Show simple item record

D.12.4.16: Sale or unjustified enrichment

dc.creatorVukotić, Miloš
dc.date.accessioned2024-05-21T10:55:30Z
dc.date.available2024-05-21T10:55:30Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.identifier.issn0003-2565
dc.identifier.urihttps://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/1540
dc.description.abstractU XII knjizi Digesta nalazi se tekst u kojem Celz odbacuje postojanje kupoprodaje u situaciji kada jedna strana daje novac da bi dobila roba. Međutim, takva situacija, tj. novčana razmena, uvek u redovnim okolnostima čini sadržinu kontrakta kupoprodaje, tako da se mora postaviti pitanje - zašto je Celz doneo odluku koja je naizgled u suprotnosti s opštim pravilima rimskog obligacionog prava? Razmatrajući odgovore koji su već ponuđeni u literaturi, autor raspravlja nekoliko mogućih rešenja i ukazuje na osnovne dileme koje se javljaju u svakom od njih. Kao najjednostavnije objašnjenje ističe se mogućnost da je ugovor zaključen pod čisto potestativnim uslovom, dok se po svojoj inventivnosti ističu teze o razmeni uz doplatu i o posebnoj strukturi transakcije koja je uslovila isključivanje kontraktne tužbe. Autor zauzima kritički stav prema pravilu o vacuam possessionem tradere i pokušava da ukaže na njegov ograničeni praktični domašaj.sr
dc.description.abstractIn the XII book of the Digest stands a text in which Celsus denies the existence of sale when one party gives money in order to receive a slave. However, that situation, i.e. a monetary exchange, in usual circumstances always constitutes a contract of sale, rendering it necessary to pose the question - why did Celsus make a decision which is, at face value, contrary to the general principles of the Roman law of obligations? Examining the answers that have already been given in the literature, the author discusses several possible solutions and points out their respective key dilemmas. The explanation that the contract was concluded under a fully potestative condition stands out as the simplest, while the theses of an exchange with payment and of a special structure of the transaction which excluded the contractual action stand out as especially inventive. The author takes a critical stance towards the principle of vacuam possessionem tradere and tries to show its limited practical scope.en
dc.rightsopenAccess
dc.sourceAnali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu
dc.subjectprenos svojinesr
dc.subjectkonsenzussr
dc.subjectemptio-venditiosr
dc.subjectcondictio causa data causa non secutasr
dc.subjectcelzsr
dc.subjecttransfer of ownershipen
dc.subjectemptio-venditioen
dc.subjectconsensusen
dc.subjectcondictio causa data causa non secutaen
dc.subjectcelsusen
dc.titleD.12.4.16 - kupoprodaja ili neosnovano obogaćenje?sr
dc.titleD.12.4.16: Sale or unjustified enrichmenten
dc.typearticle
dc.rights.licenseCC BY
dc.citation.epage390
dc.citation.issue2
dc.citation.other60(2): 378-390
dc.citation.rankM24
dc.citation.spage378
dc.citation.volume60
dc.identifier.rcubconv_3177
dc.type.versionpublishedVersion


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record