НЕГАТИВНІ ЗОБОВ’ЯЗАННЯ ЗА РИМСЬКИМ ПРИВАТНИМ ПРАВОМ.

The article provides a critical review of the sources of Roman law regarding negative obligations. The author indicates that in the classical definition of the content of the obligation of the Roman jurist Paul (D. 44.7.3 pr., Paulus 2 inst.) the concept of «abstaining from actions» is absent, but the same Paul indicates that the concept of «doing» (facere ) includes also «to abstain» (abstinere) (D. 50.16.189, Paulus 34 ad ed). Therefore, it can be stated that obligations with a negative content were recognized in classical Roman law. However, the author emphasized that negative obligations in Roman law, as a rule, did not have an independent meaning, but appeared in additional conditions to the main contractual obligation and were not typical. As typical obligations, the article analyzes the agreement on non-alienation (pactum de non alienando), the agreement on not filing a lawsuit (pactum de non petendo) and the agreement on not providing a guarantee for eviction (pactum de non praestanda evictione). In Roman law, the non-alienation agreement mostly accompanied sales or pledge relations. Moreover, the violation of the non-alienation agreement did not result in the invalidity of the sale. The sale of the subject of pledge carried out under prohibition resulted only in the liability of the party who committed such a violation. In modern law, the agreement on non-alienation of the subject of the pledge has been transformed into a legal prohibition of the alienation of the pledged property without the consent of the pledgee. A non-suit agreement was an informal agreement under which the creditor undertook not to file a claim against the debtor at all or for a certain period of time in the event of his non-fulfillment of the obligation. Violation of this agreement had only a procedural effect: the defendant could raise a procedural objection (exceptio) that an agreement not to file a lawsuit had taken place. The agreement on not providing a guarantee for eviction reduced the responsibility of the debtorseller for seizing of the thing from the buyer on the grounds that had existed before its sale. According to the claim from the purchase, in case of eviction of the thing from the buyer, the seller had to be liable in the amount of damages. In case of concluding an agreement not to provide a guarantee for eviction, the seller was liable only in the amount of the purchase price of the item. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]