TY  - JOUR
AU  - Polojac, Milena
PY  - 2019
UR  - https://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/1079
AB  - Čuveni rimski Akvilijev zakon o šteti je i u srednjovekovnoj Srbiji ostavio traga, doduše veoma skromnog. Recipirano je samo dva odnosno tri teksta: jedan kratak reskript iz Justinijanovog Kodeksa koji se odnosi na umorstvo stoke glađu, C.3.35.5, i dva paragrafa iz Justinijanovih Digesta o paljevini, D.9.2.30.3 (Paulus libro 22 ad edictum), D.9.2.49.1 (Ulpianus libro nono disputationum). Recepcija je išla posredstvom vizantijskih kompilacija (Ekloga, Prohiron, Sintagma Matije Vlastara). Odatle su fragmenti preuzeti u srpsko-vizantijske kompilacije: Zakonopravilo Svetoga Save - Zakon gradski, Skraćenu Sintagmu Matije Vlastara i u Zakon cara Konstantina Justinijana. Obim i način recepcije razlikuje se u sva tri srpsko-vizantijska pravna izvora. Za sve gorenavedene kompilacije karakteristični su postupci koji ukazuju na vulgarizaciju pravne tradicije iz Justinijanovog vremena: vađenje pojedinih tekstova iz dotadašnjeg konteksta, novo kompilovanje i sistematizovanje, skraćivanje i pojednostavljivanje izostavljanjem pravne teorije. Autorka sve ove postupke potkrepljuje primerima iz izvora. Ističe da u istorijskopravnoj literaturi nije ukazano na prisustvo Akvilijevog zakona u srpskom srednjovekovnom pravu. Svrha članka je da podstakne naučnike da preduzmu dalja istraživanja.
AB  - The author, studying the reception of Roman law in medieval Serbia, examines the case of famous lex Aquilia. First, Roman legal sources were analysed, then their transformation through Byzantine law and finally their reception in the Serbian medieval law. Lex Aquilia and its interpretation by Roman iurists is present in the medieval Serbian law in the very modest way. It is reduced down to only two or three fragments respectively, from the Justinian's Codex and the Digest title 9.2. Ad legem Aquiliam. The fragments are concerned with the cases of damage caused by killing pecora C.3.35.5 and by burning - urere: D.9.2.30.3 (Paulus libro 22 ad edictum), D.9.2.49.1 (Ulpianus libro nono disputationum). The above mentioned fragments first found their place in the Byzantine compilations (Ekloga, Proheiros Nomos, and the Syntagm of Matthew Blastares). Then they became part of the Serbo-Byzantine compilations: the Nomocanon of Saint Sava (ca. 1219), chapter 55 called City-statute (translation of Proheiros Nomos), the Syntagm of Matthew Blastares (14. century) translated into Serbo-Slavonic language (E-7). The abridged version of the Syntagm of Matthew Blastares (E-4) was made in medieval Serbia by reducing ecclesiastical law and preserving civil and criminal provisions. The compilation entitled Constantine Justinian's Law is based mainly on the Syntagm of Matthew Blastares. The way of reception shows decay and vulgarisation of the Justinianic tradition. For example, above mentioned texts were associated with criminal law and merged with the fragments from the Digest' book 47, title 9 (De incendio ruina naufragio rate nave expugnata), and the cases of incendium - D.47.9.9 Gaius libro quarto ad legem duodecim tabularum, D.47.9.11 Marcianus libro 14 institutionum. The fragments of Roman iurists were abridged by dropping out all teorethical issues. Only pure casuistry is preserved.
PB  - Univerzitet u Novom Sadu - Pravni fakultet, Novi Sad
T2  - Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta, Novi Sad
T1  - Akvilijev zakon u srpskovizantijskim kompilacijama
T1  - Lex Aquilia in medieval Serbian law
EP  - 58
IS  - 1
SP  - 37
VL  - 53
DO  - 10.5937/zrpfns53-20967
UR  - conv_2582
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Polojac, Milena",
year = "2019",
abstract = "Čuveni rimski Akvilijev zakon o šteti je i u srednjovekovnoj Srbiji ostavio traga, doduše veoma skromnog. Recipirano je samo dva odnosno tri teksta: jedan kratak reskript iz Justinijanovog Kodeksa koji se odnosi na umorstvo stoke glađu, C.3.35.5, i dva paragrafa iz Justinijanovih Digesta o paljevini, D.9.2.30.3 (Paulus libro 22 ad edictum), D.9.2.49.1 (Ulpianus libro nono disputationum). Recepcija je išla posredstvom vizantijskih kompilacija (Ekloga, Prohiron, Sintagma Matije Vlastara). Odatle su fragmenti preuzeti u srpsko-vizantijske kompilacije: Zakonopravilo Svetoga Save - Zakon gradski, Skraćenu Sintagmu Matije Vlastara i u Zakon cara Konstantina Justinijana. Obim i način recepcije razlikuje se u sva tri srpsko-vizantijska pravna izvora. Za sve gorenavedene kompilacije karakteristični su postupci koji ukazuju na vulgarizaciju pravne tradicije iz Justinijanovog vremena: vađenje pojedinih tekstova iz dotadašnjeg konteksta, novo kompilovanje i sistematizovanje, skraćivanje i pojednostavljivanje izostavljanjem pravne teorije. Autorka sve ove postupke potkrepljuje primerima iz izvora. Ističe da u istorijskopravnoj literaturi nije ukazano na prisustvo Akvilijevog zakona u srpskom srednjovekovnom pravu. Svrha članka je da podstakne naučnike da preduzmu dalja istraživanja., The author, studying the reception of Roman law in medieval Serbia, examines the case of famous lex Aquilia. First, Roman legal sources were analysed, then their transformation through Byzantine law and finally their reception in the Serbian medieval law. Lex Aquilia and its interpretation by Roman iurists is present in the medieval Serbian law in the very modest way. It is reduced down to only two or three fragments respectively, from the Justinian's Codex and the Digest title 9.2. Ad legem Aquiliam. The fragments are concerned with the cases of damage caused by killing pecora C.3.35.5 and by burning - urere: D.9.2.30.3 (Paulus libro 22 ad edictum), D.9.2.49.1 (Ulpianus libro nono disputationum). The above mentioned fragments first found their place in the Byzantine compilations (Ekloga, Proheiros Nomos, and the Syntagm of Matthew Blastares). Then they became part of the Serbo-Byzantine compilations: the Nomocanon of Saint Sava (ca. 1219), chapter 55 called City-statute (translation of Proheiros Nomos), the Syntagm of Matthew Blastares (14. century) translated into Serbo-Slavonic language (E-7). The abridged version of the Syntagm of Matthew Blastares (E-4) was made in medieval Serbia by reducing ecclesiastical law and preserving civil and criminal provisions. The compilation entitled Constantine Justinian's Law is based mainly on the Syntagm of Matthew Blastares. The way of reception shows decay and vulgarisation of the Justinianic tradition. For example, above mentioned texts were associated with criminal law and merged with the fragments from the Digest' book 47, title 9 (De incendio ruina naufragio rate nave expugnata), and the cases of incendium - D.47.9.9 Gaius libro quarto ad legem duodecim tabularum, D.47.9.11 Marcianus libro 14 institutionum. The fragments of Roman iurists were abridged by dropping out all teorethical issues. Only pure casuistry is preserved.",
publisher = "Univerzitet u Novom Sadu - Pravni fakultet, Novi Sad",
journal = "Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta, Novi Sad",
title = "Akvilijev zakon u srpskovizantijskim kompilacijama, Lex Aquilia in medieval Serbian law",
pages = "58-37",
number = "1",
volume = "53",
doi = "10.5937/zrpfns53-20967",
url = "conv_2582"
}

Polojac, M.. (2019). Akvilijev zakon u srpskovizantijskim kompilacijama. in Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta, Novi Sad
Univerzitet u Novom Sadu - Pravni fakultet, Novi Sad., 53(1), 37-58.
https://doi.org/10.5937/zrpfns53-20967
conv_2582

Polojac M. Akvilijev zakon u srpskovizantijskim kompilacijama. in Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta, Novi Sad. 2019;53(1):37-58.
doi:10.5937/zrpfns53-20967
conv_2582 .

Polojac, Milena, "Akvilijev zakon u srpskovizantijskim kompilacijama" in Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta, Novi Sad, 53, no. 1 (2019):37-58,
https://doi.org/10.5937/zrpfns53-20967 .,
conv_2582 .

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Polojac, Milena
PY  - 2017
UR  - https://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/993
AB  - Nekoliko slučajeva smrtnog ishoda usled uboda rogom bika (vola) kazuistički su normirani u arhaičnim zakonodavstvima Bliskog istoka. Oni su privukli pažnju mnogih naučnika. Jedno od najčešće raspravljanih i spornih pitanja jeste da li i u kolikoj meri postoji veza između Mojsijevog zakonodavstva i zakonodavstava stare Mesopotamije. Odredbe Starog zaveta recipirane su u srpsko srednjovekovno pravo: nalaze se u glavi 48, paragraf 21 Zakonopravila Svetog Save. U radu se istražuje taj interesantan slučaj recepcije. Autor pokušava da odgovori na pitanje kada je i na koji način došlo do odstupanja u odnosu na biblijski tekst. Hipoteze koje se iznose tiču se pre svega odnosa između najstarijeg sačuvanog Ilovičkog prepisa Zakonopravila i protografa koji nije sačuvan.
AB  - Famous legislation concerning goring ox attracted considerable interest of legal historians and comparatists. In the first part of the article the author presents ancient Near Eastern provisions of the Laws of Eshnunna, the Code of Hammurabi and the Moses' legislation in their interrelationship. The singularity of the biblical legislation is stressed particularly under two points: 1) the ox must be stoned to death 2) its flesh may not be consumed. The same set of rules exists also in the Zakonopravilo of Saint Sava - chapter 48 paragraph 21. These rules are taken over from the Old Testament. Compared to the biblical text there is a small but very importaint modification in the Ilovica transcript, the oldest transcript preserved: the ox has to be stoned but its flesh may be eaten. The Ilovica transcript (ca. 1262) is not only chronologically nearest to Sava's autograph. It is probably also textually closest to it. The same wording can be found in the Sarajevo transcript (ca. 1371) and in the Belgrade transcript (ca. 1470). After examining some relevant historical and social circumstances, author came to the final, highly hypothetical conclusion that the mistake was present already in the lost original.
PB  - Univerzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd
T2  - Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu
T1  - Junac koji bode u Zakonopravilu Svetoga Save
T1  - Goring Ox in the Nomocanon of Saint Sava
EP  - 69
IS  - 2
SP  - 43
VL  - 65
DO  - 10.5937/AnaliPFB1702043P
UR  - conv_425
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Polojac, Milena",
year = "2017",
abstract = "Nekoliko slučajeva smrtnog ishoda usled uboda rogom bika (vola) kazuistički su normirani u arhaičnim zakonodavstvima Bliskog istoka. Oni su privukli pažnju mnogih naučnika. Jedno od najčešće raspravljanih i spornih pitanja jeste da li i u kolikoj meri postoji veza između Mojsijevog zakonodavstva i zakonodavstava stare Mesopotamije. Odredbe Starog zaveta recipirane su u srpsko srednjovekovno pravo: nalaze se u glavi 48, paragraf 21 Zakonopravila Svetog Save. U radu se istražuje taj interesantan slučaj recepcije. Autor pokušava da odgovori na pitanje kada je i na koji način došlo do odstupanja u odnosu na biblijski tekst. Hipoteze koje se iznose tiču se pre svega odnosa između najstarijeg sačuvanog Ilovičkog prepisa Zakonopravila i protografa koji nije sačuvan., Famous legislation concerning goring ox attracted considerable interest of legal historians and comparatists. In the first part of the article the author presents ancient Near Eastern provisions of the Laws of Eshnunna, the Code of Hammurabi and the Moses' legislation in their interrelationship. The singularity of the biblical legislation is stressed particularly under two points: 1) the ox must be stoned to death 2) its flesh may not be consumed. The same set of rules exists also in the Zakonopravilo of Saint Sava - chapter 48 paragraph 21. These rules are taken over from the Old Testament. Compared to the biblical text there is a small but very importaint modification in the Ilovica transcript, the oldest transcript preserved: the ox has to be stoned but its flesh may be eaten. The Ilovica transcript (ca. 1262) is not only chronologically nearest to Sava's autograph. It is probably also textually closest to it. The same wording can be found in the Sarajevo transcript (ca. 1371) and in the Belgrade transcript (ca. 1470). After examining some relevant historical and social circumstances, author came to the final, highly hypothetical conclusion that the mistake was present already in the lost original.",
publisher = "Univerzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd",
journal = "Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu",
title = "Junac koji bode u Zakonopravilu Svetoga Save, Goring Ox in the Nomocanon of Saint Sava",
pages = "69-43",
number = "2",
volume = "65",
doi = "10.5937/AnaliPFB1702043P",
url = "conv_425"
}

Polojac, M.. (2017). Junac koji bode u Zakonopravilu Svetoga Save. in Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu
Univerzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd., 65(2), 43-69.
https://doi.org/10.5937/AnaliPFB1702043P
conv_425

Polojac M. Junac koji bode u Zakonopravilu Svetoga Save. in Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu. 2017;65(2):43-69.
doi:10.5937/AnaliPFB1702043P
conv_425 .

