“泛指包骨”:雅克·库哈斯评论中的风险分配

Stanisław Kordasiewicz
{"title":"“泛指包骨”:雅克·库哈斯评论中的风险分配","authors":"Stanisław Kordasiewicz","doi":"10.21697/zp.2021.21.4.12","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Jacques Cujas was a French humanist and one of the most distinguished 16th-century legal experts. This paper analyses the rules governing liability and the meaning of periculum (risk) in his commentaries to Roman law. \nMy study is focused on two examples which offer surprising interpretations of risk. The first case concerns a person who lost an object given for valuation. Here Cujas uses the term periculum in two different meanings. The first is general and covers all types of irresistible events. The second is limited to only one type of event – theft. This distinction is fundamental for the evaluation of the legal consequences arising from the loss of the object. Te inspector would have had to bear the risk of theft (periculum furti), but not other risks, especially not those related to force majeure. \nThe second case I discuss deals with the complexities of risk allocation in the contract of sale. In one of his earlier commentaries, Cujas accepted the Roman legal principle of periculum emptoris – that the risk of the loss of the object sold should be on the buyer. At the same time, in his discussion of particular cases Cujas was flexible in allocating various risks to either of the parties, thus paving the way for his future change of mind on periculum venditoris.","PeriodicalId":23850,"journal":{"name":"Zeszyty Prawnicze","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘PERICULUM VERBUM GENERALE EST’: RISK ALLOCATION IN THE COMMENTARIES OF JACQUES CUJAS\",\"authors\":\"Stanisław Kordasiewicz\",\"doi\":\"10.21697/zp.2021.21.4.12\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Jacques Cujas was a French humanist and one of the most distinguished 16th-century legal experts. This paper analyses the rules governing liability and the meaning of periculum (risk) in his commentaries to Roman law. \\nMy study is focused on two examples which offer surprising interpretations of risk. The first case concerns a person who lost an object given for valuation. Here Cujas uses the term periculum in two different meanings. The first is general and covers all types of irresistible events. The second is limited to only one type of event – theft. This distinction is fundamental for the evaluation of the legal consequences arising from the loss of the object. Te inspector would have had to bear the risk of theft (periculum furti), but not other risks, especially not those related to force majeure. \\nThe second case I discuss deals with the complexities of risk allocation in the contract of sale. In one of his earlier commentaries, Cujas accepted the Roman legal principle of periculum emptoris – that the risk of the loss of the object sold should be on the buyer. At the same time, in his discussion of particular cases Cujas was flexible in allocating various risks to either of the parties, thus paving the way for his future change of mind on periculum venditoris.\",\"PeriodicalId\":23850,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zeszyty Prawnicze\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zeszyty Prawnicze\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21697/zp.2021.21.4.12\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeszyty Prawnicze","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21697/zp.2021.21.4.12","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

雅克·库哈斯是法国人文主义者,也是16世纪最杰出的法律专家之一。本文分析了他在《罗马法注释》中规定责任的规则和风险的含义。我的研究集中在两个例子上,它们提供了对风险令人惊讶的解释。第一个案例涉及一个人丢失了一件供估价的物品。Cujas在这里用了两种不同的意思。第一种是一般性的,涵盖了所有类型的不可抗拒事件。第二种仅限于一种类型的事件——盗窃。这一区别对于评估因失物而产生的法律后果是至关重要的。检查员将不得不承担盗窃风险,但不承担其他风险,特别是与不可抗力有关的风险。我讨论的第二个案例涉及销售合同中风险分配的复杂性。在他早期的一篇评论中,库哈斯接受了罗马法律的“包皮所有权”原则,即出售物品损失的风险应由买方承担。同时,在他对具体案例的讨论中,Cujas灵活地将各种风险分配给双方中的任何一方,从而为他将来改变对venditoris的看法铺平了道路。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
‘PERICULUM VERBUM GENERALE EST’: RISK ALLOCATION IN THE COMMENTARIES OF JACQUES CUJAS
Jacques Cujas was a French humanist and one of the most distinguished 16th-century legal experts. This paper analyses the rules governing liability and the meaning of periculum (risk) in his commentaries to Roman law. My study is focused on two examples which offer surprising interpretations of risk. The first case concerns a person who lost an object given for valuation. Here Cujas uses the term periculum in two different meanings. The first is general and covers all types of irresistible events. The second is limited to only one type of event – theft. This distinction is fundamental for the evaluation of the legal consequences arising from the loss of the object. Te inspector would have had to bear the risk of theft (periculum furti), but not other risks, especially not those related to force majeure. The second case I discuss deals with the complexities of risk allocation in the contract of sale. In one of his earlier commentaries, Cujas accepted the Roman legal principle of periculum emptoris – that the risk of the loss of the object sold should be on the buyer. At the same time, in his discussion of particular cases Cujas was flexible in allocating various risks to either of the parties, thus paving the way for his future change of mind on periculum venditoris.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信