{"title":"SOME REMARKS ON SLAVE-SELLERS’ LIABILITY UNDER ROMAN LAW","authors":"Marko Sukačić","doi":"10.25234/pv/18275","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the matter of the liability of professional slave-sellers for non-disclosure of a material defect to the buyer under Roman law. After first examining the professional sellers’ representation and image as reported in the relevant sources, the article reviews the material defects of slaves for sale through the lens of jurists’ and other relevant authors’ discussion on morbus et vitium, and how the two relate to the sellers’ claims in regard to the slaves they are selling. Next, the article provides an overview of the buyer’s legal protection in the event of a found defect or false advertising, specifically in the form of actio redhibitoria. By analyzing legal and other relevant ancient Roman sources, this article probes the fine line between allowable sales talks and legally binding sales promises on a number of peculiar slave sale contracts under Roman law. Lastly, the article argues which party to the sale contract had the less favorable position in terms of carrying the risk of the unintentionally undisclosed material defects in the classical Roman law and explores the point at which the limits to advertising end and the seller’s liablity begins.","PeriodicalId":41100,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Vjesnik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pravni Vjesnik","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25234/pv/18275","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This article discusses the matter of the liability of professional slave-sellers for non-disclosure of a material defect to the buyer under Roman law. After first examining the professional sellers’ representation and image as reported in the relevant sources, the article reviews the material defects of slaves for sale through the lens of jurists’ and other relevant authors’ discussion on morbus et vitium, and how the two relate to the sellers’ claims in regard to the slaves they are selling. Next, the article provides an overview of the buyer’s legal protection in the event of a found defect or false advertising, specifically in the form of actio redhibitoria. By analyzing legal and other relevant ancient Roman sources, this article probes the fine line between allowable sales talks and legally binding sales promises on a number of peculiar slave sale contracts under Roman law. Lastly, the article argues which party to the sale contract had the less favorable position in terms of carrying the risk of the unintentionally undisclosed material defects in the classical Roman law and explores the point at which the limits to advertising end and the seller’s liablity begins.
本文讨论了罗马法律规定的职业奴隶贩卖者对未向买方披露重大缺陷的责任问题。在首先考察了相关资料中报道的职业卖家的代表性和形象后,文章通过法学家和其他相关作者对morbus et vitium的讨论,回顾了待售奴隶的物质缺陷,以及这两者与卖家对其出售奴隶的索赔有何关系。接下来,文章概述了在发现缺陷或虚假广告的情况下,买方的法律保护,特别是以禁止行为的形式。本文通过分析古罗马法律和其他相关资料,探讨了罗马法下一些特殊的奴隶买卖合同中允许的买卖谈判与具有法律约束力的买卖承诺之间的界限。最后,文章论证了在古典罗马法中,销售合同的哪一方在承担无意中未披露的重大缺陷的风险方面处于不太有利的地位,并探讨了广告限制的结束和卖方责任的开始。