Polojac, Milena, "Junac koji bode u Zakonopravilu Svetoga Save" in Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu, 65, no. 2 (2017):43-69,
https://doi.org/10.5937/AnaliPFB1702043P .,
conv_425 .

TY  - CHAP
AU  - Polojac, Milena
PY  - 2015
UR  - https://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/1988
AB  - U razvoju prava delikata posebno mesto pripada moralnim teolozima
15-17. veka okupljenima u čuvenoj školi prirodnog prava u Salamanki (Španija) koji
su svoja učenja izgradili tumačeći delo Tome Akvinskog. Istaknuti predstavnik ove
škole je Leonardus Lessius (1554-1623), flamanski moralni teolog iz Antverpena.
Njegovo najpoznatije delo De iustitia et iure koje je objavio 1605. godine, u osnovi
je sistematska rasprava o najvažnijim moralnim i pravnim pitanjima, pri čemu je
autor na svoj način sintetizovao religiju i pravo. Za imovinskopravne aspekte njegovog
učenja o deliktima važno je izlaganje o deliktima i o restituciji (De iniuriis et
damnis in omnibus humanorum bonorum generibus, et necessaria restitutione) koje
je smešteno u okvir druge knjige ove rasprave. U članku se ispituju najvažniji elementi
njegove doktrine. Osim najvažnijih pojmova kao što su vrlina, greh, pravda i
nepravda, za delikte su posebno važni iniuria, damnum, culpa, restitutio, satisfactio.
Posebno se ispituje uticaj rimskog prava i Akvilijevog zakona na ovu doktrinu.
AB  - The doctrine of moral theologians, followers of Thomas Aquinas, played an important
role in the development of the law of wrongs. One of the distinguished thinkers
was Leonardus Lessius (1554-1623), Flemmish moral theologian from Antwerp. In
his major synthesis of religion and law, presented in his famous book De iustitia et
iure ceterisque Virtutibus Cardinalibus published in 1605, he discusses religious,
moral and legal issues. The doctrine of wrongs, especially its patrimonial aspects,
is elaborated in the second volume, under the title De iniuriis et damnis in omnibus
humanorum bonorum generibus, et necessaria restitutione. The author of the present
paper analyses the main elements of the doctrine such as peccatum, iustitia,
iniuria, damnum, culpa, restitutio, satisfactio, also discussing the issue of the influence
of Roman law and the Aquilian statute on the doctrine of Leonardus Lessius.
PB  - Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje
T2  - Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 5 / Perspectives of Implementa                  tion of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume V
T1  - Leonardus Lessius (1554-1623) – moralna teologija i prirodno pravo o deliktima i restituciji
T1  - Leonardus Lessius (1554-1623) – Moral Theology and Natural Law on Wrongs and Restitution
EP  - 188
SP  - 163
ER  - 

@inbook{
author = "Polojac, Milena",
year = "2015",
abstract = "U razvoju prava delikata posebno mesto pripada moralnim teolozima
15-17. veka okupljenima u čuvenoj školi prirodnog prava u Salamanki (Španija) koji
su svoja učenja izgradili tumačeći delo Tome Akvinskog. Istaknuti predstavnik ove
škole je Leonardus Lessius (1554-1623), flamanski moralni teolog iz Antverpena.
Njegovo najpoznatije delo De iustitia et iure koje je objavio 1605. godine, u osnovi
je sistematska rasprava o najvažnijim moralnim i pravnim pitanjima, pri čemu je
autor na svoj način sintetizovao religiju i pravo. Za imovinskopravne aspekte njegovog
učenja o deliktima važno je izlaganje o deliktima i o restituciji (De iniuriis et
damnis in omnibus humanorum bonorum generibus, et necessaria restitutione) koje
je smešteno u okvir druge knjige ove rasprave. U članku se ispituju najvažniji elementi
njegove doktrine. Osim najvažnijih pojmova kao što su vrlina, greh, pravda i
nepravda, za delikte su posebno važni iniuria, damnum, culpa, restitutio, satisfactio.
Posebno se ispituje uticaj rimskog prava i Akvilijevog zakona na ovu doktrinu., The doctrine of moral theologians, followers of Thomas Aquinas, played an important
role in the development of the law of wrongs. One of the distinguished thinkers
was Leonardus Lessius (1554-1623), Flemmish moral theologian from Antwerp. In
his major synthesis of religion and law, presented in his famous book De iustitia et
iure ceterisque Virtutibus Cardinalibus published in 1605, he discusses religious,
moral and legal issues. The doctrine of wrongs, especially its patrimonial aspects,
is elaborated in the second volume, under the title De iniuriis et damnis in omnibus
humanorum bonorum generibus, et necessaria restitutione. The author of the present
paper analyses the main elements of the doctrine such as peccatum, iustitia,
iniuria, damnum, culpa, restitutio, satisfactio, also discussing the issue of the influence
of Roman law and the Aquilian statute on the doctrine of Leonardus Lessius.",
publisher = "Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje",
journal = "Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 5 / Perspectives of Implementa                  tion of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume V",
booktitle = "Leonardus Lessius (1554-1623) – moralna teologija i prirodno pravo o deliktima i restituciji, Leonardus Lessius (1554-1623) – Moral Theology and Natural Law on Wrongs and Restitution",
pages = "188-163"
}

Polojac, M.. (2015). Leonardus Lessius (1554-1623) – moralna teologija i prirodno pravo o deliktima i restituciji. in Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 5 / Perspectives of Implementa                  tion of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume V
Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje., 163-188.

Polojac M. Leonardus Lessius (1554-1623) – moralna teologija i prirodno pravo o deliktima i restituciji. in Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 5 / Perspectives of Implementa                  tion of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume V. 2015;:163-188..

Polojac, Milena, "Leonardus Lessius (1554-1623) – moralna teologija i prirodno pravo o deliktima i restituciji" in Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 5 / Perspectives of Implementa                  tion of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume V (2015):163-188.

TY  - CHAP
AU  - Polojac, Milena
PY  - 2014
UR  - https://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/1965
AB  - Hugo Donelus je dao veliki doprinos stvaranju modernog privatnog prava.
Izvršio je novu sistematizaciju obimne materije Justinijanove kodifikacije. Odvojio
je norme materijalnog od procesnog prava, a privatno pravo je utemeljio
kao sistem subjektivnih prava sačinivši listu „dobara“ koja pripadaju pojedincu
kao što su život, telo, sloboda, čast, ugled, spoljni predmeti (stvari) i obligaciona
prava. Njegov doprinos nije ništa manji ni na terenu deliktnog prava.
Pojmovno je razdvojio izraze delictum, maleficium, crimen, a naziv maleficium
rezervisao je za privatni delikt iz kojeg nastaje obligacija, koji će kasnije prihvatiti
Hugo Grocije u svojoj čuvenoj definiciji. Ipak, i pored ovog terminološkog
uopštavanja, zadržao je rimsko shvatanje da postoji niz delikata privatnog
prava sa svojim posebnim tužbama. Iako se Donelus, u skladu s humanističkim
postavkama, trudio da ne promeni originalno značenje tekstova, što je vidljivo
po uskoj interpretaciji Akvilijevog zakona, on je svojim sistematizatorskim
težnjama uspeo da izmeni samu suštinu rimskog klasičnog prava. Stvarajući
zatvoren, neprotivrečan sistem koji polazi od pravila, ne od činjenica, uvodi deduktivni
način rezonovanja, što je suprotno načinu koji su primenjivali rimski
pravnici. Тaj posao će dovršiti pravnici 18. veka i škola prirodnog prava.
AB  - Hugo Donellus` contribution to the formation of the modern civil law deserves
special recognition. Following the idea that law must form part of a rational
and coherent system, he reorganised the chaotic arrangement of Justinian’s
codification. He also made sharp distinction between substantive law which
is concerned with subjective rights, and civil procedure, which is concerned
with their enforcement. He made therfore the classification of „quod nostrum
est“ – life, body, freedom, reputation, including things which are objects of our
ownership and obligations. He thus tiled the way for the new, deductive way of
reasoning. In the field of law of delicts, he conceptualized the term maleficium
to denote private delict as a source of obligation, distinguishing it from delictum,
crimen and peccatum. However, he did not go as far as to modify rules of
Roman law preserving roman list of delicts. He applied traditional, nerrow interpretation
of the lex Aquilia in accordance with the spirit of legal humanism.
PB  - Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje
T2  - Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 4 / Perspectives of Implementa                  tion of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume IV
T1  - Hugo Donellus – sistematičar s početka novog veka, o deliktima i Akvilijevom zakonu
T1  - Hugo Donellus Early Modern Systematiser on Delicts and the Lex Aquilia
EP  - 149
SP  - 137
ER  - 

@inbook{
author = "Polojac, Milena",
year = "2014",
abstract = "Hugo Donelus je dao veliki doprinos stvaranju modernog privatnog prava.
Izvršio je novu sistematizaciju obimne materije Justinijanove kodifikacije. Odvojio
je norme materijalnog od procesnog prava, a privatno pravo je utemeljio
kao sistem subjektivnih prava sačinivši listu „dobara“ koja pripadaju pojedincu
kao što su život, telo, sloboda, čast, ugled, spoljni predmeti (stvari) i obligaciona
prava. Njegov doprinos nije ništa manji ni na terenu deliktnog prava.
Pojmovno je razdvojio izraze delictum, maleficium, crimen, a naziv maleficium
rezervisao je za privatni delikt iz kojeg nastaje obligacija, koji će kasnije prihvatiti
Hugo Grocije u svojoj čuvenoj definiciji. Ipak, i pored ovog terminološkog
uopštavanja, zadržao je rimsko shvatanje da postoji niz delikata privatnog
prava sa svojim posebnim tužbama. Iako se Donelus, u skladu s humanističkim
postavkama, trudio da ne promeni originalno značenje tekstova, što je vidljivo
po uskoj interpretaciji Akvilijevog zakona, on je svojim sistematizatorskim
težnjama uspeo da izmeni samu suštinu rimskog klasičnog prava. Stvarajući
zatvoren, neprotivrečan sistem koji polazi od pravila, ne od činjenica, uvodi deduktivni
način rezonovanja, što je suprotno načinu koji su primenjivali rimski
pravnici. Тaj posao će dovršiti pravnici 18. veka i škola prirodnog prava., Hugo Donellus` contribution to the formation of the modern civil law deserves
special recognition. Following the idea that law must form part of a rational
and coherent system, he reorganised the chaotic arrangement of Justinian’s
codification. He also made sharp distinction between substantive law which
is concerned with subjective rights, and civil procedure, which is concerned
with their enforcement. He made therfore the classification of „quod nostrum
est“ – life, body, freedom, reputation, including things which are objects of our
ownership and obligations. He thus tiled the way for the new, deductive way of
reasoning. In the field of law of delicts, he conceptualized the term maleficium
to denote private delict as a source of obligation, distinguishing it from delictum,
crimen and peccatum. However, he did not go as far as to modify rules of
Roman law preserving roman list of delicts. He applied traditional, nerrow interpretation
of the lex Aquilia in accordance with the spirit of legal humanism.",
publisher = "Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje",
journal = "Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 4 / Perspectives of Implementa                  tion of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume IV",
booktitle = "Hugo Donellus – sistematičar s početka novog veka, o deliktima i Akvilijevom zakonu, Hugo Donellus Early Modern Systematiser on Delicts and the Lex Aquilia",
pages = "149-137"
}

Polojac, M.. (2014). Hugo Donellus – sistematičar s početka novog veka, o deliktima i Akvilijevom zakonu. in Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 4 / Perspectives of Implementa                  tion of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume IV
Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje., 137-149.

