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

Accessio and specificatio reconsidered

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

image of Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis / Revue d'Histoire du Droit / The Legal History Review

Contrary to the dominant opinion of contemporary Roman law studies, accessio and specificatio were not considered in ancient Roman law as independent modes of acquisition of ownership. They became regarded as such only in the 12th Century. In ancient Roman law, what later came to be called accessio caused only an extension of the ownership of the principal thing to include also the accessory without, however, giving rise to a new ownership. On the other hand, what later came to be called specificatio caused the extinction of the object, both from the physical and from the juridical point of view. If, in place of the extinguished thing a new one came into existence it could have been acquired by occupatio.Since the technical juridical terms accessio and specificatio were unknown to the Roman jurists, the cases provided by ancient sources cannot be clearly divided into these categories. Furthermore such classifications, since external to the sources, create superfluous problems. In order to attribute ownership the Roman jurists examined the identity of an object rather than classified cases as accessio or specificatio.The principal texts on which the argumentation is based are: D. 6.1.5.1pr.–1, D. 6.1.3.2, D. 41.1.7.7 und D. 41.1.7.8–9.

10.1163/157181906776931126
/content/journals/10.1163/157181906776931126
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
6
3
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/157181906776931126
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/157181906776931126
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/157181906776931126
2006-03-01
2016-12-08

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