Volume 5 [2009]

The Roman Division of Wrongs: A New Hypothesis

Eric Descheemaeker

This article examines the rationale of the Justinianic division of wrongs into delicts and "quasi-delicts." Taking as its starting point the assumption that the distinction corresponded to that between fault- (culpa-) based and situational liability, it hypothesizes that the quasi-delictal appendix arose after the time of Gaius' Institutes from a contraction of the Roman concept of a civil wrong (delictum): its scope would have narrowed from an unlawful liability-creating act to a blameworthy such act, thereby rejecting, outside of the delictal class proper, instances of liability regardless of fault.

[Pp. 1–23

Confusio: Reference to Roman Law in the House of Lords
and the Development of English Private Law

James Lee

This paper examines the use of Roman law by members of the House of Lords in three recent decisions: Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services, 2002 U.K.H.L. 22; Foskett v. McKeown, [2001] 1 A.C. 102; and OBG v. Allan, 2007 U.K.H.L. 21. The contrasting views of Professor Peter Birks and Professor Sir Basil Markesinis are considered, and it is argued that within these decisions can be seen the value of reference to Roman law.

[Pp. 24–66

Review

Simon Corcoran

Codex Theodosianus: Le code Théodosien V. Edited and translated by S. Crogiez-Pétrequin, P. Jaillette, and J.-M. Poinsotte. Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2009. 523 pp. ISBN 978-2-503-51722-3.

[Pp. 67–74

Review

Daniele Mattiangeli

Latin American Law: A History of Private Law and Institutions in Spanish America. By M. C. Mirow. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2004. 359 pp. ISBN 978-0-292-72142-5 (paperback).

[Pp. 75–79

Content and design © Copyright 2024 by the editor and board of Roman Legal Tradition. All rights reserved.