Polojac M. Hugo Donellus – sistematičar s početka novog veka, o deliktima i Akvilijevom zakonu. in Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 4 / Perspectives of Implementa                  tion of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume IV. 2014;:137-149..

Polojac, Milena, "Hugo Donellus – sistematičar s početka novog veka, o deliktima i Akvilijevom zakonu" in Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 4 / Perspectives of Implementa                  tion of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume IV (2014):137-149.

TY  - CHAP
AU  - Polojac, Milena
PY  - 2013
UR  - https://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/1945
AB  - Hugo Grocije je jednu glavu svog čuvenog dela De iure belli ac pacis naslovio
„De damno per iniuriam dato et obligatione quae inde oritur”. To je
glava sedamnaesta druge knjige. Naslov, koji je očigledno preuzet iz rimskog
prava, bez sumnje ukazuje na privatni delikt damnum iniuria datum iz Akvilijevog
zakona i pripadajuću tužbu actio damni iniurae legis Aquiliae. Struktura
poglavlja, međutim, nije ni nalik titulusu Digesta Ad legem Aquiliam, a
sadržaj obiluje novim elementima i idejama. Upada u oči i to da Grocije ni na
jednom mestu ne pominje Akvilijev zakon izričito. U radu se analiziraju najvažniji
fragmenti iz navedenog poglavlja s ciljem da se pokaže u kojoj su meri
osnovni elementi Grocijeve doktrine u uskoj vezi s Akvilijevim zakonom, kao
i to koliko se Grocije i pod kojim uticajima odmakao od prvobitnog polazišta.
AB  - Hugo Grotius entitled one chapter of his famous book De iure belli ac pacis
– De damno per iniuriam dato et obligatione quae inde oritur. That is Chapter
Seventeen of the Second Book. The title unequivocally points to Roman private
tort – damnum iniuria datum – specified in the statute named lex Aquilia,
and to the appertaining actio damni iniurae legis Aquiliae. The structure of the
chapter, however, is not even reminiscent of the title Ad legem Aquiliam in Justinian’s
Digest, its contents abounding in new elements and concepts. The paper
analyses the most important fragments from the above mentioned chapter in
order to show the extent to which the elements of Grotius’s doctrine are closely
related to the lex Aquilia, as well as how much Grotius dissociated himself from
his starting point and under what influence.
PB  - Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje
T2  - Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 3 / Perspectives of Implementation of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume III
T1  - Škola prirodnog prava, Hugo Grocije i Akvilijev zakon – De iure belli ac pacis 2.17
T1  - Natural Law, Hugo Grotius and lex Aquilia – De iure belli ac pacis 2.17
EP  - 153
SP  - 143
ER  - 

@inbook{
author = "Polojac, Milena",
year = "2013",
abstract = "Hugo Grocije je jednu glavu svog čuvenog dela De iure belli ac pacis naslovio
„De damno per iniuriam dato et obligatione quae inde oritur”. To je
glava sedamnaesta druge knjige. Naslov, koji je očigledno preuzet iz rimskog
prava, bez sumnje ukazuje na privatni delikt damnum iniuria datum iz Akvilijevog
zakona i pripadajuću tužbu actio damni iniurae legis Aquiliae. Struktura
poglavlja, međutim, nije ni nalik titulusu Digesta Ad legem Aquiliam, a
sadržaj obiluje novim elementima i idejama. Upada u oči i to da Grocije ni na
jednom mestu ne pominje Akvilijev zakon izričito. U radu se analiziraju najvažniji
fragmenti iz navedenog poglavlja s ciljem da se pokaže u kojoj su meri
osnovni elementi Grocijeve doktrine u uskoj vezi s Akvilijevim zakonom, kao
i to koliko se Grocije i pod kojim uticajima odmakao od prvobitnog polazišta., Hugo Grotius entitled one chapter of his famous book De iure belli ac pacis
– De damno per iniuriam dato et obligatione quae inde oritur. That is Chapter
Seventeen of the Second Book. The title unequivocally points to Roman private
tort – damnum iniuria datum – specified in the statute named lex Aquilia,
and to the appertaining actio damni iniurae legis Aquiliae. The structure of the
chapter, however, is not even reminiscent of the title Ad legem Aquiliam in Justinian’s
Digest, its contents abounding in new elements and concepts. The paper
analyses the most important fragments from the above mentioned chapter in
order to show the extent to which the elements of Grotius’s doctrine are closely
related to the lex Aquilia, as well as how much Grotius dissociated himself from
his starting point and under what influence.",
publisher = "Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje",
journal = "Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 3 / Perspectives of Implementation of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume III",
booktitle = "Škola prirodnog prava, Hugo Grocije i Akvilijev zakon – De iure belli ac pacis 2.17, Natural Law, Hugo Grotius and lex Aquilia – De iure belli ac pacis 2.17",
pages = "153-143"
}

Polojac, M.. (2013). Škola prirodnog prava, Hugo Grocije i Akvilijev zakon – De iure belli ac pacis 2.17. in Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 3 / Perspectives of Implementation of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume III
Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje., 143-153.

Polojac M. Škola prirodnog prava, Hugo Grocije i Akvilijev zakon – De iure belli ac pacis 2.17. in Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 3 / Perspectives of Implementation of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume III. 2013;:143-153..

Polojac, Milena, "Škola prirodnog prava, Hugo Grocije i Akvilijev zakon – De iure belli ac pacis 2.17" in Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 3 / Perspectives of Implementation of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume III (2013):143-153.

TY  - CHAP
AU  - Polojac, Milena
PY  - 2012
UR  - https://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/1927
AB  - Rimsko pravo je razvilo efikasne forme preduzetništva i menadžmenta koje
se pravno radikalno razlikuju od modernog prava. Naročito zanimljiv primer
je poslovođenje putem zajedničkih robova. Тakvi robovi, postavljeni i ovlašćeni
da rukovode najrazličitijim poslovima na kopnu i moru bili su važan sloj menadžera
u Rimu – institores. Ukoliko im je bio poveren pekulijum na upravljanje,
razlika između preduzetnika i menadžera gotovo da je bila izbrisana.
Efikasnosti ove vrste biznis menadžmenta najviše su doprineli pretor i njegove
tužbe s dodatim subjektom. U radu se ispituju četiri tipa poslovođenja u kolektivnom
preduzetništvu u rimskom pravu: 1) preduzetnici svi zajedno vode
poslove ili su poslovođenje poverili jednom od njih; 2) preduzetnici su poverili
vođenje poslova zajedničkom robu na osnovu tzv. praepositio, pa se zajednički
rob pojavljuje kao institor ili magister navis; 3) preduzetnici su poverili vođenje
poslova zajedničkom robu koji ima peculium; 4) preduzetnici su poverili vođenje
poslova tuđem robu ili slobodnom čoveku koji nije preduzetnik. Kompleksna
pravna rešenja doprinela su tome da se prevaziđu mnogobrojne slabosti rimskog
ortakluka. Osim toga, ove forme su se, funkcionalno i de facto, približile
modernim korporativnim oblicima preduzetništva i poslovođenja, čime se na
još jednom primeru može potvrditi čuvena rimska praktičnost, pragmatičnost
i efikasnost.
AB  - Roman law developed, although in a radicaly different way compared to
modern law, very efficient forms of business management. Most interessting example
was the organization of different types of business per servos communes
actionable by pretorian remedies.
Author is examining four possible ways in which the entrepreneurship
in roman law was organised and managed. First, the business was managed
jointly by all entrepreneurs together or it is entrusted to one of them. Special
rules on this issue are applied in case of societates publicanorum, argentarii,
exercitores and venaliciarii. In the second situation menagement is entrusted to
servus communis on the basis of so called praepositio. In that case the slave in
co-ownership of enterpreneurs becomes institor or magister navis. Third situation
is when management is governed by servus communis with peculium. Finally,
the management can be entrusted to a free man who is not entrepreneur
or to someone else`s slave.
Complexity of legal solutions leads to the conclusion that the weak points of
entrepreneurship in the form of societas as internal relationship were very succesfully
eliminated. Also, invented forms were legaly very different from modern
law, however, de facto they come close to the functional equivalent of modern
corporations.
PB  - Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje
T2  - Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 2 / Perspectives of Implementa                  tion of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume II
T1  - Biznis menadžment i rimsko pravo
T1  - Business management and roman law
EP  - 181
SP  - 170
ER  - 

@inbook{
author = "Polojac, Milena",
year = "2012",
abstract = "Rimsko pravo je razvilo efikasne forme preduzetništva i menadžmenta koje
se pravno radikalno razlikuju od modernog prava. Naročito zanimljiv primer
je poslovođenje putem zajedničkih robova. Тakvi robovi, postavljeni i ovlašćeni
da rukovode najrazličitijim poslovima na kopnu i moru bili su važan sloj menadžera
u Rimu – institores. Ukoliko im je bio poveren pekulijum na upravljanje,
razlika između preduzetnika i menadžera gotovo da je bila izbrisana.
Efikasnosti ove vrste biznis menadžmenta najviše su doprineli pretor i njegove
tužbe s dodatim subjektom. U radu se ispituju četiri tipa poslovođenja u kolektivnom
preduzetništvu u rimskom pravu: 1) preduzetnici svi zajedno vode
poslove ili su poslovođenje poverili jednom od njih; 2) preduzetnici su poverili
vođenje poslova zajedničkom robu na osnovu tzv. praepositio, pa se zajednički
rob pojavljuje kao institor ili magister navis; 3) preduzetnici su poverili vođenje
poslova zajedničkom robu koji ima peculium; 4) preduzetnici su poverili vođenje
poslova tuđem robu ili slobodnom čoveku koji nije preduzetnik. Kompleksna
pravna rešenja doprinela su tome da se prevaziđu mnogobrojne slabosti rimskog
ortakluka. Osim toga, ove forme su se, funkcionalno i de facto, približile
modernim korporativnim oblicima preduzetništva i poslovođenja, čime se na
još jednom primeru može potvrditi čuvena rimska praktičnost, pragmatičnost
i efikasnost., Roman law developed, although in a radicaly different way compared to
modern law, very efficient forms of business management. Most interessting example
was the organization of different types of business per servos communes
actionable by pretorian remedies.
Author is examining four possible ways in which the entrepreneurship
in roman law was organised and managed. First, the business was managed
jointly by all entrepreneurs together or it is entrusted to one of them. Special
rules on this issue are applied in case of societates publicanorum, argentarii,
exercitores and venaliciarii. In the second situation menagement is entrusted to
servus communis on the basis of so called praepositio. In that case the slave in
co-ownership of enterpreneurs becomes institor or magister navis. Third situation
is when management is governed by servus communis with peculium. Finally,
the management can be entrusted to a free man who is not entrepreneur
or to someone else`s slave.
Complexity of legal solutions leads to the conclusion that the weak points of
entrepreneurship in the form of societas as internal relationship were very succesfully
eliminated. Also, invented forms were legaly very different from modern
law, however, de facto they come close to the functional equivalent of modern
corporations.",
publisher = "Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje",
journal = "Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 2 / Perspectives of Implementa                  tion of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume II",
booktitle = "Biznis menadžment i rimsko pravo, Business management and roman law",
pages = "181-170"
}

Polojac, M.. (2012). Biznis menadžment i rimsko pravo. in Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 2 / Perspectives of Implementa                  tion of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume II
Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje., 170-181.

