

Max Kaser examined the actio ex recepto in connection with border issues of the active legitimation to actio furti and its expanded group of users.

Remarks

  1. ↑ Ulpian , Digest 4,9,1 pr.
  2. ↑ Max Kaser : Roman legal sources and applied legal method. In: Research on Roman Law Volume 36. Verlag Böhlau, Vienna, Cologne, Graz, 1986. ISBN 3-205-05001-0 . Pp. 215-220 (218).
  3. ↑ Gaius , Digesten 4,9,5 pr./1; Ulpian, Digest 4,9,3,1.
  4. ↑ Ulpian, Digesten 47,5,1,4 .; also Detlef Liebs : The competition of lawsuits in Roman law. On the history of divorce from damages and personal punishment. Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, Göttingen 1972, ISBN 3-525-18224-4 (habilitation thesis, University of Göttingen, 1969/70 [1972]). P. 109.
  5. ↑ Max Kaser: Roman legal sources and applied legal method. In: Research on Roman Law Volume 36. Verlag Böhlau, Vienna, Cologne, Graz, 1986. ISBN 3-205-05001-0 . Pp. 215-220 (219).
  6. ^ Ernst Levy : Private punishment and damages in classical Roman law . In: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History : Romance Department . Volume 37: Issue 1, 1915. P. 30 f.
  7. ↑ Max Kaser: Roman legal sources and applied legal method. In: Research on Roman Law Volume 36. Verlag Böhlau, Vienna, Cologne, Graz, 1986. ISBN 3-205-05001-0 . Pp. 215-220 (220).