Roman Law of Contracts Trivia Quiz

Answer: Nexum

'Nexum' was the predecessor to 'mutuum'. In terms of this a person would hand themselves over to the creditor as hostage and as such entitle them to the above if they failed to repay the debt. In 326 BC, however, the 'Lex Poetelia' was passed which ameliorated the punishments. This, in turn, meant that the contract became less popular.

Answer: The loan was guaranteed or co-signed by any other person who was not a son-in-power.

The 'Senatus Consultum Macedonianum' provided that such loans were natural obligations and were therefore not recoverable. Because the 'exceptio' which it provided attached to the transaction itself, the defense was available to all parties to it, including the guarantors or co-debtors.

Although dubious, legend says this law was passed as a result of a son who killed his father because his creditors pushed him into a corner.

Answer: The ship's captain

The owner of the cargo could institute action to recover the losses from the ship's captain, thereby making him immediately liable. On the bright side, the captain could institute action against the owners of all the other cargo in order to distribute the loss proportionately. This law did not apply if the cargo was eventually saved though.

Answer: Guarantee that the seller was the owner.

Indeed the seller in a contract of purchase and sale did not have to be the owner of the thing sold. As a result of the guarantee against eviction, however, if the real owner (or someone with a better title) successfully claimed the thing, the buyer could institute actions for damage. If 'mancipatio' had been used to transfer ownership the buyer would have a claim for twice the purchase price against the seller with the 'actio auctoritates'.

Answer: 'actio redhibitoria' and 'actio quanti minoris'

The 'actio redhibitoria', known in English as the redhibitory action, allowed the buyer to claim a return of performances by which he/she would return the object of the sale and he/she would receive the purchase price back. This was used where the latent defect was so material he could not use the thing for the purpose it was bought.

The 'actio quanti minoris' on the other hand was an action which allowed a reduction in the purchase price, and therefore the purchaser could recover some of the purchase price he/she paid.

Answer: False

The employee in terms of a contract of Letting and Hiring of services, or 'locatio conductio operarum', was not entitled to paid sick leave. For that matter, he/she wasn't entitled to paid leave of any form. The 'no work, no pay' principle still applied strictly.

Answer: The mandatee was in theory performing a gratuitous service.

In theory the contract of mandate was indeed gratuitous. From early days, however, it became common practice to give the mandatee a reward, or 'honorarium', when the mandate was completed. This reward was originally not a civil obligation, but rather a natural obligation.

When the praetor introduced an extraordinary procedure for recovery it still allowed the concept of gratuity to continue as this was not one of the normal methods of contractual enforcements. Only legal academians could come up with this.

Answer: societas unius rei

This roughly translates as 'partnership for one thing'. 'Societas unius negationis' was a partnership involving a single, but continuing, business. 'Societas quae ex quaestu veniunt' would be a partnership which involved the general businesses of the parties. 'Societas omnium bonorum' could be translated as a partnership of all things which involved pooling all the parties' assets.

Answer: Price must be beneficial.

The requirement that the price be genuine was to avoid simulated contracts which could negatively affect creditors. The price had to be in money in these contracts so as to distinguish it from a barter contract, which under Roman law had different legal consequences. That the price must be just was not originally a requirement, but post-classically this was introduced.

The first mention of this requirement was in rescripts of Emperor Diocletian (284-305 AD). Price must be beneficial? Beneficial is a bit of a tricky one in law...

Answer: A party to the 'stipulatio' had 10 days to consider the offer.

In its original form, a party had to respond immediately and could do nothing else until he had replied to the offer. In post-classical times this had been relaxed to allow for a day in between offer and acceptance. Because the 'stipulatio' was an oral contract that required congruence between the verbs used by both the parties, it wasn't possible for deaf or dumb people to conclude the contract. Hope you enjoyed this installment on the wonders of the Roman Law of Contract.