Polojac M. Biznis menadžment i rimsko pravo. in Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 2 / Perspectives of Implementa                  tion of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume II. 2012;:170-181..

Polojac, Milena, "Biznis menadžment i rimsko pravo" in Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 2 / Perspectives of Implementa                  tion of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume II (2012):170-181.

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Polojac, Milena
PY  - 2012
UR  - https://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/620
AB  - Rad predstavlja romanistički prilog istraživanju neposrednog uticaja izvornog rimskog prava na srpsku kodifikaciju građanskog prava i ublažavanju preoštrih ocena koji su izrečene na račun Srpskog građanskog zakonika iz 1844. godine i njegovog tvorca Jovana Hadžića. Osim toga, cilj ovog rada je da se široj čitalačkoj publici, koji nisu romanisti, približi bogato i vredno rimsko nasleđe. Poređenjem odgovarajućih paragrafa Srpskog građanskog zakonika koji se odnose na sticanje svojine prisvajanjem divljih životinja sa svojim uzorom i izvornikom Austrijskim građanskim zakonikom iz 1811. godine, s jedne strane, i s onim što su nam u nasleđe ostavili rimski pravnici, s druge strane, može se dokazati da je Jovan Hadžić dobro poznavao i umešno koristio tekstove klasičnih rimskih pravnika, pre svega Gaja, te da je na taj način u Srpski građanski zakonik uneo izvorno rimsko pravo.
AB  - The Serbian Civil Code (SCC) was enacted in 1844, 33 years after its famous model, the Austrian Allgemeines burgerliches Gesetzbuch (ABGB). SCC is usually considered a summarized version of the ABGB and essentially its unsuccessful copy. This consideration seems harsh and oversimplified. The author analyzes the SCC provisions relating to occupation of wild animals, and shows that the drafter of the Serbian codification, Jovan Hadžić, neither translated, nor borrowed the provisions of the ABGB. Hadžić was strongly influenced by classical Roman jurists, especially Gaius, and was obviously impressed by their clear, comprehensible language and style. Hadžić’s language is extremely similar to that of Gaius (D.41.1.1-5). The techniques he used are characteristic of Roman lawyers (giving examples, cases like the one presented in D.41.1.44, direct speech, etc.). Drawing upon the ancient Roman law and its casuistry, Hadžić drafted the provisions which were down to earth and close to ordinary people. Thus, he conducted a very important edifying mission for the ordinary readers, who were left with a low level of legal culture after a long period of Ottoman rule.
PB  - Univerzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd
T2  - Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu
T1  - Srpski građanski zakonik i odredbe o prisvajanju divljih životinja - recepcija izvornog rimskog prava
T1  - Serbian civil code and occupation of wild animals: Reception of the original Roman law
EP  - 134
IS  - 2
SP  - 117
VL  - 60
UR  - conv_262
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Polojac, Milena",
year = "2012",
abstract = "Rad predstavlja romanistički prilog istraživanju neposrednog uticaja izvornog rimskog prava na srpsku kodifikaciju građanskog prava i ublažavanju preoštrih ocena koji su izrečene na račun Srpskog građanskog zakonika iz 1844. godine i njegovog tvorca Jovana Hadžića. Osim toga, cilj ovog rada je da se široj čitalačkoj publici, koji nisu romanisti, približi bogato i vredno rimsko nasleđe. Poređenjem odgovarajućih paragrafa Srpskog građanskog zakonika koji se odnose na sticanje svojine prisvajanjem divljih životinja sa svojim uzorom i izvornikom Austrijskim građanskim zakonikom iz 1811. godine, s jedne strane, i s onim što su nam u nasleđe ostavili rimski pravnici, s druge strane, može se dokazati da je Jovan Hadžić dobro poznavao i umešno koristio tekstove klasičnih rimskih pravnika, pre svega Gaja, te da je na taj način u Srpski građanski zakonik uneo izvorno rimsko pravo., The Serbian Civil Code (SCC) was enacted in 1844, 33 years after its famous model, the Austrian Allgemeines burgerliches Gesetzbuch (ABGB). SCC is usually considered a summarized version of the ABGB and essentially its unsuccessful copy. This consideration seems harsh and oversimplified. The author analyzes the SCC provisions relating to occupation of wild animals, and shows that the drafter of the Serbian codification, Jovan Hadžić, neither translated, nor borrowed the provisions of the ABGB. Hadžić was strongly influenced by classical Roman jurists, especially Gaius, and was obviously impressed by their clear, comprehensible language and style. Hadžić’s language is extremely similar to that of Gaius (D.41.1.1-5). The techniques he used are characteristic of Roman lawyers (giving examples, cases like the one presented in D.41.1.44, direct speech, etc.). Drawing upon the ancient Roman law and its casuistry, Hadžić drafted the provisions which were down to earth and close to ordinary people. Thus, he conducted a very important edifying mission for the ordinary readers, who were left with a low level of legal culture after a long period of Ottoman rule.",
publisher = "Univerzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd",
journal = "Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu",
title = "Srpski građanski zakonik i odredbe o prisvajanju divljih životinja - recepcija izvornog rimskog prava, Serbian civil code and occupation of wild animals: Reception of the original Roman law",
pages = "134-117",
number = "2",
volume = "60",
url = "conv_262"
}

Polojac, M.. (2012). Srpski građanski zakonik i odredbe o prisvajanju divljih životinja - recepcija izvornog rimskog prava. in Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu
Univerzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd., 60(2), 117-134.
conv_262

Polojac M. Srpski građanski zakonik i odredbe o prisvajanju divljih životinja - recepcija izvornog rimskog prava. in Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu. 2012;60(2):117-134.
conv_262 .

Polojac, Milena, "Srpski građanski zakonik i odredbe o prisvajanju divljih životinja - recepcija izvornog rimskog prava" in Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu, 60, no. 2 (2012):117-134,
conv_262 .

TY  - CHAP
AU  - Polojac, Milena
PY  - 2011
UR  - https://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/1905
AB  - Autor posmatra iz istorijskog ugla dve vrste objektivne odgovornosti i ukazuje
na problem koji proizilazi iz Ulpijanovog teksta o pretorovom ediktu de his qui
effuderint vel deiecerint (D.9.3.pr–1). U prvom delu edikta, pretor uvodi objektivnu
odgovornost za korisnika stana u slučaju kada su nastupile štetne posledice
zato što je neka stvar izbačena ili tečnost prolivena iz zgrade ili stana na mesto
gde se uobičajeno prolazi . Objektivna odgovornost korisnika stana na celokupan
iznos kazne ustanovljena je bez obzira na to da li je on sam počinilac ili
neko drugi. U poslednjoj rečenici edikta, prema Ulpijanovom citatu, pretor je dao
mogućnost korisniku stana da noksalno izruči roba ako je on izbacio ili prolio
nešto iz stana bez znanja vlasnika. Ovaj dodatak stvara problem jer protivreči
prethodnim odredbama edikta. Autor se osvrće na postojeće interpretacije ovog
teksta u romanističkoj literaturi. Ovim tumačenjima dodaje još jednu moguću interpretaciju
po kojoj je pretor, u nameri da pojača zaštitu građana, imao na umu
kumulativnu primenu actio de effusis vel deiectis i odgovarajuće noksalne tužbe.
AB  - The author points to the problem arising from the text of Ulpian about
the edict of the praetor de his qui effuderint vel deiecerint (D.9.3.pr–1). In the
first part of the edict, praetor imposed a strict liability on the habitator in case
that something is thrown out or poured out from a building onto a place where
people commonly pass, and as a result the damage was caused or a free man
was killed or injured. The strict liability in solidum of the habitator is imposed
irrespective whether he or somebody else did throwing or pouring. In the last
sentence of the edict, according to the Ulpian`s quotation, the praetor gave the
possibility to the habitator to surrender the slave noxally if he has pured out
or thrown out something insciente domino. This additional clause introduced
some inconsistencies and contadictions. After examining criticaly exsisting interpretations
in the literature (Lenel, Biondi, De Visscher, Watson, Ankum,
Gimenez-Candela), the author offers another possible interpretation: in order to
additionaly protect citizens, preator had in mind cumulative application of the
actio de effusis vel deicetis and the corresponding noxal action.
PB  - Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje
T2  - Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 1 / Perspectives of Implementation of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume I
T1  - O dve vrste objektivne odgovornosti habitatora iz ugla pretorovog edikta : de his qui effuderint vel deiecerint (Ulpian, 9.3.1.pr–1)
T1  - Two kinds of habitator`s strict liability in praetor`s edict : de his qui effuderint vel deiecerint (Ulpian, D.9.3.pr–1)
EP  - 142
SP  - 132
ER  - 

@inbook{
author = "Polojac, Milena",
year = "2011",
abstract = "Autor posmatra iz istorijskog ugla dve vrste objektivne odgovornosti i ukazuje
na problem koji proizilazi iz Ulpijanovog teksta o pretorovom ediktu de his qui
effuderint vel deiecerint (D.9.3.pr–1). U prvom delu edikta, pretor uvodi objektivnu
odgovornost za korisnika stana u slučaju kada su nastupile štetne posledice
zato što je neka stvar izbačena ili tečnost prolivena iz zgrade ili stana na mesto
gde se uobičajeno prolazi . Objektivna odgovornost korisnika stana na celokupan
iznos kazne ustanovljena je bez obzira na to da li je on sam počinilac ili
neko drugi. U poslednjoj rečenici edikta, prema Ulpijanovom citatu, pretor je dao
mogućnost korisniku stana da noksalno izruči roba ako je on izbacio ili prolio
nešto iz stana bez znanja vlasnika. Ovaj dodatak stvara problem jer protivreči
prethodnim odredbama edikta. Autor se osvrće na postojeće interpretacije ovog
teksta u romanističkoj literaturi. Ovim tumačenjima dodaje još jednu moguću interpretaciju
po kojoj je pretor, u nameri da pojača zaštitu građana, imao na umu
kumulativnu primenu actio de effusis vel deiectis i odgovarajuće noksalne tužbe., The author points to the problem arising from the text of Ulpian about
the edict of the praetor de his qui effuderint vel deiecerint (D.9.3.pr–1). In the
first part of the edict, praetor imposed a strict liability on the habitator in case
that something is thrown out or poured out from a building onto a place where
people commonly pass, and as a result the damage was caused or a free man
was killed or injured. The strict liability in solidum of the habitator is imposed
irrespective whether he or somebody else did throwing or pouring. In the last
sentence of the edict, according to the Ulpian`s quotation, the praetor gave the
possibility to the habitator to surrender the slave noxally if he has pured out
or thrown out something insciente domino. This additional clause introduced
some inconsistencies and contadictions. After examining criticaly exsisting interpretations
in the literature (Lenel, Biondi, De Visscher, Watson, Ankum,
Gimenez-Candela), the author offers another possible interpretation: in order to
additionaly protect citizens, preator had in mind cumulative application of the
actio de effusis vel deicetis and the corresponding noxal action.",
publisher = "Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje",
journal = "Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 1 / Perspectives of Implementation of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume I",
booktitle = "O dve vrste objektivne odgovornosti habitatora iz ugla pretorovog edikta : de his qui effuderint vel deiecerint (Ulpian, 9.3.1.pr–1), Two kinds of habitator`s strict liability in praetor`s edict : de his qui effuderint vel deiecerint (Ulpian, D.9.3.pr–1)",
pages = "142-132"
}

Polojac, M.. (2011). O dve vrste objektivne odgovornosti habitatora iz ugla pretorovog edikta : de his qui effuderint vel deiecerint (Ulpian, 9.3.1.pr–1). in Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 1 / Perspectives of Implementation of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume I
Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje., 132-142.

Polojac M. O dve vrste objektivne odgovornosti habitatora iz ugla pretorovog edikta : de his qui effuderint vel deiecerint (Ulpian, 9.3.1.pr–1). in Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 1 / Perspectives of Implementation of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume I. 2011;:132-142..

Polojac, Milena, "O dve vrste objektivne odgovornosti habitatora iz ugla pretorovog edikta : de his qui effuderint vel deiecerint (Ulpian, 9.3.1.pr–1)" in Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 1 / Perspectives of Implementation of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume I (2011):132-142.

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Polojac, Milena
PY  - 2010
UR  - https://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/536
PB  - Univerzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd
T2  - Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu
T1  - Tamas Notari: Law, religion and Rhetoric in Cicero's Pro murena, Schenk Verlag, Passau, 2008
EP  - 384
IS  - 1
SP  - 376
VL  - 58
UR  - conv_193
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Polojac, Milena",
year = "2010",
publisher = "Univerzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd",
journal = "Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu",
title = "Tamas Notari: Law, religion and Rhetoric in Cicero's Pro murena, Schenk Verlag, Passau, 2008",
pages = "384-376",
number = "1",
volume = "58",
url = "conv_193"
}

Polojac, M.. (2010). Tamas Notari: Law, religion and Rhetoric in Cicero's Pro murena, Schenk Verlag, Passau, 2008. in Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu
Univerzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd., 58(1), 376-384.
conv_193

Polojac M. Tamas Notari: Law, religion and Rhetoric in Cicero's Pro murena, Schenk Verlag, Passau, 2008. in Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu. 2010;58(1):376-384.
conv_193 .

Polojac, Milena, "Tamas Notari: Law, religion and Rhetoric in Cicero's Pro murena, Schenk Verlag, Passau, 2008" in Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu, 58, no. 1 (2010):376-384,
conv_193 .

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Polojac, Milena
PY  - 2010
UR  - https://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/491
AB  - The author discusses the question of division of losses among partners occurred without anyone's fault (periculum, damnum commune). She analyses three situations in which this problem is solved differently. The first one is concerned with socii holding goods in common as co-owners. The analysed sources are Ulpian, D. 17.2.58.pr (quadriga case) and D. 17.2.58.1. The second situation is concerned with partners contributing their property into the partnership for the purpose of use and damage occurring to the goods owned by one of the socii (sources: Ulpian, D. 17.2.52.4, Pomponius/Labeo D. 17.2.60.1 and Ulpian/Iulian D. 17.2.61). The third is the case of the so-called mixed societas in which one socius contributes with capital and the other only with his work (sources: Ulpian, D. 17.2.52.2, and D. 17.2.52.3). The author stresses that rich casuistry with different solutions and even contradictions prevails, so general principles and concepts are not very helpful. However, the rule casum sentit dominus is of great importance here and should not be underestimated.
PB  - Univerzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd
T2  - Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu
T1  - Casuistry and general rules: Problem of risk bearing in roman societas
EP  - 247
IS  - 3
SP  - 235
VL  - 58
UR  - conv_211
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Polojac, Milena",
year = "2010",
abstract = "The author discusses the question of division of losses among partners occurred without anyone's fault (periculum, damnum commune). She analyses three situations in which this problem is solved differently. The first one is concerned with socii holding goods in common as co-owners. The analysed sources are Ulpian, D. 17.2.58.pr (quadriga case) and D. 17.2.58.1. The second situation is concerned with partners contributing their property into the partnership for the purpose of use and damage occurring to the goods owned by one of the socii (sources: Ulpian, D. 17.2.52.4, Pomponius/Labeo D. 17.2.60.1 and Ulpian/Iulian D. 17.2.61). The third is the case of the so-called mixed societas in which one socius contributes with capital and the other only with his work (sources: Ulpian, D. 17.2.52.2, and D. 17.2.52.3). The author stresses that rich casuistry with different solutions and even contradictions prevails, so general principles and concepts are not very helpful. However, the rule casum sentit dominus is of great importance here and should not be underestimated.",
publisher = "Univerzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd",
journal = "Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu",
title = "Casuistry and general rules: Problem of risk bearing in roman societas",
pages = "247-235",
number = "3",
volume = "58",
url = "conv_211"
}

Polojac, M.. (2010). Casuistry and general rules: Problem of risk bearing in roman societas. in Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu
Univerzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd., 58(3), 235-247.
conv_211

Polojac M. Casuistry and general rules: Problem of risk bearing in roman societas. in Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu. 2010;58(3):235-247.
conv_211 .

Polojac, Milena, "Casuistry and general rules: Problem of risk bearing in roman societas" in Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu, 58, no. 3 (2010):235-247,
conv_211 .

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Polojac, Milena
PY  - 2006
UR  - https://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/311
AB  - Najnovija monografija o ortakluku u rimskom pravu "Societas. Struktur und Typenvielfalt des römischen Gesellschaftsvertrages", čiji je autor Franc-Štefan Majsl (Franz-Stefan Meissel), austrijski romanista mlađe generacije, objavljena je 2004. godine, tridesetak godina nakon poslednje u nizu značajnih monografija o ovoj temi. Visoko je ocenjena, s obzirom na to da je dobila prestižnu romanističku nagradu Premium Boulvert. Ova monografija ne donosi revolucionarno novu teoriju o ortakluku poput nekih monografija iz prošlog veka, počevši od Vijakerove do Gvarinove. Umesto toga, autor se ograničava na analizu velikog broja različitih vrsta izvora, kao što su rimska jurisprudencija, papirologija, epigrafika i literarni izvori. Ove izvore autor analizira poput rimskih pravnika - kazuistički. Pri tome postavlja nekoliko manjih teza, na primer, da podele na vrste ortakluka koje nalazimo u izvorima predstavljaju samo osnovni obrazac, a ne iscrpnu listu udruženja, s obzirom na bogatstvo i fleksibilnost slučajeva koje navodi rimska jurisprudencija i drugi izvori, ili da ortakluk u izvesnim slučajevima ima dejstvo prema van (Aussenwirkung), te da nije isključivo interni odnos koji se tiče samo ugovornih strana. S druge strane, vrednost ove monografije je u tome što predstavlja vid digesta dosadašnje romanističke literature o ortakluku; autor se predstavlja kao veoma sistematičan i jasan tumač stavova u literaturi o ortakluku i njihov razložan i uverljiv kritičar. Monografija se sastoji od tri nezavisna dela. Prvo poglavlje posvećeno je čuvenom nemačkom romanisti Vijakeru i njegovoj originalnoj teoriji o ortakluku. U drugom delu rada koji je najoriginalniji, autor, koristeći veliki broj različitih izvora, analizira raznolike oblike ortakluka u jurisprudeniciji i ugovornoj praksi. Treći deo rada bavi se starim i mnogo diskutovanim pitanjem odnosa između konsenzualnog ortakluka i suvlasništva uz uvid u najnoviju literaturu posvećenu ovom pitanju.
AB  - The most recent monograph on partnership in Roman Law "Societas. Struktur und Typenvielfalt des römischen Gesellschaftsvertrages" (by Franz-Stefan Meissel a young Austrian Romanist) has been published in 2004., some thirty years after the last important book on this topic. It has been highly praised and has won the prestigious Premium Boulvert Romanist award. This monograph does not bring about a dramatically different partnership theory like the monographs published in the previous century (Wieacker to Guarino). Instead the author restricts himself to analysis of a great number of different sources such as Roman jurisprudence, papirology, epigraphy and literary sources. Author analyses these sources like Roman lawyer would - casuistically. In doing so he offers several minor theses, e.g. that classification of partnerships found in the sources is only basic, and not the final list, given the plethora and flexibility of cases offered by Roman jurisprudence and other sources. On another occasion, he claims that partnership has certain outer effects (Aussenwirkung), and that consequently, it does not represent a purely internal relationship among contractual parties. On the other hand, this book is valuable because it represents a sort of digest of contemporary Romanistic literature on partnership. Author comes across as very systematical and clear interpreter of the positions taken in literature on partnership, and as a tempered and reasonable critic. Monograph consists of three independent parts. First part is deoted to famous German Romanist Wieacker and his original theory on partnership. In the second, most original part, he uses a great number of different sources and analyzes different notions of partnerships in jurisprudence and contractual practice. The third part of the work deals with the old an much-discussed issue of relationship between consensual partnership and co-ownership and offers overview of the most recent literature on this topic.
PB  - Univerzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd
T2  - Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu
T1  - Rimski Societas u najnovijoj literaturi
T1  - Roman Societas in the recent publications
EP  - 204
IS  - 2
SP  - 177
VL  - 54
UR  - conv_89
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Polojac, Milena",
year = "2006",
abstract = "Najnovija monografija o ortakluku u rimskom pravu "Societas. Struktur und Typenvielfalt des römischen Gesellschaftsvertrages", čiji je autor Franc-Štefan Majsl (Franz-Stefan Meissel), austrijski romanista mlađe generacije, objavljena je 2004. godine, tridesetak godina nakon poslednje u nizu značajnih monografija o ovoj temi. Visoko je ocenjena, s obzirom na to da je dobila prestižnu romanističku nagradu Premium Boulvert. Ova monografija ne donosi revolucionarno novu teoriju o ortakluku poput nekih monografija iz prošlog veka, počevši od Vijakerove do Gvarinove. Umesto toga, autor se ograničava na analizu velikog broja različitih vrsta izvora, kao što su rimska jurisprudencija, papirologija, epigrafika i literarni izvori. Ove izvore autor analizira poput rimskih pravnika - kazuistički. Pri tome postavlja nekoliko manjih teza, na primer, da podele na vrste ortakluka koje nalazimo u izvorima predstavljaju samo osnovni obrazac, a ne iscrpnu listu udruženja, s obzirom na bogatstvo i fleksibilnost slučajeva koje navodi rimska jurisprudencija i drugi izvori, ili da ortakluk u izvesnim slučajevima ima dejstvo prema van (Aussenwirkung), te da nije isključivo interni odnos koji se tiče samo ugovornih strana. S druge strane, vrednost ove monografije je u tome što predstavlja vid digesta dosadašnje romanističke literature o ortakluku; autor se predstavlja kao veoma sistematičan i jasan tumač stavova u literaturi o ortakluku i njihov razložan i uverljiv kritičar. Monografija se sastoji od tri nezavisna dela. Prvo poglavlje posvećeno je čuvenom nemačkom romanisti Vijakeru i njegovoj originalnoj teoriji o ortakluku. U drugom delu rada koji je najoriginalniji, autor, koristeći veliki broj različitih izvora, analizira raznolike oblike ortakluka u jurisprudeniciji i ugovornoj praksi. Treći deo rada bavi se starim i mnogo diskutovanim pitanjem odnosa između konsenzualnog ortakluka i suvlasništva uz uvid u najnoviju literaturu posvećenu ovom pitanju., The most recent monograph on partnership in Roman Law "Societas. Struktur und Typenvielfalt des römischen Gesellschaftsvertrages" (by Franz-Stefan Meissel a young Austrian Romanist) has been published in 2004., some thirty years after the last important book on this topic. It has been highly praised and has won the prestigious Premium Boulvert Romanist award. This monograph does not bring about a dramatically different partnership theory like the monographs published in the previous century (Wieacker to Guarino). Instead the author restricts himself to analysis of a great number of different sources such as Roman jurisprudence, papirology, epigraphy and literary sources. Author analyses these sources like Roman lawyer would - casuistically. In doing so he offers several minor theses, e.g. that classification of partnerships found in the sources is only basic, and not the final list, given the plethora and flexibility of cases offered by Roman jurisprudence and other sources. On another occasion, he claims that partnership has certain outer effects (Aussenwirkung), and that consequently, it does not represent a purely internal relationship among contractual parties. On the other hand, this book is valuable because it represents a sort of digest of contemporary Romanistic literature on partnership. Author comes across as very systematical and clear interpreter of the positions taken in literature on partnership, and as a tempered and reasonable critic. Monograph consists of three independent parts. First part is deoted to famous German Romanist Wieacker and his original theory on partnership. In the second, most original part, he uses a great number of different sources and analyzes different notions of partnerships in jurisprudence and contractual practice. The third part of the work deals with the old an much-discussed issue of relationship between consensual partnership and co-ownership and offers overview of the most recent literature on this topic.",
publisher = "Univerzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd",
journal = "Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu",
title = "Rimski Societas u najnovijoj literaturi, Roman Societas in the recent publications",
pages = "204-177",
number = "2",
volume = "54",
url = "conv_89"
}

Polojac, M.. (2006). Rimski Societas u najnovijoj literaturi. in Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu
Univerzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd., 54(2), 177-204.
conv_89

Polojac M. Rimski Societas u najnovijoj literaturi. in Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu. 2006;54(2):177-204.
conv_89 .

