Delict (tables) Flashcards
furtum - what is it
institutes define furtum as fraudulent interference with a thing, whether with the thing itself or the use or possession of it, which is forbidden by natural law - digest adds requirement of it being for gain - requires ‘handling’ (contrectatio) with the intention of stealing and a lack of consent (fraudulosa) - res had to be mobilis -
furtum - legal consequences and actions
actio furti - a person who had an interest in the non-disappearance or destruction of the thing could bring it - for furtum manifestum the penalty was 4x the thing’s value, for nec manifestum it was 2x - brought infamia
furtum - further kinds
Furtum manifestum - in G’s time caught with the stolen thing in the place it was stolen from, in J’s time caught before being able to hide it, otherwise it was furtum nec manifestum - furtum usus was unauthorised use of something - furtum lance licioque conceptum - if one searched premises for stolen goods, wearing only a loin cloth and carrying a salver, and found the goods, the occupier of the premises was a fur manifestus (obselete by 2nd century BC)
rapina - what is it
theft with violence
rapina - legal consequences and actions
actio vi bonorum raptorum - penalty was 4x the thing’s value if brought within a year, and the simple value after that (classed as an actio mixta)
lex Aquilia chap 1 - what is it
killing of a slave or grazing animal
lex Aquilia chap 1 - legal consequences and actions
wrongdoer had to pay the owner the highest value of the thing in the previous year under actio legis Aquiliae
lex Aquilia chap 3 - what is it
wounding of a slave/grazing animal or burning/breaking/destruction of property
lex Aquilia chap 3 - legal consequences and actions
wrongdoer had to pay the difference in value of the thing between the injury and 30 days after under the actio legis Aquilae
lex Aquilia chap 3 - other details
debate over whether it was 30 days before or after - Zimmerman settles on after which makes more sense
iniuria - what is it
any deliberate affront, insult or contumely to another
iniuria - legal consequences and actions available
under TT, when a bone was broken the penalty was 300 asses for a free man’s, 150 for a slave’s and 25 for any other assault - praetor introduced the actio iniuriarum (in factum) in which damages could be assessed in each particular case according to the measure indicated in the condemnatio of the formula - actio was non-transmissible (if P died before he could sue out his formula, his heir had no right of action - actio only lay if the aggrieved party had manifested his resentment as soon as the insult happened (if he concealed his anger he had no redress) - actio had to be brought within a year
iniuria - further kinds
wrong could be aggravated by atrocitas (determined by praetor and reflected in the assessment of damages) - might be atrox by reason of the act done (e facto), the standing of V (e persona) or the place where it happened - in atrox iniuria the praetor fixed an amount - though iniuria was a civil delict, there were forms of it which were made the object of criminal process by the lex Cornelia de iniuriis of Sulla (beating, flogging and forcible entry of another’s property) but plaintiffs could probably elect between civil and criminal process
iniuria - other details
had to be intentional (no negligent iniuria but there could be a mistaken one) - an insult to the filius or filia was also an insult to the paterfamilias or husband who would then have their own actions - generally couldn’t be iniuria against a slave unless the aim was really to insult the master, the latter had the actio iniuriarum in his own name; for the rest, the master had the actio in the name of the slave (servi nomine) if the slave was given a beating (verberatio) or tortured without just cause and without the master’s consent and if the wrong was atrox - if the slave had several co-owners, each had his own action and, as in the case of other pluralities of plaintiffs, the damages might vary according to the standing of the individual co-owner
metus (praetorian delict) - what is it
when someone entered into a contract under duress (threats of danger)
metus (praetorian delict) - legal consequences and actions
restitutio in integrum was available to a party who, through duress, had entered into a legal transaction, and if the transaction hadn’t been executed yet the victim could oppose the exceptio metus - restitution was available not only against the person who put pressure on the petitioner but also against any 3rd person who had received benefit from the transaction - actio quad metus causa (didn’t bring infamia) lay within a year for a penalty of fourfold the harm suffered (lucrum cessans and damnun emergens), but if not brought within a year the action was only in simplum - was also an actio arbitraria so iudex only proceeded to judgement if D didn’t return the thing - available to heirs but not against them
metus (praetorian delict) - other details
if several participated in the coercion, each was fully liable but if one made reparation all were released
dolus (praetorian delict) - what is it
when someone entered into a contract under fraud or deceit
dolus (praetorian delict) - legal consequences and actions
restitutio in integrum and the exceptio doli - also the actio doli which only lay if there was no other action available to P, making it a subsidiary action - where it lay it was actively not passively transmissible - was an action in simplum, arbitraria and availale only for a year
dolus (praetorian delict) - other details
if several participated in the fraud, each was fully liable but if one made reparation all were released - differed to metus in that it only lay against the actual fraudulent party and that condemnation entailed infamia (meant the actio doli wasn’t available to family members against their pater or freedmen against their patron)
servi corruptio (praetorian delict) - what is it
a wrong committed against a dominus by the deliberate and dolose effecting of a deterioration or depreciation of his save physically, mentally or morally eg teaching a slave to steal, debauching a slave woman, persuading the slave into a course of conduct which would and did lead to physical injury or death
servi corruptio (praetorian delict) - legal consequences and actions
actio de servo corrupto was perpetual and noxal, for the slave might have been corrupted by another slave, and was available to but not against heirs - the action was for twofold, the measure being the difference in value of the slave before and after corruption - the action wasn’t lost by the death, transfer or manumission of the slave and lay even though the slave had been base at the outset, if D’s conduct had made him worse
