Search

Summary: Joachim von Exter and the reception of the actio Pauliana in Hamburg statute law. – On 23 May 1785, a certain Joachim von Exter defended his legal dissertation De actione Pauliana Hamburgi non introducta sed necessario introducenda at the University of Frankfurt an der Oder, under the auspices of Joachim Georg Darjes, professor of natural law. As the title of his thesis indicates, von Exter wanted to demonstrate that there had been no formal reception of the actio Pauliana , remedy against fraudulent conveyances in Justinianic law, in the statute law of his home town Hamburg up to his time, but that an incorporation of this legal institution was something to be desired. After a brief preliminary note on von Exter's quite colourful life, the paper traces the core theses of his work and the process of reception of the actio Pauliana in Hamburg. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: On error of the testator in classical Roman law. – The paper discusses the different ways in which the classical Roman jurisprudence treated the testator's error , be it a mistake concerning the choice of words, be it a false estimation of facts misleading the testator's voluntas. In either case, the jurists may have treated the erroneous disposition as void or reformulated it according to the testator's intention. However, it is shown that – contrary to some voices in the literature – no general rules on dealing with errores can be recognised. Rather, the Roman jurists and emperors decided each case on its own without referring to an underlying principle. It is only in the late classical period that some tendencies of an abstract thinking regarding this topic can be discerned. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: The acquisition of property by traditio, In addition, putative iusta causa traditionis and consequences for the doctrine of condictio. – The Justinian Digest contain a number of texts in which the traditio transfers ownership, although the ' causa ' on account of which the delivery takes place, does not exist in fact. The paper attempts to show that this phenomenon cannot be explained through a broad acceptance of the putative causa traditionis , because the Roman concept of the traditio ex iusta causa differed from that of the ' titulus - modus -doctrine'. The classical Roman law considered the iusta causa in most cases as the purpose of the delivery, for which the traditio was a means to achieve; the (non-)achievement of the intended purpose did not decide on the transfer of ownership, but only whether the recovery of the performance (condictio) was admissible. This shows the way Roman law favored the transfer of ownership. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]