{"title":"现代法学中REM条件与版本的关系","authors":"A. Stefanović","doi":"10.5937/gakv95-37706","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, the author analyses a lawsuit for unjust enrichment through the prism of two institutes: condictio and actio de in rem verso. The origin of these two notions is linked to Roman law, although their essence has been drastically changed in modern law. It is necessary to determine them in relation to other lawsuits in order to further clarify the boundaries of these institutes through negative definitions as a preliminary step in this presentation. It is necessary to determine their mutual similarities and differences, as well as different understandings of the institutes, depending on the point of view of the legal system in terms of regulating the lawsuit for unjust enrichment, in order to adequately compare them. Comparative law and dogmatic methods were used in the paper.","PeriodicalId":52738,"journal":{"name":"Glasnik Advokatske komore Vojvodine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The relationship between condictio and version in REM in modern law\",\"authors\":\"A. Stefanović\",\"doi\":\"10.5937/gakv95-37706\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper, the author analyses a lawsuit for unjust enrichment through the prism of two institutes: condictio and actio de in rem verso. The origin of these two notions is linked to Roman law, although their essence has been drastically changed in modern law. It is necessary to determine them in relation to other lawsuits in order to further clarify the boundaries of these institutes through negative definitions as a preliminary step in this presentation. It is necessary to determine their mutual similarities and differences, as well as different understandings of the institutes, depending on the point of view of the legal system in terms of regulating the lawsuit for unjust enrichment, in order to adequately compare them. Comparative law and dogmatic methods were used in the paper.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52738,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Glasnik Advokatske komore Vojvodine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Glasnik Advokatske komore Vojvodine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5937/gakv95-37706\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Glasnik Advokatske komore Vojvodine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5937/gakv95-37706","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
The relationship between condictio and version in REM in modern law
In this paper, the author analyses a lawsuit for unjust enrichment through the prism of two institutes: condictio and actio de in rem verso. The origin of these two notions is linked to Roman law, although their essence has been drastically changed in modern law. It is necessary to determine them in relation to other lawsuits in order to further clarify the boundaries of these institutes through negative definitions as a preliminary step in this presentation. It is necessary to determine their mutual similarities and differences, as well as different understandings of the institutes, depending on the point of view of the legal system in terms of regulating the lawsuit for unjust enrichment, in order to adequately compare them. Comparative law and dogmatic methods were used in the paper.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
