Any views expressed within media held on this service are those of the contributors, should not be taken as approved or endorsed by the University, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University in respect of any particular issue.
Press "Enter" to skip to content

Tag: Roman Law

Homer, Paulus, and the Evolution of Economic Exchange

by David Fox, Professor of Common Law, University of Edinburgh

Introduction

The opening text of Book XVIII of Justinian’s Digest, on the contract of purchase, quotes an excerpt from Paulus’ Commentary on the Edict.[1]  In this text, Paulus develops a legal test for distinguishing two kinds of exchange: the contract of purchase (emptio) on the one hand and the contract of barter (permutatio) on the other.  Purchase, he says, consists in one party paying a money price (pretium) in exchange for the thing (merx) that is promised and delivered by the other party.  By contrast, a barter is a transaction where the parties promise and exchange two non-monetary things.

Paulus goes on to develop a sharp definition of money for the purposes of his rule.  The monetary price, he says, should consist in coins (nummi) struck in authorised form by the public mint.  For Paulus, the delivery of coined money on one side of the exchange marks the identifying characteristic of a contract of purchase.

Justinian authoritatively accepted Paulus’ view.[2]  His ruling put beyond dispute that purchase and barter were distinct contracts in the revived Roman law of the sixth century AD, and that each had to be enforced by its own distinct actions.  In so ruling, he settled an old disagreement between the Sabinian and Proculian schools of juristic thought.[3]

Leave a Comment

Fish, Soil and Industry: Proprietary Interests in Borwick v Clear Water Fisheries

In Borwick v Clear Water Fisheries [2020] EWCA Civ 578, Borwick had owned and run a fishery, which consisted of nine enclosed lakes created from voids left over by the excavation of the M6, since 2005. During this time, they bought and husbanded new fish stock. In January 2016, Borwick’s lender appointed receivers to execute a charge over the land. The receivers duly sold the land to Clear Water Fisheries (CWF). The fish were not mentioned in the sale agreement and the receivers informed Borwick they did not consider them to be included under the charge. Borwick then raised an action in damages against CWF for conversion of the fish.

Comments closed
css.php

Report this page

To report inappropriate content on this page, please use the form below. Upon receiving your report, we will be in touch as per the Take Down Policy of the service.

Please note that personal data collected through this form is used and stored for the purposes of processing this report and communication with you.

If you are unable to report a concern about content via this form please contact the Service Owner.

Please enter an email address you wish to be contacted on. Please describe the unacceptable content in sufficient detail to allow us to locate it, and why you consider it to be unacceptable.
By submitting this report, you accept that it is accurate and that fraudulent or nuisance complaints may result in action by the University.

  Cancel