Neposredno zastupanje u rimskom pravu s osvrtom na moderno pravo
Direct representation in Roman law with reference to modern law
dc.creator | Cvetković, Valentina | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-03-11T15:15:44Z | |
dc.date.available | 2024-03-11T15:15:44Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2020 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 0003-2565 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/1238 | |
dc.description.abstract | Savremeno pravo ne može se zamisliti bez ustanove neposrednog za stupanja. Njeno doktrinarno utemeljenje tvorevina je moderne nauke. Prve moderne građanske kodifikacije, pod uticajem novovekovne prirodnopravne misli, ovlašćenje za zastupanje (punomoćje) regulišu u ugovoru o nalogu. U drugoj polovini 19. veka menja se shvatanje o odnosu punomoćja i ugovora o nalogu te, počev od nemačkog Građanskog zakonika, zakonski tekstovi, u koje spada i srpski Zakon o obligacionim odnosima, propisuju punomoćje odvojeno od ugovora o nalogu. Načelu savremenog prava o neposrednom zastupanju suprotstavlja se zabrana neposrednog zastupanja sačuvana u rimskim izvorima. Prema dominantnom stavu u pandektistici, čiji uticaj i danas postoji, rimsko pravo, usled te zabrane, nije omogućavalo neposredno zastupanje. U radu se analiziraju slučajevi u kojima se, zaslugom pretora i rimskih klasičnih pravnika, dozvoljava neposredno zastupanje. Izostanak pojmovnog definisanja i načelnog propisivanja neposrednog zastupanja ne opravdava tvrđenje da se u rimskom pravu ono nije primenjivalo. | sr |
dc.description.abstract | The institute of direct representation is indispensable in contemporary law. The first modern civil codes acknowledged direct representation regulating power of attorney through a mandate contract. The second half of the 19th century saw a change in that perception. Starting with the German Civil Code, legal texts, including the Serbian Contract and Torts Act, prescribe power of attorney as a separate institute. The contemporary law principle of direct representation contrasts with the Roman law prohibition of direct representation contained in ancient Roman sources. Under the prevailing Pandectist view, it is due to this prohibition that Roman law did not permit direct representation. The article analyses the cases in which, courtesy of classical Roman jurists, direct representation was allowed despite formal prohibition. The absence of a direct representation concept definition and general prescribing does not justify the claim that it was not applied under Roman law. | en |
dc.publisher | Univerzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd | |
dc.rights | openAccess | |
dc.rights.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | |
dc.source | Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu | |
dc.subject | Ugovor o nalogu | sr |
dc.subject | Rimsko pravo | sr |
dc.subject | Punomoćje | sr |
dc.subject | Neposredno zastupanje | sr |
dc.subject | Laband | sr |
dc.subject | Roman law | en |
dc.subject | Power of attorney | en |
dc.subject | Mandate contract | en |
dc.subject | Laband | en |
dc.subject | Direct representation | en |
dc.title | Neposredno zastupanje u rimskom pravu s osvrtom na moderno pravo | sr |
dc.title | Direct representation in Roman law with reference to modern law | en |
dc.type | article | |
dc.rights.license | BY | |
dc.citation.epage | 142 | |
dc.citation.issue | 2 | |
dc.citation.other | 68(2): 123-142 | |
dc.citation.rank | M24 | |
dc.citation.spage | 123 | |
dc.citation.volume | 68 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.5937/AnaliPFB2002124C | |
dc.identifier.fulltext | https://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/bitstream/id/202/1235.pdf | |
dc.identifier.rcub | conv_514 | |
dc.type.version | publishedVersion |