Polojac, Milena, "Rimski Societas u najnovijoj literaturi" in Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu, 54, no. 2 (2006):177-204,
conv_89 .

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Polojac, Milena
PY  - 2005
UR  - https://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/253
PB  - Univerzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd
T2  - Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu
T1  - Kupoprodaja u rimskom pravu i njen uticaj na razvoj evropskog prava
T1  - Contract of sale in Roman law and its influence on development of European law
EP  - 205
IS  - 1
SP  - 199
VL  - 53
UR  - conv_47
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Polojac, Milena",
year = "2005",
publisher = "Univerzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd",
journal = "Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu",
title = "Kupoprodaja u rimskom pravu i njen uticaj na razvoj evropskog prava, Contract of sale in Roman law and its influence on development of European law",
pages = "205-199",
number = "1",
volume = "53",
url = "conv_47"
}

Polojac, M.. (2005). Kupoprodaja u rimskom pravu i njen uticaj na razvoj evropskog prava. in Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu
Univerzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd., 53(1), 199-205.
conv_47

Polojac M. Kupoprodaja u rimskom pravu i njen uticaj na razvoj evropskog prava. in Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu. 2005;53(1):199-205.
conv_47 .

Polojac, Milena, "Kupoprodaja u rimskom pravu i njen uticaj na razvoj evropskog prava" in Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu, 53, no. 1 (2005):199-205,
conv_47 .

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Polojac, Milena
PY  - 2005
UR  - https://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/240
AB  - U ovom članku autor, na osnovu raspoloživih rimskih pravnih tekstova pokazuje kako u pozadini veoma liberalnog stava rimskog prava, kad je reč o podeli dobiti i gubitka među ortacima, stoji dug istorijski razvoj ovog instituta. Za najstariji tip ortakluka svih dobara vezano je pravilo o podeli dobiti i gubitka na jednake delove u nedostatku drugačijeg sporazuma stranaka. Jedan od važnih zaokreta u razvoju instituta predstavljao je momenat kada se udeo ortaka mogao sastojati isključivo u radu, a ne kao do tada samo u kapitalu, a takav ortak mogao je dogovorom stranaka biti isključen iz podele gubitka ortakluka. Analizirajući odredbe modernih zakonodavstava koje se odnose na pitanje podele dobiti i gubitka među ortacima, autor dokazuje nesumnjiv, snažan uticaj rimskog prava, uz zaključak da se rimska rešenja preuzimaju zbog svoje racionalnosti i superiornosti, a ponekad na prvom mestu kao dug tradiciji i velikom poštovanju prema rimskom pravu.
AB  - Classical Roman jurisprudence has offered solutions which represent a strong affirmation of the party autonomy principle with respect to division of profit and loss among partners; it is possible to exclude a partner from division of risks. However, it was prohibited to exclude a partner from division of profits only (lion's partnership). Roman Iurisprudence did not arrive to this solution straightforwardly. This was the result of a sudden change of course and abandonment of tradition, as evidenced in fragment 3.149 of Gaius' Institutions which state that, already during the period of the Republic, and within the time period when famous lawyers Quintus Mucius Sceviola nad Servius Sulpicius Rufus, it was considered doubtful if a partner's share in profit allocation may differ from his share in allocation of risk (so-called magna questio). Liberal approach of Servius Sulpicius has prevailed. Conservative (negative) position of Quintus Mucius may be traced to an earlier period of partnership development, when one could only invest his own capital, but could not invest his own work. Documents do not tackle the issue of evaluation of work/capital ratio in so-called mixed partnership, but it is worth noting that three texts state that a partner who contributes exclusively his own work into the partnership may be, in accordance with agreement of the parties, be excluded from the division of risks. This rule should not, however, be taken without reservation – it is applicable unless partnership is in the red (si tanti sit opera quanti damnum est). Modern legislations are under a clear and strong influence of Roman law. Roman principle that, unless parties agree otherwise profit and loss and distributed evenly among partners, has remained until today in modern laws, even as it is being challenged by the principle that profit and loss are divided in accordance with one's share. Most of the modern legislations explicitly allows a partner to invest solely his own work, which in turn suggests that such partner enjoys a special status. Particularity of this position reflects itself on several issues: a) partner who invested solely her own work may participate in the division of profit but can not participate in the division of the share capital, b) such partner undertakes risk to a different and limited degree, c) only such a parntner may be excluded from allocation of risks, d) a judge shall apply equity principles unless the contract stipulates the share of the partner who invests solely her work. Lion's clause, akin to solution proposed by Roman lawyer Gaius Cassius Longinus, is provided for in almost all of the modern legislations. Roman solutions are adopted for their rationality and superiority, but they sometimes represent primarily a tribute to tradition and expression of respect for Roman law.
PB  - Univerzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd
T2  - Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu
T1  - Podela dobiti i gubitka među ortacima - rimsko pravo i moderna rešenja
T1  - Division of profits and losses among partners: Roman law and modern solutions
EP  - 144
IS  - 2
SP  - 130
VL  - 53
UR  - conv_53
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Polojac, Milena",
year = "2005",
abstract = "U ovom članku autor, na osnovu raspoloživih rimskih pravnih tekstova pokazuje kako u pozadini veoma liberalnog stava rimskog prava, kad je reč o podeli dobiti i gubitka među ortacima, stoji dug istorijski razvoj ovog instituta. Za najstariji tip ortakluka svih dobara vezano je pravilo o podeli dobiti i gubitka na jednake delove u nedostatku drugačijeg sporazuma stranaka. Jedan od važnih zaokreta u razvoju instituta predstavljao je momenat kada se udeo ortaka mogao sastojati isključivo u radu, a ne kao do tada samo u kapitalu, a takav ortak mogao je dogovorom stranaka biti isključen iz podele gubitka ortakluka. Analizirajući odredbe modernih zakonodavstava koje se odnose na pitanje podele dobiti i gubitka među ortacima, autor dokazuje nesumnjiv, snažan uticaj rimskog prava, uz zaključak da se rimska rešenja preuzimaju zbog svoje racionalnosti i superiornosti, a ponekad na prvom mestu kao dug tradiciji i velikom poštovanju prema rimskom pravu., Classical Roman jurisprudence has offered solutions which represent a strong affirmation of the party autonomy principle with respect to division of profit and loss among partners; it is possible to exclude a partner from division of risks. However, it was prohibited to exclude a partner from division of profits only (lion's partnership). Roman Iurisprudence did not arrive to this solution straightforwardly. This was the result of a sudden change of course and abandonment of tradition, as evidenced in fragment 3.149 of Gaius' Institutions which state that, already during the period of the Republic, and within the time period when famous lawyers Quintus Mucius Sceviola nad Servius Sulpicius Rufus, it was considered doubtful if a partner's share in profit allocation may differ from his share in allocation of risk (so-called magna questio). Liberal approach of Servius Sulpicius has prevailed. Conservative (negative) position of Quintus Mucius may be traced to an earlier period of partnership development, when one could only invest his own capital, but could not invest his own work. Documents do not tackle the issue of evaluation of work/capital ratio in so-called mixed partnership, but it is worth noting that three texts state that a partner who contributes exclusively his own work into the partnership may be, in accordance with agreement of the parties, be excluded from the division of risks. This rule should not, however, be taken without reservation – it is applicable unless partnership is in the red (si tanti sit opera quanti damnum est). Modern legislations are under a clear and strong influence of Roman law. Roman principle that, unless parties agree otherwise profit and loss and distributed evenly among partners, has remained until today in modern laws, even as it is being challenged by the principle that profit and loss are divided in accordance with one's share. Most of the modern legislations explicitly allows a partner to invest solely his own work, which in turn suggests that such partner enjoys a special status. Particularity of this position reflects itself on several issues: a) partner who invested solely her own work may participate in the division of profit but can not participate in the division of the share capital, b) such partner undertakes risk to a different and limited degree, c) only such a parntner may be excluded from allocation of risks, d) a judge shall apply equity principles unless the contract stipulates the share of the partner who invests solely her work. Lion's clause, akin to solution proposed by Roman lawyer Gaius Cassius Longinus, is provided for in almost all of the modern legislations. Roman solutions are adopted for their rationality and superiority, but they sometimes represent primarily a tribute to tradition and expression of respect for Roman law.",
publisher = "Univerzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd",
journal = "Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu",
title = "Podela dobiti i gubitka među ortacima - rimsko pravo i moderna rešenja, Division of profits and losses among partners: Roman law and modern solutions",
pages = "144-130",
number = "2",
volume = "53",
url = "conv_53"
}

Polojac, M.. (2005). Podela dobiti i gubitka među ortacima - rimsko pravo i moderna rešenja. in Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu
Univerzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd., 53(2), 130-144.
conv_53

Polojac M. Podela dobiti i gubitka među ortacima - rimsko pravo i moderna rešenja. in Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu. 2005;53(2):130-144.
conv_53 .

Polojac, Milena, "Podela dobiti i gubitka među ortacima - rimsko pravo i moderna rešenja" in Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu, 53, no. 2 (2005):130-144,
conv_53 .

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Polojac, Milena
PY  - 2004
UR  - https://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/226
AB  - Ovaj članak prati sudbinu ortakluka sa suvlasničkim režimom nad ortačkom imovinom (Societas quoad sortem) od rimskog do savremenog prava. Ovaj tip ortakluka je u rimskom pravu bio verovatno najčešći ili bar jednako čest kao i slučaj kada ortaci unose imovinu u ortakluk samo na upotrebu (Societas quod usum). U modernom zakonodavstvu evropskokontinentalnog kruga s izuzetkom Nemačke, Societas quoad sortem se više ne pojavljuje. Umesto njega zakonodavstva predviđaju režim posebne imovine ortakluka koja je odvojena od imovine ortaka i kojom ortak ne može samostalno raspolagati. U engleskom i američkom pravu, međutim, Societas quoad sortem ravnopravan je s ostalim oblicima imovinskog režima nad imovinom koja služi svrsi ortakluka. Usprkos tendencijama u zakonodavstvu, Societas quoad sortem nastaviće svoj život u stvarnosti u okviru slobode ugovaranja.
AB  - Two kinds of regimes have existed in Roman Law in the sphere of partnership property: the first one according to which the partner joined his property into the partnership. only to be used (societies quod usum), and the second one in which partners have been at the same time co-owners of the property involved in partnership (Societas quod sortem). It is not possible today to be sure as to which type prevailed in the Roman Law, but one thing is for certain: co-ownership has always existed in a partnership of all the property taken together (Societas omnium bononim). Such co-ownership took place independently of existence of a special act, otherwise necessary to acquire ownership (the so-called transitus legalis). In other kinds of partnership both regimes of the partnership property did exist. The type of partnership property called Societas quod sortem presupposes a stricter cohesion between the partners, as compared to the Societas quod usum type of partnership property. This latter type, however, according to the author of the present article, creates more complicated relations between the partners and rather frequently results to mixing of partnership with the simple co-ownership. In contemporary law a new type of partnership is created that is characterized by a particular partnership property, which differs from the property of individual partners, who are able to dispose of it autonomously. That means that the Societas quod sortem type is today mostly eliminated from the legislative solutions of the countries of the European continent. The only exception is found in German law that still retains a specific type of the co-ownership partnership, known as Bruchteilgemeinschaft. The Societas quod sortem type, however, is rather a common practice in the English and the American law, remaining on an equal footing with the two other types of ownership relations. On the other hand and in spite of the legislation, as the author points out, this co-ownership type of partnership will continue to hold its place in the real life activities within the wider scope of the principle of freedom of contracting. The problem as to possible uncertainty of the type of ownership, i.e. a simple co-ownership relationship - or a co-ownership partnership, can be resolved by applying the method of interpretation of parties' genuine intention, and/or of the inquiring of possible existence of the so-called affectio societatis, which means the application of the subjective criterion which, in spite of much criticism, has survived from the Roman Law times to the present.
PB  - Savez udruženja pravnika Srbije, Beograd
T2  - Arhiv za pravne i društvene nauke
T1  - Societas quod sortem u Rimskom i savremenom uporednom pravu
T1  - Societas quod sortem in Roman law and contemporary comparative law
EP  - 169
IS  - 1-2
SP  - 153
VL  - 90
UR  - conv_827
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Polojac, Milena",
year = "2004",
abstract = "Ovaj članak prati sudbinu ortakluka sa suvlasničkim režimom nad ortačkom imovinom (Societas quoad sortem) od rimskog do savremenog prava. Ovaj tip ortakluka je u rimskom pravu bio verovatno najčešći ili bar jednako čest kao i slučaj kada ortaci unose imovinu u ortakluk samo na upotrebu (Societas quod usum). U modernom zakonodavstvu evropskokontinentalnog kruga s izuzetkom Nemačke, Societas quoad sortem se više ne pojavljuje. Umesto njega zakonodavstva predviđaju režim posebne imovine ortakluka koja je odvojena od imovine ortaka i kojom ortak ne može samostalno raspolagati. U engleskom i američkom pravu, međutim, Societas quoad sortem ravnopravan je s ostalim oblicima imovinskog režima nad imovinom koja služi svrsi ortakluka. Usprkos tendencijama u zakonodavstvu, Societas quoad sortem nastaviće svoj život u stvarnosti u okviru slobode ugovaranja., Two kinds of regimes have existed in Roman Law in the sphere of partnership property: the first one according to which the partner joined his property into the partnership. only to be used (societies quod usum), and the second one in which partners have been at the same time co-owners of the property involved in partnership (Societas quod sortem). It is not possible today to be sure as to which type prevailed in the Roman Law, but one thing is for certain: co-ownership has always existed in a partnership of all the property taken together (Societas omnium bononim). Such co-ownership took place independently of existence of a special act, otherwise necessary to acquire ownership (the so-called transitus legalis). In other kinds of partnership both regimes of the partnership property did exist. The type of partnership property called Societas quod sortem presupposes a stricter cohesion between the partners, as compared to the Societas quod usum type of partnership property. This latter type, however, according to the author of the present article, creates more complicated relations between the partners and rather frequently results to mixing of partnership with the simple co-ownership. In contemporary law a new type of partnership is created that is characterized by a particular partnership property, which differs from the property of individual partners, who are able to dispose of it autonomously. That means that the Societas quod sortem type is today mostly eliminated from the legislative solutions of the countries of the European continent. The only exception is found in German law that still retains a specific type of the co-ownership partnership, known as Bruchteilgemeinschaft. The Societas quod sortem type, however, is rather a common practice in the English and the American law, remaining on an equal footing with the two other types of ownership relations. On the other hand and in spite of the legislation, as the author points out, this co-ownership type of partnership will continue to hold its place in the real life activities within the wider scope of the principle of freedom of contracting. The problem as to possible uncertainty of the type of ownership, i.e. a simple co-ownership relationship - or a co-ownership partnership, can be resolved by applying the method of interpretation of parties' genuine intention, and/or of the inquiring of possible existence of the so-called affectio societatis, which means the application of the subjective criterion which, in spite of much criticism, has survived from the Roman Law times to the present.",
publisher = "Savez udruženja pravnika Srbije, Beograd",
journal = "Arhiv za pravne i društvene nauke",
title = "Societas quod sortem u Rimskom i savremenom uporednom pravu, Societas quod sortem in Roman law and contemporary comparative law",
pages = "169-153",
number = "1-2",
volume = "90",
url = "conv_827"
}

Polojac, M.. (2004). Societas quod sortem u Rimskom i savremenom uporednom pravu. in Arhiv za pravne i društvene nauke
Savez udruženja pravnika Srbije, Beograd., 90(1-2), 153-169.
conv_827

Polojac M. Societas quod sortem u Rimskom i savremenom uporednom pravu. in Arhiv za pravne i društvene nauke. 2004;90(1-2):153-169.
conv_827 .

Polojac, Milena, "Societas quod sortem u Rimskom i savremenom uporednom pravu" in Arhiv za pravne i društvene nauke, 90, no. 1-2 (2004):153-169,
conv_827 .

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Polojac, Milena
PY  - 1999
UR  - https://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/129
AB  - Pokušaj da se noksalna odgovornost i noksalne tužbe objasne putem konvencionalnih kategorija odgovornosti stvara teškoće. Iako se podižu protiv vlasnika odnosno nosioca vlasti, ove tužbe su u osnovi zadržale ideju o osveti koja treba da pogodi delikventa i koja će se realizovati putem noksalnog izručenja. Na ovakav cilj noksalnih tužbi i ovakvu prirodu noksalne odgovornosti upućuju tri glavne specifičnosti pravnog režima: pravilo noxa caput sequitur, oslobađajući efekat noksalnog izručenja i zahtev za odsustvom krivice vlasnika odnosno pater familiasa za počinjeni delikt. Noksalna odgovornost je posebna vrsta odgovornosti koja je bliska institutu odgovornosti za drugoga, ima elemente zastupništva, ali se ne može svesti niti na jednu od navedenih kategorija. Po osnovu to jeste objektivna odgovornost, ali stroža od uobičajene, jer se zahteva odsustvo krivice tuženog vlasnika odnosno šefa porodice.
AB  - The legal system of noxal charges is specific in three respects: First of all, the characteristic of these charges is the application of rules of noxa caput sequitur. Taking into consideration that the delinquent responsibility follows the performer of the illegal act, the person accused with the noxal charge is the present holder of authority over the delinquent, and not person having that authority at the moment of the performance of the act. The aim of the rule is to enable the responsibility of the delinquent by noxal surrender. Should such a surrender not be possible due to the death of the delinquent before litis contestation, the noxal charge is withdrawn. The main aim of noxal charges is not to make the holder of authority, i.e. pater familias responsible for the act, instead of the delinquent himself, but the sense of noxal responsibility is for the authority in power to surrender the delinquent, thus enabling his direct responsibility, or in case of his refusal, to take over his defense. In case he should choose the last alternative, the accused person is obliged by the process contract to pay litis aestimation if he loses the trial, leaving him still the possibility to surrender the delinquent instead of paying the compensation.
PB  - Savez udruženja pravnika Srbije, Beograd
T2  - Arhiv za pravne i društvene nauke
T1  - Priroda noksalnih tužbi i noksalne odgovornosti
T1  - The nature of noxal charges and noxal responsibilities
EP  - 486
IS  - 4
SP  - 463
VL  - 85
UR  - conv_991
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Polojac, Milena",
year = "1999",
abstract = "Pokušaj da se noksalna odgovornost i noksalne tužbe objasne putem konvencionalnih kategorija odgovornosti stvara teškoće. Iako se podižu protiv vlasnika odnosno nosioca vlasti, ove tužbe su u osnovi zadržale ideju o osveti koja treba da pogodi delikventa i koja će se realizovati putem noksalnog izručenja. Na ovakav cilj noksalnih tužbi i ovakvu prirodu noksalne odgovornosti upućuju tri glavne specifičnosti pravnog režima: pravilo noxa caput sequitur, oslobađajući efekat noksalnog izručenja i zahtev za odsustvom krivice vlasnika odnosno pater familiasa za počinjeni delikt. Noksalna odgovornost je posebna vrsta odgovornosti koja je bliska institutu odgovornosti za drugoga, ima elemente zastupništva, ali se ne može svesti niti na jednu od navedenih kategorija. Po osnovu to jeste objektivna odgovornost, ali stroža od uobičajene, jer se zahteva odsustvo krivice tuženog vlasnika odnosno šefa porodice., The legal system of noxal charges is specific in three respects: First of all, the characteristic of these charges is the application of rules of noxa caput sequitur. Taking into consideration that the delinquent responsibility follows the performer of the illegal act, the person accused with the noxal charge is the present holder of authority over the delinquent, and not person having that authority at the moment of the performance of the act. The aim of the rule is to enable the responsibility of the delinquent by noxal surrender. Should such a surrender not be possible due to the death of the delinquent before litis contestation, the noxal charge is withdrawn. The main aim of noxal charges is not to make the holder of authority, i.e. pater familias responsible for the act, instead of the delinquent himself, but the sense of noxal responsibility is for the authority in power to surrender the delinquent, thus enabling his direct responsibility, or in case of his refusal, to take over his defense. In case he should choose the last alternative, the accused person is obliged by the process contract to pay litis aestimation if he loses the trial, leaving him still the possibility to surrender the delinquent instead of paying the compensation.",
publisher = "Savez udruženja pravnika Srbije, Beograd",
journal = "Arhiv za pravne i društvene nauke",
title = "Priroda noksalnih tužbi i noksalne odgovornosti, The nature of noxal charges and noxal responsibilities",
pages = "486-463",
number = "4",
volume = "85",
url = "conv_991"
}

Polojac, M.. (1999). Priroda noksalnih tužbi i noksalne odgovornosti. in Arhiv za pravne i društvene nauke
Savez udruženja pravnika Srbije, Beograd., 85(4), 463-486.
conv_991

Polojac M. Priroda noksalnih tužbi i noksalne odgovornosti. in Arhiv za pravne i društvene nauke. 1999;85(4):463-486.
conv_991 .

Polojac, Milena, "Priroda noksalnih tužbi i noksalne odgovornosti" in Arhiv za pravne i društvene nauke, 85, no. 4 (1999):463-486,
conv_991 .

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Polojac, Milena
PY  - 1995
UR  - https://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/86
AB  - Ciceron u svojoj političko-pravnoj raspravi O zakonima uzima kao uzor istoimeno Platonovo delo. Ovaj članak nastoji da utvrdi razloge i domašaj Platonovog uticaja na Cicerona. Kad je reč o razlozima vezanosti Cicerona za Platona, nalazimo ih u zajedničkim konzervativnim političkim opredeljenjima u sličnim društvenim prilikama u kojima su ugrožene aristokratske vrednosti i tradicija. Pored nesumnjivog oslanjanja na Platonove Zakone, Ciceronovo delo ima još dva sloja; jedan u kojem se ogledaju drugi filozofski uticaji, naročito ideje stoika u opširno iznesenoj teoriji prirodnog prava i drugi, originalni sloj proizišao iz Ciceronovog političkog iskustva.
AB  - Cicero's Laws by all means are not a simple transcript and an uncritical transfer of another's ideas, but also not an original philosophical work. It is a political-philosophical and legal treatise of an outstanding expert of political theory and practice, whose intention was to extend spiritual horizons or Roman citizens, while instructing them about Greek philosophical thought, but at the same time to express his own ideas and views concerning the questions he was rather competent to  treat. In doing the above, he started with the Plato's treatise under the same title, applying the same dialogue form without an introduction, and with the same number of persons led by the author as the principal narrator, and by placing the conversation into a similar milieu. Moreover, while wanting to emphasize that connection s much as possible, Cicero is directly  quoting Plato, sometimes with the aim to express his  respect and enthusiasm for him, and sometimes to quote it as an authority, but also to criticize some of his views. The reasons for Cicero's closeness to Plato should be sought in Plato's conservative political ideas shared by Cicero too, as well as in the harmony of Plato's noble origin and character - which altogether impessed Cicero to quite a degree. However, Cicero extends his theoretical  basis also by other philosophical theories, while critical choice is mainly reduced to Plato's followers and admirers, and more particularly to stoics and members of the Academy, who, due to changed social reality, depart from Plato and occasionally even completely abandon his theories. The best evidence for the above is the fact that there is a thorough elaboration of stoic law of the nature theory in Cicero's Laws. However, Cicero did not stop at the theoretical plane. He has used his (and Roman) advantage of a practitioner, so that he has applied that philosophical framework in practice and to the specific example of Roman Republic, while inquiring into the adequacy in terms of the law of nature of Roman political and legal institutions. By using pragmatic and empirical approach, based on historical and his own experience, Cicero has verified the elements of his theory, while correcting them and coordinating the ideal and the attainable in practice, so that these are the elements of his contribution and originality.
PB  - Savez udruženja pravnika Srbije, Beograd
T2  - Arhiv za pravne i društvene nauke
T1  - Ciceron i Platon - uzor Ciceronovih 'Zakona'
T1  - Cicero and Plato: The model for Cicero's laws
EP  - 57
IS  - 1
SP  - 35
VL  - 81
UR  - conv_925
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Polojac, Milena",
year = "1995",
abstract = "Ciceron u svojoj političko-pravnoj raspravi O zakonima uzima kao uzor istoimeno Platonovo delo. Ovaj članak nastoji da utvrdi razloge i domašaj Platonovog uticaja na Cicerona. Kad je reč o razlozima vezanosti Cicerona za Platona, nalazimo ih u zajedničkim konzervativnim političkim opredeljenjima u sličnim društvenim prilikama u kojima su ugrožene aristokratske vrednosti i tradicija. Pored nesumnjivog oslanjanja na Platonove Zakone, Ciceronovo delo ima još dva sloja; jedan u kojem se ogledaju drugi filozofski uticaji, naročito ideje stoika u opširno iznesenoj teoriji prirodnog prava i drugi, originalni sloj proizišao iz Ciceronovog političkog iskustva., Cicero's Laws by all means are not a simple transcript and an uncritical transfer of another's ideas, but also not an original philosophical work. It is a political-philosophical and legal treatise of an outstanding expert of political theory and practice, whose intention was to extend spiritual horizons or Roman citizens, while instructing them about Greek philosophical thought, but at the same time to express his own ideas and views concerning the questions he was rather competent to  treat. In doing the above, he started with the Plato's treatise under the same title, applying the same dialogue form without an introduction, and with the same number of persons led by the author as the principal narrator, and by placing the conversation into a similar milieu. Moreover, while wanting to emphasize that connection s much as possible, Cicero is directly  quoting Plato, sometimes with the aim to express his  respect and enthusiasm for him, and sometimes to quote it as an authority, but also to criticize some of his views. The reasons for Cicero's closeness to Plato should be sought in Plato's conservative political ideas shared by Cicero too, as well as in the harmony of Plato's noble origin and character - which altogether impessed Cicero to quite a degree. However, Cicero extends his theoretical  basis also by other philosophical theories, while critical choice is mainly reduced to Plato's followers and admirers, and more particularly to stoics and members of the Academy, who, due to changed social reality, depart from Plato and occasionally even completely abandon his theories. The best evidence for the above is the fact that there is a thorough elaboration of stoic law of the nature theory in Cicero's Laws. However, Cicero did not stop at the theoretical plane. He has used his (and Roman) advantage of a practitioner, so that he has applied that philosophical framework in practice and to the specific example of Roman Republic, while inquiring into the adequacy in terms of the law of nature of Roman political and legal institutions. By using pragmatic and empirical approach, based on historical and his own experience, Cicero has verified the elements of his theory, while correcting them and coordinating the ideal and the attainable in practice, so that these are the elements of his contribution and originality.",
publisher = "Savez udruženja pravnika Srbije, Beograd",
journal = "Arhiv za pravne i društvene nauke",
title = "Ciceron i Platon - uzor Ciceronovih 'Zakona', Cicero and Plato: The model for Cicero's laws",
pages = "57-35",
number = "1",
volume = "81",
url = "conv_925"
}

Polojac, M.. (1995). Ciceron i Platon - uzor Ciceronovih 'Zakona'. in Arhiv za pravne i društvene nauke
Savez udruženja pravnika Srbije, Beograd., 81(1), 35-57.
conv_925

Polojac M. Ciceron i Platon - uzor Ciceronovih 'Zakona'. in Arhiv za pravne i društvene nauke. 1995;81(1):35-57.
conv_925 .

Polojac, Milena, "Ciceron i Platon - uzor Ciceronovih 'Zakona'" in Arhiv za pravne i društvene nauke, 81, no. 1 (1995):35-57,
conv_925 .

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Polojac, Milena
PY  - 1992
UR  - https://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/47
AB  - Poreklo klasičnog ugovora o ortakluku sporno je i mnogo diskutovano pitanje. Razlog tome je najpre oskudica izvora. Osim toga, kompleksna pravna priroda ugovora u kome su isprepleteni ekonomski i socijalno- etički elementi kao i šarenilo vrsta ortakluka različitih ciljeva ukazuje na složeno poreklo instituta. U ovom radu razmatra se uticaj koji je i mala arhaična institucija rimska - consortium na pojavu konsenzualnog societasa i u tom kontekstu se ukazuje na neke slabosti tzv. konzorcijalne teorije koja poreklo societasa direktno i isključivo veže za consortium. Ako se consortium shvati, u svetlu raspoloživih izvora, naročito novih Gajevih fragmenata kao i istorijsko- komparativnih i socioloških dostignuća kao rimska varijanta veliko porodične zadruge, on da se ovaj arhaični institut ne bi mogao smatrati direktnim izvorom konsenzualnog ortakluka. Ovo zbog toga što im je suština različita i jer su suprotne okolnosti pretpostavke za postojanje i prosperitet ovih instituta. S druge strane, u pravnom režimu ortakluka ima mnogo rešenja zasnovanih na ius fraternitatis, što se može pripisati uticaju konzorcijuma, ali i ulozi koju u antičkim društvima imaju udruženja u celini. Kada je reč o najširem obliku ortakluka svih dobara (societas omnium bonorum), gde je uticaj consortiuma očigledan, ne isključujemo mogućnost direktne nasledne veze ovih instituta.
AB  - The origin of classical contract of partnership is a controversial question. Continuous discussion is provoked first of all by scarcity of sources. In addition, the very legal nature of the contract, with interlaced economic, social and ethical elements, as well as great variety of types of partnership point at the complexity of the origin of that institute. The archaic Roman institute of consortium was influential in instituting consensual societas, but the weak point in this respect is that so-called consortium theory connected the origin of societas directly and exclusively to consortium. However, if consortium is understood, through available sources, and especially new Gaius' fragments, as well as while analyzing historical-comparative and sociological achievements - as a Roman variety of great family cooperative, then this archaic institute could not be considered a direct source of the consensual partnership. Their essence is different and the circumstances are contrary which are prerequisites for the existence and development of these institutes. On the other hand, the legal regime of partnership consists of many solutions based on ius fraternitatis - which may be ascribed to the influence of consortium, but to the role associations in general had in ancient societies as well. In case of the widest form of partnership, however, relating to all property (societas omnium bonorum), where the influence of consortium is obvious, the possibility is not excluded of a direct relationship between these institutes.
PB  - Univerzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd
T2  - Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu
T1  - Societas i consortium - Poreklo klasičnog ortakluka
T1  - Societas and consortium: The origin of classic partnership
EP  - 609
IS  - 6
SP  - 599
VL  - 40
UR  - conv_694
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Polojac, Milena",
year = "1992",
abstract = "Poreklo klasičnog ugovora o ortakluku sporno je i mnogo diskutovano pitanje. Razlog tome je najpre oskudica izvora. Osim toga, kompleksna pravna priroda ugovora u kome su isprepleteni ekonomski i socijalno- etički elementi kao i šarenilo vrsta ortakluka različitih ciljeva ukazuje na složeno poreklo instituta. U ovom radu razmatra se uticaj koji je i mala arhaična institucija rimska - consortium na pojavu konsenzualnog societasa i u tom kontekstu se ukazuje na neke slabosti tzv. konzorcijalne teorije koja poreklo societasa direktno i isključivo veže za consortium. Ako se consortium shvati, u svetlu raspoloživih izvora, naročito novih Gajevih fragmenata kao i istorijsko- komparativnih i socioloških dostignuća kao rimska varijanta veliko porodične zadruge, on da se ovaj arhaični institut ne bi mogao smatrati direktnim izvorom konsenzualnog ortakluka. Ovo zbog toga što im je suština različita i jer su suprotne okolnosti pretpostavke za postojanje i prosperitet ovih instituta. S druge strane, u pravnom režimu ortakluka ima mnogo rešenja zasnovanih na ius fraternitatis, što se može pripisati uticaju konzorcijuma, ali i ulozi koju u antičkim društvima imaju udruženja u celini. Kada je reč o najširem obliku ortakluka svih dobara (societas omnium bonorum), gde je uticaj consortiuma očigledan, ne isključujemo mogućnost direktne nasledne veze ovih instituta., The origin of classical contract of partnership is a controversial question. Continuous discussion is provoked first of all by scarcity of sources. In addition, the very legal nature of the contract, with interlaced economic, social and ethical elements, as well as great variety of types of partnership point at the complexity of the origin of that institute. The archaic Roman institute of consortium was influential in instituting consensual societas, but the weak point in this respect is that so-called consortium theory connected the origin of societas directly and exclusively to consortium. However, if consortium is understood, through available sources, and especially new Gaius' fragments, as well as while analyzing historical-comparative and sociological achievements - as a Roman variety of great family cooperative, then this archaic institute could not be considered a direct source of the consensual partnership. Their essence is different and the circumstances are contrary which are prerequisites for the existence and development of these institutes. On the other hand, the legal regime of partnership consists of many solutions based on ius fraternitatis - which may be ascribed to the influence of consortium, but to the role associations in general had in ancient societies as well. In case of the widest form of partnership, however, relating to all property (societas omnium bonorum), where the influence of consortium is obvious, the possibility is not excluded of a direct relationship between these institutes.",
publisher = "Univerzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd",
journal = "Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu",
title = "Societas i consortium - Poreklo klasičnog ortakluka, Societas and consortium: The origin of classic partnership",
pages = "609-599",
number = "6",
volume = "40",
url = "conv_694"
}

Polojac, M.. (1992). Societas i consortium - Poreklo klasičnog ortakluka. in Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu
Univerzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd., 40(6), 599-609.
conv_694

Polojac M. Societas i consortium - Poreklo klasičnog ortakluka. in Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu. 1992;40(6):599-609.
conv_694 .

Polojac, Milena, "Societas i consortium - Poreklo klasičnog ortakluka" in Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu, 40, no. 6 (1992):599-609,
conv_694 .