Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Zur evictio in libertatem

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

On evictio in libertatem. – By the evictio in libertatem might be affected the sale of a statuliber, likewise the sale of a slave whom the fideicommissaria libertas was bequeathed and who were sold without mentioning their condicio. Evictio in libertatem refers also to the sale of a slave whose freedom was ordered through an earlier lex venditionis which was not repeated to the buyer and finally to the sale of a liber homo that was bought without the buyer`s knowledge of his freedom. Besides the dispersed phenomena of evictio in libertatem the paper deals with the cases where the liability of a vendor for eviction was excluded because of the fact that 1) the buyer has voluntarily (effective or ineffective) freed the bought slave, 2) the buyer was forced by praetor to manumit the bought slave ex causa fideicommissi, 3) the buyer caused the freedom of the bought slave indirectly through a breach of an obligation. Despite the excluded liability for eviction an actio empti was granted to the buyer if he suffered a loss in consequence of the legal defect, namely when: 1) the vendor in the sale said that the man sold is a statuliber, but concealed the condition of his freedom, he knew, 2) the vendor concealed the fact that to the slave sold the fideicommissary freedom is bequeathed and the slave, after he has been freed from the buyer, changed the person of the patron, 3) the vendor concealed the fideicommissary freedom bequeathed to the slave sold and the buyer was forced to manumit the slave. Furthermore was the seller liable ex empto when he said that the man sold is a statuliber, directed to be free on giving a certain amount of money, but declared the sum to be greater than it really was.


Affiliations: 1: Johannes Kepler Universität Linz, Institut für Römisches Recht, Altenberger Straße 69, 4040 Linz, Österreich
 v.klenova@gmail.com


10.1163/15718190-08534P02
/content/journals/10.1163/15718190-08534p02
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
10
5
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/15718190-08534p02
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/15718190-08534p02
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/15718190-08534p02
2017-12-14
2018-06-20

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis / Revue d'Histoire du Droit / The Legal History Review — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation